No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[red states rule]

you gonna answer my last post or not?

just let me know one way or the other.

MM says we need to quiet this good news

 

[maineman]

don't waste our time putting words in MY mouth. just try to explain your own.

 

[red states rule]

don't waste our time putting words in MY mouth. just try to explain your own.

I can't put words in your mouth

Your foot gets in the way

 

[maineman]

so..that's about it, then?

 

[red states rule]

so..that's about it, then?

Your desire for defeat is being slowed by the successes in Iraq

 

[maineman]

that's deep.





and nonsensical!

 

[red states rule]

that's deep.





and nonsensical!

Why else would you and the Dems be so hyper to push for surrender?

Not because you actually care about the troops

 

[maineman]

Why else would you and the Dems be so hyper to push for surrender?

Not because you actually care about the troops

I am not pushing for surrender. I am only pushing for you to give me a straight answer.

duh.

 

[red states rule]

I am not pushing for surrender. I am only pushing for you to give me a straight answer.

duh.

If you and the rest of yur party are so worried about the troops - cut off funding

Unless, you are your party do not care about the troops - and would rather have the issue

 

[maineman]

If you and the rest of yur party are so worried about the troops - cut off funding

Unless, you are your party do not care about the troops - and would rather have the issue

I am worried about the troops. and I do not want to have 150K troops in Iraq and not have adaquate funding for them. It takes a long time to bring that many troops home. precipitously cutting off funding is irresponsible. providing limited funding for current operations but requiring a deadline for withdrawal IS responsible.

 

[maineman]

you gonna explain yourself now?

 

[red states rule]

I am worried about the troops. and I do not want to have 150K troops in Iraq and not have adaquate funding for them. It takes a long time to bring that many troops home. precipitously cutting off funding is irresponsible. providing limited funding for current operations but requiring a deadline for withdrawal IS responsible.

But your guys said the war is lost. Why keep the troops there if all hope if gone

Oh, being a liberal you really do not want to solve the problem - you would rather have the issue to run on

 

[maineman]

But your guys said the war is lost. Why keep the troops there if all hope if gone

Oh, being a liberal you really do not want to solve the problem - you would rather have the issue to run on

I don't think we should KEEP the troops there. I think we should start redeploying them to the borders and then on to Afghanistan/Pakistan. That is why I do not favor precipitously cutting off funding. We have troops in harm's way and it takes lots of time to move them about...but we should set some deadlines for doing that.... and fund them during the process.

Now look....once again you have asked me a question and once again I have answered it. will you ever get around to answering mine?

Will you ever explain how and why Iranian shiites, who the administration says are helping Sadr's mahdi army, would - according to you - actually help Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?

Will you ever explain how a much smaller foreign Al Qaeda force would prevail over the Iraqi sunnis and the Iraqi shiites AND the Iraqi military?

Will you ever explain why Iraqis would, after allowing that smaller force of foreigners to subjegate them, then allow the Iranians to sweep into their country and take over from Al Qaeda?

These are all assertions you have made in the past. I think it is pretty clear that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I have given you every opportunity to explain those positions and prove me wrong.

Please take that opportunity and try to prove me wrong. Please hold up your end of the discussion and answer questions sometimes instead of just asking them.

 

[red states rule]

I don't think we should KEEP the troops there. I think we should start redeploying them to the borders and then on to Afghanistan/Pakistan. That is why I do not favor precipitously cutting off funding. We have troops in harm's way and it takes lots of time to move them about...but we should set some deadlines for doing that.... and fund them during the process.

Now look....once again you have asked me a question and once again I have answered it. will you ever get around to answering mine?

Will you ever explain how and why Iranian shiites, who the administration says are helping Sadr's mahdi army, would - according to you - actually help Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?

Will you ever explain how a much smaller foreign Al Qaeda force would prevail over the Iraqi sunnis and the Iraqi shiites AND the Iraqi military?

Will you ever explain why Iraqis would, after allowing that smaller force of foreigners to subjegate them, then allow the Iranians to sweep into their country and take over from Al Qaeda?

These are all assertions you have made in the past. I think it is pretty clear that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I have given you every opportunity to explain those positions and prove me wrong.

Please take that opportunity and try to prove me wrong. Please hold up your end of the discussion and answer questions sometimes instead of just asking them.

The new code word for retreat is now redeployment among libs

 

[Superlative]

With Dems pushing for surrender, the terrorists are looking forward to killing tens of thousands - and libs will look the other way or blame Bush

Libs said the same thing when people said the killing would be worse in Viet Nam after Dems surrendered there

No debate here

Dems are now the party of surrender and appeasement

any good news from Iraq must be dismissed by the kook left (of which you are a proud member)

If the US troops are winning there goesa ny chance of appeasement and surrender

and that would hamper any gains in 08

Libs do have their priorities

Seems you dismiss any good news - that would get in the way of your surrender wishes

Why else would you and the Dems be so hyper to push for surrender?

Not because you actually care about the troops

You were wrong, you ruin threads for EVERYONE

Say something NEW.

 

[red states rule]

You ruin threads for EVERYONE

Say something NEW.

If Dems would not be pushing for surrender I would say something different

 

[Superlative]

If Dems would not be pushing for surrender I would say something different

Parrot, Hack.

 

[red states rule]

Parrot, Hack.

Surrender monkey

 

[maineman]

The new code word for retreat is now redeployment among libs

can't you do better than that? I write several paragraphs and attempt to honestly answer your questions, and this is quality of your reply?

pathetic.

 

[red states rule]

can't you do better than that? I write several paragraphs and attempt to honestly answer your questions, and this is quality of your reply?

pathetic.

Libs live by code words

They can;t come out and tell people what they actually want - they would never win another election