Liberals believe

[red states rule]

You mean the 'Freedom Dates' set up by the Dems?

I think those give hope to the Iraqi people. Too bad Bush said Fuck you Iraq.

He just spelled it Veto.

The surrender bill is typical of the Dems - forget the war in Iraq, lets step up our war on Bush

and think about how many more seats we can pick up in 08

Screw the troops - Dems do not care about them anyway

 

[maineman]

The surrender bill is typical of the Dems - forget the war in Iraq, lets step up our war on Bush

and think about how many more seats we can pick up in 08

Screw the troops - Dems do not care about them anyway

hiow exactly is removing our troops from the middle of an Iraqi civil war that has nothing to do with 9/11 or the greater war on islamic extremism "screwing them"?

 

[red states rule]

hiow exactly is removing our troops from the middle of an Iraqi civil war that has nothing to do with 9/11 or the greater war on islamic extremism "screwing them"?

According tot he people of Iraq - there is no civil war

and they live there

Dems are constantly smearing and screwing the troops - nothing new for them

 

[Bern80]

hiow exactly is removing our troops from the middle of an Iraqi civil war that has nothing to do with 9/11 or the greater war on islamic extremism "screwing them"?

How is it not? And what would 9/11 have to do with it anyway?

As you have so wisely pointed out. there is a sectarian war going on there. If we leave it will get worse. One group will overpower another w/o U.S. troops there to protect the other which is what they're trying to do now to the best of their ability. So yes, if U.S. forces leave one of those groups are gonna get screwed. it will be whichever group is weakest

 

[red states rule]

How is it not? And what would 9/11 have to do with it anyway?

As you have so wisely pointed out. there is a sectarian war going on there. If we leave it will get worse. One group will overpower another w/o U.S. troops there to protect the other which is what they're trying to do now to the best of their ability. So yes, if U.S. forces leave one of those groups are gonna get screwed. it will be whichever group is weakest

That is what libs want. If a few million people are slaughterd they wil blame Pres Bush and use the slaughter in ads

So what if people die? To libs the ends justify the means

 

[Bern80]

In foreign policy terms - would it matter?

Yes it would. It's hard to say what the U.S. would do next if all the troops were pullled out. Ideally in my mind they woudl be redeployed to more effectively combat terrorism and al Queda.

Unfortunately we also have a strategic resource in that country and the surrounding area. The level of unrest has an impact on the reliability of maintaining the flow of said resource. If the U.S. leave will the violence spread accross the region to include not just Iraq? Who knows.

In terms of priorities I don't believe it was the best course of action to turn our attentions from the overall war on terror to Iraq, but I also believe Iraq would have become an issue that really would need to deal with sometime within my lifetime thus where we are now and where we probably would be later aren't too different.

Either Bush simply didn't see what would happen if we invaded or he did. Who knows, maybe he does understand that this would be an incredibly long process costing many, many lives and feels the end result (a stable, democratic middle east) is worth it. Maybe as a people we don't have any respect or perspective of how long culture change takes. We are an instant gratification society after all. Since this hasn't worked out yet or at least we haven't seen the end result yet in 5 measly years must mean it's a failure right? Nevermind that we are still 3 yrs short of the amount if time it to Germany to get back on its feet when WWII was over.

 

[maineman]

How is it not? And what would 9/11 have to do with it anyway?

As you have so wisely pointed out. there is a sectarian war going on there. If we leave it will get worse. One group will overpower another w/o U.S. troops there to protect the other which is what they're trying to do now to the best of their ability. So yes, if U.S. forces leave one of those groups are gonna get screwed. it will be whichever group is weakest

and how would that "screw our troops"?

 

[red states rule]

It took 13 years for the US to write and ratify the US Constitution

 

[maineman]

so what....you have yet to explain how pulling our troops out of the middle of a civil war is screwing OUR troops.

You gonna do that soon?

 

[red states rule]

so what....you have yet to explain how pulling our troops out of the middle of a civil war is screwing OUR troops.

You gonna do that soon?

According to the people of Iraq there is no civil war

Only to the liberal media and defeatest libs is there a civil war going on

 

[Bern80]

so what....you have yet to explain how pulling our troops out of the middle of a civil war is screwing OUR troops.

You gonna do that soon?

Sorry, wasn't aware I had a time limit. I can't sling crap back and forth as fast as you and RSR can.

But we could start with the fact that many (troops) will feel that they were pulled out before they were able to complete their mission. If you think U.S. troops are going to hail the Dems as their saviors for getting them out, you have another thing coming.

 

[red states rule]

Sorry, wasn't aware I had a time limit. I can't sling crap back and forth as fast as you and RSR can.

