Iranian Forces Crossed Iraqi Border

[red states rule]

so...even though you were most likely not alive then, your neocon talking heads have convinced you that expanding the war in Vietnam to include Laos, Cambodia and Thailand was the correct use of a US military filled with draftees? have I got that right?

The US NEVER lost a fight in Viet Nam - it was the liberal media that lost the war for the US

 

[maineman]

The US NEVER lost a fight in Viet Nam - it was the liberal media that lost the war for the US

that wasn't my question. Do you ever actually answer a question posed to you or are you just programmed to spit out the closest related talking point?

Let's do a test. Here is the question again. try answering it:

so...even though you were most likely not alive then, your neocon talking heads have convinced you that expanding the war in Vietnam to include Laos, Cambodia and Thailand was the correct use of a US military filled with draftees? have I got that right?

 

[onedomino]

First of all, the Iraq invasion and occupation was not necessary. Secondly, Bush clearly blundered. He probably did not plan ahead for the civil war and insurgency. When the war started he did not supply nearly enough men and weapons. It is a mess but we did enough. Bush’s old nemesis, Saddam, is dead. Iraq has a new government. (These two events took more death than was necessary.) Now it is time for us to pick up our stuff and reposition our troops elsewhere. To do so would not be to surrender to anything. It would be to end our participation in a mess that we never should have gotten involved in to begin with. We would simply leave the Iraqi’s to settle their own problems while we redirect our resources to intelligence and border security.

What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Namely, that Iranian troops crossed into Iraq. You say "pick up our stuff?" You mean abandon Iraq to Iran? Do you not believe that if this report is true we should repel the Iranians?

 

[red states rule]

What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Namely, that Iranian troops crossed into Iraq. You say "pick up our stuff?" You mean abandon Iraq to Iran? Do you not believe that if this report is true we should repel the Iranians?

That is the goal for the anti war crowd - surrender and run away

Iraq is like Viet Nam. The liberal media and Dems opush for surrender. The US leave, and thousands will be killed by the terrorists

and the door is left open for Iran to walk through

 

[maineman]

that wasn't my question. Do you ever actually answer a question posed to you or are you just programmed to spit out the closest related talking point?

Let's do a test. Here is the question again. try answering it:

so...even though you were most likely not alive then, your neocon talking heads have convinced you that expanding the war in Vietnam to include Laos, Cambodia and Thailand was the correct use of a US military filled with draftees? have I got that right?

avoiding this?

 

[red states rule]

avoiding this?

Not at all. I am tiredof your twisted and slanted questions - and your avoiding historical facts

 

[maineman]

Not at all. I am tiredof your twisted and slanted questions - and your avoiding historical facts

it is a simple question. If the question were twisted, if you are such a profoundly talented debater, one would think you could easily twist your answer to counter it.

You run away from all the hard ones..... just continue spewing your handful of anti-dem, anti-lib talking points over and over again.

you are a talentless coward who can never carry his own weight in a debate. you never even really engage in the activity known as debating...you merely spam and insult.

 

[maineman]

and do you have some historical FACTS that tie Pol Pot's genocidal actions in Cambodia to the departure of America from Vietnam?

 

[red states rule]

it is a simple question. If the question were twisted, if you are such a profoundly talented debater, one would think you could easily twist your answer to counter it.

You run away from all the hard ones..... just continue spewing your handful of anti-dem, anti-lib talking points over and over again.

you are a talentless coward who can never carry his own weight in a debate. you never even really engage in the activity known as debating...you merely spam and insult.

Yawn..............

 

[onedomino]

and do you have some historical FACTS that tie Pol Pot's genocidal actions in Cambodia to the departure of America from Vietnam?

Prove a negative? As in America stays in VN and Pol Pot does not kill 2 million people? No one can "prove" that. But no one can dispute that it would have been highly unlikely that Pol Pot would have committed genocide in Cambodia if there had still been 550,000 US troops next door in VN. In fact, it is not likely that Pol Pot would have even come to power in 1975. One fact is beyond dispute: Pol Pot did not begin his genocide until after America's final defeat in VM in 1975.

 

[maineman]

I lost track...is that non-responsive evasive canned response #12 or #13?

 

[red states rule]

Prove a negative? As in America stays in VN and Pol Pot does not kill 2 million people? No one can "prove" that. But no one can dispute that it would have been highly unlikely that Pol Pot would have committed genocide in Cambodia if there had still been 550,000 US troops next door in VN. In fact, it is not likely that Pol Pot would have even come to power in 1975. One fact is beyond dispute: Pol Pot did not begin his genocide until after America's final defeat in VM in 1975.

Using that logic, Dems of today would be ranting how we should not kill Nazis. It will make them angry and make Nazism spread

 

[maineman]

Prove a negative? As in America stays in VN and Pol Pot does not kill 2 million people? No one can "prove" that. But no one can dispute that it would have been highly unlikely that Pol Pot would have committed genocide in Cambodia if there had still been 550,000 US troops next door in VN. In fact, it is not likely that Pol Pot would have even come to power in 1975. One fact is beyond dispute: Pol Pot did not begin his genocide until after America's final defeat in VM in 1975.

I can certainly dispute that Pol Pot would have not done what he was hellbent on doing in a country NEAR where we were fighting simply because of our presence next door.

The US mission in Vietnam was specifically to assist the government of South Vietnam and had zero to do with Cambodia.

 

[red states rule]

I can certainly dispute that Pol Pot would have not done what he was hellbent on doing in a country NEAR where we were fighting simply because of our presence next door.

The US mission in Vietnam was specifically to assist the government of South Vietnam and had zero to do with Cambodia.

Is that the "logic" you will use if the Dems win the surrender fight and the terrorists slaughter hundreds of thousands in Iraq?

 

[maineman]

what group in Iraq qualifies for your label of "terrorist"?

 

[red states rule]

what group in Iraq qualifies for your label of "terrorist"?

you are like a broken record

you have asked that question dozens of times - and it has been answered dozens of times

 

[onedomino]

I can certainly dispute that Pol Pot would have not done what he was hellbent on doing in a country NEAR where we were fighting simply because of our presence next door.

The US mission in Vietnam was specifically to assist the government of South Vietnam and had zero to do with Cambodia.

So you are saying that Pol Pot would calculate that it was safe to commit genocide with 550,000 US troops in close proximity? And you further believe that genocide could occur that close to so many US troops and we would do nothing about it? You believe that 550,000 US troops would stand by and let genocide occur 50 or 75 miles from their positions? I do not think so.

 

[Annie]

what group in Iraq qualifies for your label of "terrorist"?

for me, not 'groups' but individuals, from both sects. Then there are the outsiders, be they from SA, Iran, Syria, Jordan, etc.

 

[maineman]

you are like a broken record

you have asked that question dozens of times - and it has been answered dozens of times

no...you never answer it. is it AQ? is it the sunni insurgent tribesmen who are being armed by the US to fight AQ but who also fight the shiites? Is it Sadr's Mahdi army of shiites who fight the US and the sunnis? who? who are these apparently homogenous terrorists that you claim we will "surrender" Iraq to?

 

[maineman]

So you are saying that Pol Pot would calculate that it was safe to commit genocide with 550,000 US troops in close proximity? And you further believe that genocide could occur that close to so many US troops and we would do nothing about it? You believe that 550,000 US troops would stand by and let genocide occur 50 or 75 miles from their positions? I do not think so.

that is your opinion. good for you. I don't share it.