GOP Senators to Bush: Time's Up

[maineman]

and you still haven't expalined why Bush has not sent in a whole bunch of troops to stop the slaughter in Darfur.....

or are you saying that the slaughter of innocents is unimportant to your side?

are you saying that even though Saddam had no WMD's no connections to 9/11, no alliances with Aq... that staying there rather than admitting we fucked up by going in the first place - and trying to avoid further reducing the alreadly minuscule credibility of the nearly defunct republican party is reason enough to keep grinding up American lives in Iraq and ignoring the destruction in Darfur?

 

[maineman]

Like the administration prodding the UN to get involved with Darfur? Upping the foreign aid to Africa for AIDS? You are letting your temper get the better of you. (Whatever his motivation, Bush has done these things).

I would think, in retrospect, then, that prodding the UN to remain involved in Iraq, and upping the foreign aid to the dissident groups in that country would have been a more appropriate course of action than unilateral unprompted nvasion/conquest/occupation?

 

[Annie]

and you still haven't expalined why Bush has not sent in a whole bunch of troops to stop the slaughter in Darfur.....

or are you saying that the slaughter of innocents is unimportant to your side?

are you saying that even though Saddam had no WMD's no connections to 9/11, no alliances with Aq... that staying there rather than admitting we fucked up by going in the first place - and trying to avoid further reducing the alreadly minuscule credibility of the nearly defunct republican party is reason enough to keep grinding up American lives in Iraq and ignoring the destruction in Darfur?

So you are arguing that Bush should act unilaterally in Africa? Besides the quip, bottom line US does not have the troops to do so, even if they wanted. The UN however could, but doesn't to the degree needed.

 

[red states rule]

I would think, in retrospect, then, that prodding the UN to remain involved in Iraq, and upping the foreign aid to the dissident groups in that country would have been a more appropriate course of action than unilateral unprompted nvasion/conquest/occupation?

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/heal...ds_funding_proposal_bush_looks_to_his_legacy/

 

[maineman]

So you are arguing that Bush should act unilaterally in Africa? Besides the quip, bottom line US does not have the troops to do so, even if they wanted. The UN however could, but doesn't to the degree needed.

why do you support unilateral action in Iraq but make it seem inconceivable in Darfur?

And why, pray tell, do you think we do not have the troops available to go to Darfur?

 

[Annie]

why do you support unilateral action in Iraq but make it seem inconceivable in Darfur?

And why, pray tell, do you think we do not have the troops available to go to Darfur?

Because we have 'vital national interests' in the ME, yes, oil. Darfur is a tragedy that we should be concerned with, which I believe is one of the reasons the UN was created, for international action in such circumstances.

Why do you not make the inferences that were obvious? (our troops are spread too thin for Iran, Darfur, etc.)

 

[maineman]

Because we have 'vital national interests' in the ME, yes, oil. Darfur is a tragedy that we should be concerned with, which I believe is one of the reasons the UN was created, for international action in such circumstances.

Why do you not make the inferences that were obvious? (our troops are spread too thin for Iran, Darfur, etc.)

invading Iraq was detrimental to our vital national interests. period.

invading Iraq was the reason our troops are spread too thin for anything else.

 

[Annie]

invading Iraq was detrimental to our vital national interests. period.

invading Iraq was the reason our troops are spread too thin for anything else.

I disagree with the first. Already agreed with the second.

 

[red states rule]

invading Iraq was detrimental to our vital national interests. period.

invading Iraq was the reason our troops are spread too thin for anything else.

Libs said we were losing Berlin in 1946

 

[red states rule]

GOP Senators Back Lugar's Call For Iraq Withdrawal...Warner: “I Hail What He Did”...Voinovich: US Needs “Gradual Military Disengagement"…Sessions: Troop Levels Should Be Reduced “As Soon As It Is Realistic”



Voinovich calls for gradual withdrawal from Iraq

"Following up on comments by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Republican Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) called today for President Bush to begin planning for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq.".......


http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0607/Voinovich_calls_for_gradual_withdrawal_from_Iraq.html

Lets not forget Pres Peanut

 

[maineman]

Lets not forget Pres Peanut

of course.... let's talk about a man who hasn't been in office for 27 years and avoid talking about republican senators currently in office. that makes sense.

...for a loyal Bushbot who would do anything and say anything to defend his president's Iraq policy

 

[red states rule]

of course.... let's talk about a man who hasn't been in office for 27 years and avoid talking about republican senators currently in office. that makes sense.

...for a loyal Bushbot who would do anything and say anything to defend his president's Iraq policy

Pres Peanut is much like the Dems in power

He is an appeaser, he coddles terrorists, and blames Amercia for the worlds problems

 

[T-Bor]

It was about the same??? LOL..Really?? HAHAHHAHA...Let's go ask some Iraqis what is better Pre-911 or post 911.. I can't even fathom how you could say that. People are dying left and right every day. I don't think it was quite that bad under Saddam. At least the SOB kept order..Now it's chaos and they have no govt. Before they had something at least. Now they have shit.

Iraq was not better off, it was about the same, crappy.

besides, lets not live in the past, lets live in now thank you

oh and rsr, please answer a question, when its posted to you.

 

[red states rule]

It was about the same??? LOL..Really?? HAHAHHAHA...Let's go ask some Iraqis what is better Pre-911 or post 911.. I can't even fathom how you could say that. People are dying left and right every day. I don't think it was quite that bad under Saddam. At least the SOB kept order..Now it's chaos and they have no govt. Before they had something at least. Now they have shit.

Terrorist appeaser

 

[maineman]

Pres Peanut is much like the Dems in power

He is an appeaser, he coddles terrorists, and blames Amercia for the worlds problems

still running away from the statements of GOP senators, I see....

 

[red states rule]

still running away from the statements of GOP senators, I see....

Pointing out the current battle plans of the left - run like hell from the terrorists

 

[maineman]

Pointing out the current battle pplans of the left - run like hell from the terrorists

ho hum...

I suggest that we start fighting the terrorists and quit fighting Iraqis.

who ARE these terrorists that you claim we want to run away from?

Iraqi insurgents?

shiite insurgensts?

who?

or are you talking about that renowned "handful of deadenders in their final throes" again?

 

[red states rule]

ho hum...

I suggest that we start fighting the terrorists and quit fighting Iraqis.

who ARE these terrorists that you claim we want to run away from?

Iraqi insurgents?

shiite insurgensts?

who?

or are you talking about that renowned "handful of deadenders in their final throes" again?

Try the AQ terrorists, and other thugs, who are being backed by Iran?

 

[maineman]

Try the AQ terrorists, and other thugs, who are being backed by Iran?

here we go again.

so..the shiite mahdi army are not terrorists?

the sunni insurgents that, up until a month ago were killing us, but now we provide armament to, are not terrorists?

only AQ...

and you think that AQ is being bankrolled by Iran....who is also bankrolling Sadr?

and somehow, the handful of AQ (sunni) terrorists bankrolled by shiite Iran is going to prevail in Iraq against not only sunni insurgents but the overwhelmingly shiite population of Iraq and its mahdi army - not to mention the fairly well trained (if not all that courageous) Iraqi army...and they will rule ALL those shiites AND sunnis hand in hand with Iran (against the will of the indigenous shiites AND sunnis) for a few table scraps of political power or they, AQ, will then be slaughtered by Iran?

Have I got that right?

 

[maineman]

oh, RSR.... I would love for you to correct me, if I am wrong, about your weird convoluted theories about this.