Libs really astound me sometimes

[Avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

Looks like President Bush has decided we can cut the troops levels down after the successful Iraqi elections. This of course was the plan the entire time. Which is why Murtha and them tried to start demanding that we were failing and that we should cut and run. That way when we started cutting troop levels after the election they could claim we are losing.

You know its amazing. We go into Iraq. Liberate them from Saddam. Help train their troops. Help them reach the point where they have established their own constitution and have elected a new government. Which of course have been our goal from the beginning.

Despite all that, we lost in Iraq, it was a horrible debacle and we are running now? How on earth can Libs look at this incredible victory and pretend as though we lost?!

 

[Annie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

Looks like President Bush has decided we can cut the troops levels down after the successful Iraqi elections. This of course was the plan the entire time. Which is why Murtha and them tried to start demanding that we were failing and that we should cut and run. That way when we started cutting troop levels after the election they could claim we are losing.

You know its amazing. We go into Iraq. Liberate them from Saddam. Help train their troops. Help them reach the point where they have established their own constitution and have elected a new government. Which of course have been our goal from the beginning.

Despite all that, we lost in Iraq, it was a horrible debacle and we are running now? How on earth can Libs look at this incredible victory and pretend as though we lost?!

Yup, so this isn't one of the times they astound us. For sure that was the plan and we saw it when it started.

 

[Gunny]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

Looks like President Bush has decided we can cut the troops levels down after the successful Iraqi elections. This of course was the plan the entire time. Which is why Murtha and them tried to start demanding that we were failing and that we should cut and run. That way when we started cutting troop levels after the election they could claim we are losing.

You know its amazing. We go into Iraq. Liberate them from Saddam. Help train their troops. Help them reach the point where they have established their own constitution and have elected a new government. Which of course have been our goal from the beginning.

Despite all that, we lost in Iraq, it was a horrible debacle and we are running now? How on earth can Libs look at this incredible victory and pretend as though we lost?!

The arrogance of the left blinds them to how obvious and kindergarten they actually are.

 

[Psychoblues]

The election in Iraq of a government that intends to annilate it's opposition through whatever means necessary is not regime change. It's a power grab. I'll let you think about that for a bit.

The fact that religious freedom in Iraq is now relegated to Shiite Muslimism in the grand fashion of Iran doesn't register or make sense at all to you, does it? The fact that almost no women are now allowed to practise their medical, legal, educational and political crafts and skills in Iraq that were permitted before the invasion does not faze you, does it? The fact that most Iraqi's still survive without water, electricity or even benefit from the only natural resourse that their country produces while the entire oil industry of Iraq is up and running at capacity just doesn't ring any bells with you, does it?

I guess you have your agenda. How do you sleep?


Psychoblues

 

[MtnBiker]

The fact that most Iraqi's still survive without water

That is an incredible statement. Does it ring a bell with you that absolutley no one could substantiate such a statement?

 

[Psychoblues]

That is an incredible statement. Does it ring a bell with you that absolutley no one could substantiate such a statement?

Does it resonate with you that absolutely no one other than FauxNews reports as you intimate?

Psychoblues

 

[MtnBiker]

You made a statement that a group of people survive without water. That is absurd! And so is the person who made it!

 

[Psychoblues]

You made a statement that a group of people survive without water. That is absurd! And so is the person who made it!

I never made such a statement, MtnBiker. You extrapolate as you please, but leave me out of your lies. You might think me absurd? I'll be polite and not tell you what I think of you.

Psychoblues

 

[SpidermanTuba]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051223/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

Looks like President Bush has decided we can cut the troops levels down after the successful Iraqi elections. This of course was the plan the entire time.

Sure it was. Got anything to support that claim?

 

[MtnBiker]

I never made such a statement, MtnBiker. You extrapolate as you please, but leave me out of your lies. You might think me absurd? I'll be polite and not tell you what I think of you.

Psychoblues

Hey Psycho this is from the 4th post in this thread, so yes you most certianly made that statement;

The election in Iraq of a government that intends to annilate it's opposition through whatever means necessary is not regime change. It's a power grab. I'll let you think about that for a bit.

The fact that religious freedom in Iraq is now relegated to Shiite Muslimism in the grand fashion of Iran doesn't register or make sense at all to you, does it? The fact that almost no women are now allowed to practise their medical, legal, educational and political crafts and skills in Iraq that were permitted before the invasion does not faze you, does it? The fact that most Iraqi's still survive without water, electricity or even benefit from the only natural resourse that their country produces while the entire oil industry of Iraq is up and running at capacity just doesn't ring any bells with you, does it?

I guess you have your agenda. How do you sleep?


Psychoblues

Now why are you calling me a liar?

And the statement is still absurd!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The election in Iraq of a government that intends to annilate it's opposition through whatever means necessary is not regime change. It's a power grab. I'll let you think about that for a bit.

