House, Senate both pass surrender legislation

[maineman]

Seems like you are talking about youself

Libs are waving the white flag and the terrorists are more confident now then ever before

will you ever explain how turning over military operations, installations and encampments to the legitimate government of Iraq can be construed as "surrendering to the enemy"? yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

will you ever explain how turning over military operations, installations and encampments to the legitimate government of Iraq can be construed as "surrendering to the enemy"? yes or no?

When Iraq is ready to do the job on their own is one thing

Right now, the Dems do not want to allow them to do that

Then the US would win - and the Dems will lose

 

[maineman]

When Iraq is ready to do the job on their own is one thing

Right now, the Dems do not want to allow them to do that

Then the US would win - and the Dems will lose

you didn't answer my question. How is turning over military operations to the Iraqis SURRENDERING?

I have posted the definition of the word...it speaks to relinquishing to an enemy. We are relinquishing nothing to any enemy. Therefore, your continued obsessive use of the word surrender is incorrect. imagine that.

 

[red states rule]

you didn't answer my question. How is turning over military operations to the Iraqis SURRENDERING?

I have posted the definition of the word...it speaks to relinquishing to an enemy. We are relinquishing nothing to any enemy. Therefore, your continued obsessive use of the word surrender is incorrect. imagine that.

Try reading the answer again

However, you will still spin

 

[maineman]

Iraqi troops have had more training than our recruits who are dying in their country. Iraq is able to provide its own security...if the only thing it lacks is the courage or the will to do so, that ought not to be our problem.

we shocked them..we awed them...we invaded, conquered and occupied them....we kicked out their dictator, we found him in his hidey hole, we helped them form a court and try him for war crimes and we helped them lynch him....we helped them write a constitution, we held their hands through three elections.... and we have spent four years training their military. And through it all, Iraqi citizens have been killing US. We have done more than enough for that country and paid way too dear a price. Time to let them solve their own problems and time for us to get on with starting to fight the real war against islamic extremism.

 

[red states rule]

Dems are more interested in winning their war on Bush then the war on terror

 

[maineman]

Dems are more interested in winning their war on Bush then the war on terror

that is inaccurate and just another one of your oneliner talking points....

democrats disagree with the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror.

I believe that his war in Iraq has only served to make us more enemies...make us LESS safe, and make us poorer and fewer.

 

[red states rule]

that is inaccurate and just another one of your oneliner talking points....

democrats disagree with the Bush administration's approach to the war on terror.

I believe that his war in Iraq has only served to make us more enemies...make us LESS safe, and make us poorer and fewer.

Yea, MM - we should do anything to piss of the terrorists - that might make them hate us even more

Dems want to appease them that is the problem

 

[actsnoblemartin]

This is pathetic. The person who wrote this, should be ashamed of himself.


maineman, I knew you frequently walked around with your head up your ass. But until now, I didn't realize how FAR.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Its an interesting argument.

are we making more enemies?.

I am not so sure that is an easy question to answer. Because, our friends the saudi's pay for hate filled radical madrasses, some of which are in the united states, and all over the world, that teach hate, now, going into iraq, where al queda clearly was not, did not help matters with our enemies.

So my conclusion is. Yes and no.


We made more enemies in the short term, but long term wise, the terrorists could exploit any cause, or just make one up, if they had too, to justify and recruit haters.

agree, disagree?.

Please be nice.

 

[red states rule]

to libs the way to fight the war on terror is to offer the terrorists foreign aid, anger management classes, and changing US foreign policy the way they want it

 

[actsnoblemartin]

we seem to be in a catch 22. This is just my opinion. But we seem to be in a position, where iraq is happening again, except, its much older, stronger brother, may be able to get steroids (nukes) and that would be a big problem with us, and we really cant afford to be wrong this time.

Im not sure, we can really afford to go in there, at all, we might have to leave iraq, if we want to go to iran, and figuring how well were doing in iran, how the hell do we defeat iran?.

Just a thought.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

to libs the way to fight the war on terror is to offer the terrorists foreign aid, anger management classes, and changing US foreign policy the way they want it


Foreign aid is not a bad thing, if we can get a country to stop doing something. But, the problem is , for how long will they stop?. I dont suggest, we change our policies, cause kinda seems like black mail.

do this, or we'll do this.

I see the point, of talking , just to try, so we could say, well, we talk to the iranian hitler, but he wouldnt listen, then we bomb the sh** out of his nuclear sites.

Im not against military action in iran, but with our army stretched thinner then a hollywood starlet, how do we do that?. Unless we bomb their sites, that could work ?, bunker busters!!!

 

[red states rule]

a few Daisy Cutters will put a stop to little Adolf in Iran from getting nukes

 

[Diuretic]

but with our army stretched thinner then a hollywood starlet

Brilliant! I love it!

 

[actsnoblemartin]

why are we comparing iraq to british mandate of 48. Whats the connection exactly?. The sunni's and shia's will fight it out ?

sorry, im lost.

 

[maineman]

Yea, MM - we should do anything to piss of the terrorists - that might make them hate us even more

Dems want to appease them that is the problem

you need to understand that not all Iraqis who are killing us are "terrorists" per se. Most of them are Iraqis angry at us for occupying their country. YOu need to understand that the terrorists who attacked us are not in Iraq...only a small contingent of them have been sent to Iraq to stir up trouble and to recruit converts from amongst the dissolutioned and angry Iraqis who are sick of us being there. Even your own vice president has called the terrorist presence in Iraq a "handful of deadenders" How are a handful of sunni deadenders going to take over the government of Iraq from the overwhelming shiite majority? We need to get on with fighting the folks who attacked us and leave Iraqis alone to solve their own problems. Trying to make the war in Iraq a part of the war on terror has been a counterproductive disaster.

 

[Diuretic]

why are we comparing iraq to british mandate of 48. Whats the connection exactly?. The sunni's and shia's will fight it out ?

sorry, im lost.

Palestine was under a British Mandate, trying to keep a lid on the ruckus between the Zionist outfits Irgun and Lehi and the Palestinians. The territory had been earmarked before WWII for the return of the Diasporic Jews. Much of the push for that came from the British Left, ironic in that the Left now pushes the cause of the displaced Palestinians. In 1948 the State of Israel was declared. It's very, very complex but it's worth reading about because so many of us think the current blue between Arabs and Israelis goes back to 1967 but it goes back way before then.

 

[maineman]

and my point was, Britain left and turned over its encampments to the legitimate governments of Israel and Palestine. Their departure was certainly not a "surrender" - nor will ours be. Their departure was a signal for the battle to begin in earnest, which it did... and I fully expect that, whenever we finally figure out that we should leave Iraq, the battle between sunnis and shiites will begin in earnest and will continue until the antagonists - with the help of their neighbors and the rest of the world community - can figure out how to partition Iraq in such a way as to bring some level of peaceful coexistence.

 

[red states rule]

you need to understand that not all Iraqis who are killing us are "terrorists" per se. Most of them are Iraqis angry at us for occupying their country. YOu need to understand that the terrorists who attacked us are not in Iraq...only a small contingent of them have been sent to Iraq to stir up trouble and to recruit converts from amongst the dissolutioned and angry Iraqis who are sick of us being there. Even your own vice president has called the terrorist presence in Iraq a "handful of deadenders" How are a handful of sunni deadenders going to take over the government of Iraq from the overwhelming shiite majority? We need to get on with fighting the folks who attacked us and leave Iraqis alone to solve their own problems. Trying to make the war in Iraq a part of the war on terror has been a counterproductive disaster.

It seems the voters do not care for the Dems and their surrender plan MM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...YyNDA2ZThlMTg=