US Troops Want To Stay

[red states rule]

The Dems have put there poltical future in failure

They want the US economy to fail - it has not - yet they sneer how rotten things are

They want the US to lose in Iraq. They do not see it as a loss for the US but as a loss for Pres Bush. They do not care about the troops or the people in Iraq

All they care about is getting more political power

To libs the ends justify the means

 

[red states rule]

Time is the ONE thing the Liberals CAN NOT allow the troops in Iraq. They ( the libs) must cause our failure as soon as possible. They do not even want to wait till September, much less any longer for a "Bush" win. Liberals would rather the nation fail then Bush get credit for anything.

4 years later they are still harping about we should not have gone, that became pointless as soon as our troops invaded. The entire argument is not that we should help Iraq, but that because 4 years ago ONE of many reasons we invaded was possibly wrong we should now cut and run abandoning the Iraqi people to Chaos, murder and terror. The libs , people like Maineman , claim knowledge in military affairs and then make patently ridiculous claims that an Insurgency should be won in a matter of months. And then when success occurs they ignore it or marginalize it. Maineman has done just that with the success in Anbar province.

When pointedly reminded that Anbar was a success and belays the "Civil War" claim, what was his response? That it didn't matter cause in his opinion the province wasn't half and half Sunni and Shiite.

He can not even provide historical data to support his claim that Civil War is enavitable. Just the usual whine , THE SKY IS FALLING.

Of course this is not the first war libs were wrong about

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=33238

 

[maineman]

When pointedly reminded that Anbar was a success and belays the "Civil War" claim, what was his response? That it didn't matter cause in his opinion the province wasn't half and half Sunni and Shiite.

He can not even provide historical data to support his claim that Civil War is enavitable. Just the usual whine , THE SKY IS FALLING.

my POINT regarding Anbar province is that no one was suggesting that that overwhelmingly sunni enclave was ever the site of any civil war in Iraq. It is the site of Iraqi sunni versus Al Qaeda sunni fighting, and that is always good from our perspective, but it does not address the issues that exist where sunnis and shiites live together and have disputed claims on turf and oil.

For you to point out the relative successes in the Anbar province as proof of no civil war is similar to me pointing out in April of 1863 that there was absolutely no fighting in New Hampshire, so this whole thing about an American civil war is way overblown.

And I am perfectly willing to give this surge some finite time to work....I am willing to let it run til the fall and see if Baghdad is once again a safe haven for children, if, in fact, that multicultural jeffersonian democracy is, in fact, blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates.

 

[red states rule]

Yea, Democrats wanted Pres Lincoln to surrender to the South

Dems have not changed much

 

[maineman]

Yea, Democrats wanted Pres Lincoln to surrender to the South

Dems have not changed much

RSR...that doesn't even make any sense.

 

[red states rule]

RSR...that doesn't even make any sense.

Democrats (known as Copperheads_ wanted Lincoln to make peace with the South and stop the war

Much like Dems want to appease and surrender in Iraq

Alos, the liberal media was "reporting" how the US was losing the peace in Europe in 1946

As I said, libs have not changed much over the years

 

[maineman]

Democrats (known as Copperheads_ wanted Lincoln to make peace with the South and stop the war

Much like Dems want to appease and surrender in Iraq

Alos, the liberal media was "reporting" how the US was losing the peace in Europe in 1946

As I said, libs have not changed much over the years

I know of NO democrat who wants to surrender or appease our enemies in Iraq. Just because you repeat that falsehood every day does not magically make it less false.

 

[red states rule]

I know of NO democrat who wants to surrender or appease our enemies in Iraq. Just because you repeat that falsehood every day does not magically make it less false.

You usually ignore what your beloved Dems say and do - then go into spin cycle when called on it

 

[maineman]

You usually ignore what your beloved Dems say and do - then go into spin cycle when called on it

no really.... if you could find one quotation from one democrat that suggested we surrender to our enemies in Iraq or appease our enemies in Iraq, I would love to read it.

now who's spinning?

 

[red states rule]

no really.... if you could find one quotation from one democrat that suggested we surrender to our enemies in Iraq or appease our enemies in Iraq, I would love to read it.

now who's spinning?

If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender

 

[maineman]

If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?

 

[red states rule]

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?

When Iraq is ready to stand alone and provide their own security - we leave - the mission is finished

Dems want to surrender now -- in time for the next election

 

[maineman]

answer this question:

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?

yes or no?

 

[red states rule]

answer this question:




yes or no?

Using your liberal logic we might as well get rid of the Police, since there will always be crime and criminals

 

[maineman]

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?

 

[red states rule]

let me ask you this: if, when America does leave Iraq in, say, five years, do you think that Iraq will be completely devoid of our enemies?

Probably not - but when they tell us they take care of things on their own - we leave

Dems do not want that to happen however

 

[maineman]

but if our enemies are still there, and we leave...didn't you say:

If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender????

 

[red states rule]

but if our enemies are still there, and we leave...didn't you say:

If you want to tell the enemy when you will leave the fight - it is surrender????

Then Iraq can do the job on their own

Again using your liberal logic - the money spent on Police is a waste -the Police will never get rid of all crime

 

[maineman]

Then Iraq can do the job on their own

Again using your liberal logic - the money spent on Police is a waste -the Police will never get rid of all crime

and you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?

 

[red states rule]

and you believe that an Iraqi army made up of sunnis, shiites and kurds will retain unit cohesiveness and will remain loyal to the government of Iraq after our departure and will not rapidly devolve into well trained militias for their own sects?

I understand libs want to paint a doom and gloom picture in Iraq - you ignored the CNN video of the progress being made - as White Flag Harry bellowed 'the war is lost'