"..that INTENDS to.." an arguement based on a PREDICTION is useless and empty. YOU LOSE.

The fact that religious freedom in Iraq is now relegated to Shiite Muslimism in the grand fashion of Iran doesn't register or make sense at all to you, does it? The fact that almost no women are now allowed to practise their medical, legal, educational and political crafts and skills in Iraq that were permitted before the invasion does not faze you, does it? The fact that most Iraqi's still survive without water, electricity or even benefit from the only natural resourse that their country produces while the entire oil industry of Iraq is up and running at capacity just doesn't ring any bells with you, does it?

I guess you have your agenda. How do you sleep?Psychoblues

Provide PROOF womens rights are LESS than before the ouster of saddam.

Regarding water, electric, etc. thats what happens when you rebuild a nation. After the revolutionary war, the capacities of the colonies had been diminished, same with the civil war, the same with my PERSONAL house, so, should we not have had a revolution in 1776?
No civil war and free the slaves?
Should I not have remodeled my house?

If your arguement has any validity, thats what you propose, no revolution, no freedom for blacks, and I would still be living in a house half the current size.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sure it was. Got anything to support that claim?

"
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005; Page A01

President Bush laid out his administration's vision yesterday for winning the war in Iraq, acknowledging that the U.S. military has suffered "setbacks" but asserting that it is making unmistakable progress in training Iraqi security forces -- a mission he vowed will not be cut short by political pressures on the homefront.

"As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists," Bush told an audience of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. "These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington."

The president's speech coincided with the release of a 35-page document outlining his administration's strategy for winning the war. Administration officials said the report was compiled from declassified portions of long-standing war plans. The "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" says that the administration is working toward winning the war on three fronts: by training Iraqi security forces, by helping the nation establish a democracy, and by targeting economic development and rebuilding efforts in areas of the country cleared of insurgents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113000164.html

OUCH!

Now, how about you guys providing some links to support your assertations for once (ago ahead TUBBY, do some of psycho's work, I just did some of avatar's)

The psychic kid provided some definitive statements and no proof, no links. PROVIDE SOME, in stead of long winded opinions for once.

 

[Gunny]

Sure it was. Got anything to support that claim?

Typical, twisted BS. I don't believe one US citizen on the right or left ever believed we would leave our troops in Iraq forever.

Obviously by your post that isn't going to stop you from trying to say so, is it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005; Page A01

President Bush laid out his administration's vision yesterday for winning the war in Iraq, acknowledging that the U.S. military has suffered "setbacks" but asserting that it is making unmistakable progress in training Iraqi security forces -- a mission he vowed will not be cut short by political pressures on the homefront.

"As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists," Bush told an audience of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. "These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington."

The president's speech coincided with the release of a 35-page document outlining his administration's strategy for winning the war. Administration officials said the report was compiled from declassified portions of long-standing war plans. The "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" says that the administration is working toward winning the war on three fronts: by training Iraqi security forces, by helping the nation establish a democracy, and by targeting economic development and rebuilding efforts in areas of the country cleared of insurgents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113000164.html

OUCH!

Now, how about you guys providing some links to support your assertations for once (ago ahead TUBBY, do some of psycho's work, I just did some of avatar's)

The psychic kid provided some definitive statements and no proof, no links. PROVIDE SOME, in stead of long winded opinions for once.

Did Bush expect the elections held this month might not happen?

What you're saying is, Bush was calling for troops withdrawals to begin after the election, so were the Democrats, and in fact the only person who called for an immediate withdrawal was a Republican in the House, and somehow the Democrats are wrong?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Typical, twisted BS. I don't believe one US citizen on the right or left ever believed we would leave our troops in Iraq forever.

Wouldn't withdrawing them send the wrong message to the enemy?

 

[Mariner]

the elections were successful.

The apparent winners are Islamist Shi'ites tied to Iran. Secular parties such as Bush's favored Allawi, did not do well. 97+% of Kurds voted for Kurdish national parties rather than parties that wanted to be part of a larger Iraq. Sunnis are marching in the streets declaring fraud.

Looks like the possible beginning of a civil war to me. I hereby predict that the Kurds will not stick with a unified Iraq, and will fight to hold Kirkuk, which sits atop basically the world's richest oil field. It's the Kurds' ticket to the autonomous state they have long felt they deserved.

And if they get that state, how will they feel about us? Reagan and Bush 1 encouraged their rebellions against Saddam, only to abandon them when he clamped down. We're not the Kurds' favorite peoples.