But we could start with the fact that many (troops) will feel that they were pulled out before they were able to complete their mission. If you think U.S. troops are going to hail the Dems as their saviors for getting them out, you have another thing coming.

The troops know how the Dems feel about them

That is why 75% of the military vote went to Pres Bush in 04

 

[Bern80]

you don't know HOW to debate, RSR.... that is the sad truth. You have an intellectual deficit. You aren't that smart and you aren't that educated.... you are incapable of writing your own thoughts - and I am coming to understand that that is because you con't HAVE any thoughts of your own.

Now it is you doing the same thing over and over. I have read this exact post from you, I don't know. A dozen times now. Quit making people conform to your strict rules of debate. You won't get an honest debate if everyone is required to do it your way. A debate is an exchange of ideas, think what you want about RSR and the way he debates, but what you are specifically accomplishing in not reading is 'op-ed' pieces (which is just a cop out btw) is refusing to allow for ideas.

You don't want to do that well than have a debate with me and ignore RSR. You keep saying RSR can't debate yet you wast pages of message board space all the time like a frickin moth to a flame.

 

[maineman]

Now it is you doing the same thing over and over. I have read this exact post from you, I don't know. A dozen times now. Quit making people conform to your strict rules of debate. You won't get an honest debate if everyone is required to do it your way. A debate is an exchange of ideas, think what you want about RSR and the way he debates, but what you are specifically accomplishing in not reading is 'op-ed' pieces (which is just a cop out btw) is refusing to allow for ideas.

You don't want to do that well than have a debate with me and ignore RSR. You keep saying RSR can't debate yet you wast pages of message board space all the time like a frickin moth to a flame.

I read many of RSR's offerings. I have yet to see him answer a question in his own words. have you?

 

[maineman]

Sorry, wasn't aware I had a time limit. I can't sling crap back and forth as fast as you and RSR can.

But we could start with the fact that many (troops) will feel that they were pulled out before they were able to complete their mission. If you think U.S. troops are going to hail the Dems as their saviors for getting them out, you have another thing coming.

so you think that pulling troops out of the midst of a civil war when our government feels their mission is complete would screw them over because they want to stay longer? Do you think that we should always prolong conflicts based upon the desires of the troops to remain in combat?

And trust me.... my motivations for wanting the troops out of Iraq have abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with wanting them to hail my party as their saviors.... and everything to do with my views on the best way to protect america and fight the war against islamic extremists.

 

[Bern80]

I read many of RSR's offerings. I have yet to see him answer a question in his own words. have you?

Well I haven't seen an Op-ed piece in the last few pages anyway. He responds in his own words, you simply don't like the response. Yet you keep banging your head against a wall. Do us all here a favor. If you don't like the way he responds, ignore him and stop wasting space with your crap

 

[maineman]

Well I haven't seen an Op-ed piece in the last few pages anyway. He responds in his own words, you simply don't like the response. Yet you keep banging your head against a wall. Do us all here a favor. If you don't like the way he responds, ignore him and stop wasting space with your crap

who appointed you hall monitor?

 

[maineman]

I read many of RSR's offerings. I have yet to see him answer a question in his own words. have you?

and you seemed to avoid answering this question....why is that, mr. hall monitor?

 

[Bern80]

so you think that pulling troops out of the midst of a civil war when our government feels their mission is complete would screw them over because they want to stay longer?

I beleive most troops want to stay until the region is stabalized. That is their basic mission as I understand it.

Do you think that we should always prolong conflicts based upon the desires of the troops to remain in combat?

Why do you insist on forcing generalizations? Just to make things easier for you? Yes mainemain I think we she use the exact same solution for every scenario. (sarcasm)

And trust me.... my motivations for wanting the troops out of Iraq have abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with wanting them to hail my party as their saviors....

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about your party. If that is the motivation of your party, which I beleive it is, than it is every bit as selfish than what you beliebe Republicans are after.

 

[maineman]

I beleive most troops want to stay until the region is stabalized. That is their basic mission as I understand it.



Why do you insist on forcing generalizations? Just to make things easier for you? Yes mainemain I think we she use the exact same solution for every scenario. (sarcasm)



I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about your party. If that is the motivation of your party, which I beleive it is, than it is every bit as selfish than what you beliebe Republicans are after.

I don't care what the troops want to do. We do not develop foreign policy based upon what the members of our armed forces want.

My question was one you need to answer. Do you think that because troops want to continue fighting wars that we, as a country, should continue fighting them based upon troop desires?

and I am certain that my party has our national security in mind as they attempt to provide oversight to the administration. My party could care less if the troops themselves think we are their saviors..... we certainly wouldn't mind if America came to understand that we are trying to be theirs.