Let's remember a little history. Who was president when Saddam Hussein committed 90% of his crimes? Ronald Reagan. And did Reagan react when Hussein killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds in the late 1980's? Nope. Why? Because Saddam was his ally in the Iran-Iraq war, so what's a few Kurds. Why did Reagan take this view? Because Shi'ite Islam was viewed as a threat to the U.S. That's what emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, and what emboldened him to bluff with GW Bush around inspections and WMD's--he was sure we'd never take him out, since we feared Iranian Islamism more. He was wrong--he misjudged Bush 2--but he may not have been geopolitically wrong. If most of Iraq sides with Iran, the Sunnis will revolt. Added to the likely Kurdish revolt, that could spell civil war for Iraq, and a very long and expensive stay there for us--or an ignominous defeat.

That's why, since the start of this war, some of us have been irked by Bush's constant use of the phrase "the Iraqi people," as if there were one people seeking relief from a dictator. The Shi'ites sought relief. The Kurds did too, for their own reasons, which do not include being part of a democratic Iraq. And the Sunnis did not. They were sitting pretty under their leader Saddam. Good luck to Bush, trying to establish a secular democracy in such a situation. Many Iraqi experts cautioned him he was taking a huge risk, along with many career diplomats, such as Brent Scowcroft. He was either too self-confident, or too arrogant--time will tell--to pay heed.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

the elections were successful.

The apparent winners are Islamist Shi'ites tied to Iran. Secular parties such as Bush's favored Allawi, did not do well. 97+% of Kurds voted for Kurdish national parties rather than parties that wanted to be part of a larger Iraq. Sunnis are marching in the streets declaring fraud.

Looks like the possible beginning of a civil war to me. I hereby predict that the Kurds will not stick with a unified Iraq, and will fight to hold Kirkuk, which sits atop basically the world's richest oil field. It's the Kurds' ticket to the autonomous state they have long felt they deserved.

And if they get that state, how will they feel about us? Reagan and Bush 1 encouraged their rebellions against Saddam, only to abandon them when he clamped down. We're not the Kurds' favorite peoples.

Let's remember a little history. Who was president when Saddam Hussein committed 90% of his crimes? Ronald Reagan. And did Reagan react when Hussein killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds in the late 1980's? Nope. Why? Because Saddam was his ally in the Iran-Iraq war, so what's a few Kurds. Why did Reagan take this view? Because Shi'ite Islam was viewed as a threat to the U.S. That's what emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, and what emboldened him to bluff with GW Bush around inspections and WMD's--he was sure we'd never take him out, since we feared Iranian Islamism more. He was wrong--he misjudged Bush 2--but he may not have been geopolitically wrong. If most of Iraq sides with Iran, the Sunnis will revolt. Added to the likely Kurdish revolt, that could spell civil war for Iraq, and a very long and expensive stay there for us--or an ignominous defeat.

That's why, since the start of this war, some of us have been irked by Bush's constant use of the phrase "the Iraqi people," as if there were one people seeking relief from a dictator. The Shi'ites sought relief. The Kurds did too, for their own reasons, which do not include being part of a democratic Iraq. And the Sunnis did not. They were sitting pretty under their leader Saddam. Good luck to Bush, trying to establish a secular democracy in such a situation. Many Iraqi experts cautioned him he was taking a huge risk, along with many career diplomats, such as Brent Scowcroft. He was either too self-confident, or too arrogant--time will tell--to pay heed.

Mariner.

One has only to look at our own elections for an example of how special interest groups vote or claims of fraud. We have even seen predictions of civil war within our own country because of the way people vote...religious right vs atheists and lib vs. conservative, etc. Does that mean our elections are unsuccessful? I dont think so.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

"The Iraqi People" is a bit silly - Iraq, like many nations, only exists because its borders were drawn up by Britain and the US and France


I'm beginning to think we intentionally draw the borders so there are feuding groups within the same nation. THis way everyone fights each other. Just look at Africa. The borders are drawn so that most nations have feuding groups within them.



The funny thing is - the very same reasoning used by righties to justify Reagan doing nothing while HUssein 200000 people can be used to justify not doing anything to stop him in 2003.

Hussein was an enemy of Iran. Iran was a bigger threat. THerefore, its OK to support Hussein.

Hussein was an enemy of Bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam. Bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam was a bigger threat. THerefore, its OK to support Hussein.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

One has only to look at our own elections for an example of how special interest groups vote or claims of fraud. We have even seen predictions of civil war within our own country because of the way people vote...religious right vs atheists and lib vs. conservative, etc. Does that mean our elections are unsuccessful? I dont think so.

The difference is, in the last US election, 5 people weren't killed trying to vote.


Also, only the poorest Americans have to wait in 10 hour long lines.

 

[CSM]

The difference is, in the last US election, 5 people weren't killed trying to vote.


Also, only the poorest Americans have to wait in 10 hour long lines.

Right...

So what is your opinion of how to make the Iraqi situation better? What is your plan for uniting the Iraqi people and preventing a civil war? Obviously, simply withdrawing the US presence there will not resolve the conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite and Kurd. Nor will it establish borders to anyones liking. Should we withdraw our soldiers and leave Iraq alone altogether?