16 intell groups report on Iarq

[Annie]

This is what you asked me to prove: I said: "A lot of people predicted exactly what would happen, and unfortunately they were laughed off."

Okaaaayyy, Kuchinich, whoops channeled by Dean by this time, came the closest, since he was truly against defense no matter the offense.

The rest, well Pelosi quote isn't the best, but it does get the point across, 'capitulate and hope for the best.' Notice she's still not willing to lead Congress in doing this, by cutting off the funding, but never mind that.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Okaaaayyy, Kuchinich, whoops channeled by Dean by this time, came the closest, since he was truly against defense no matter the offense.

The rest, well Pelosi quote isn't the best, but it does get the point across, 'capitulate and hope for the best.' Notice she's still not willing to lead Congress in doing this, by cutting off the funding, but never mind that.

I see. I give this a D plus for diversion from the actual question you asked, and a D minus on the maturity scale.

Rather than admit that people did warn of the consequences of going in, while adminstration supporters painted rosy picures, you want to fall back on some slogans like the "surrender monkeys".


You and your president have been wrong time after time after time on iraq. Do you think you might be able to learn something from the people that were right all along?

 

[Gunny]

Okaaaayyy, Kuchinich, whoops channeled by Dean by this time, came the closest, since he was truly against defense no matter the offense.

The rest, well Pelosi quote isn't the best, but it does get the point across, 'capitulate and hope for the best.' Notice she's still not willing to lead Congress in doing this, by cutting off the funding, but never mind that.

No Kathianne ... give the devil his due. The military predicted this outcome in 1991. It was the secondary reason we did not depose Saddam then. What was predicted then by military experts has come to pass.

Regardless, I have to wonder where that great liberal compassion and sense of justice is for the Iraqi people? I suspect it got lost the second Bush's name came up. It's a shame when two-faced asshats are willing to turn their backs on the innocent for dishonest, partisan politics.

 

[Annie]

Okay both of you. Truly, it's a lost cause, which should have been clear today. Bush is going to stay there, but no support. Congress is going to decide to cut the funding or not.

All in all, we all lose.

 

[Truthmatters]

If we stay Iraq will break into a civil war.

If we leave Iraq will break into a civil war.

If we stay it will become an Islamic state.

If we leave it will become an Islamic state.

If we stay our government may be able to force them into passing the oil law which gives the profits of the oil fields in Iraq to American companies for 30 years to come but then the people will rebell and force the companies to leave.

If we leave the law wont pass and the American companies will have to leave.

If we stay many people will die including Americans.

If we leave many people will die and very few will be Americans.


There is the only real differances between us staying and going.

 

[Annie]

If we stay Iraq will break into a civil war.

If we leave Iraq will break into a civil war.

If we stay it will become an Islamic state.

If we leave it will become an Islamic state.

If we stay our government may be able to force them into passing the oil law which gives the profits of the oil fields in Iraq to American companies for 30 years to come but then the people will rebell and force the companies to leave.

If we leave the law wont pass and the American companies will have to leave.

If we stay many people will die including Americans.

If we leave many people will die and very few will be Americans.


There is the only real differances between us staying and going.

no difference. I say leave.

 

[Gunny]

Okay both of you. Truly, it's a lost cause, which should have been clear today. Bush is going to stay there, but no support. Congress is going to decide to cut the funding or not.

All in all, we all lose.

There's one big difference ... since we ARE there, I support doing what it takes to win. If that means killing every militant religious extremist between Syria and Iran, so be it.

The Marshall Plan worked because we didn't take any shit, and we forced the Germans to do shit our way. Asking gets the results we now see.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is one main differance fewer Americans dead.

I also say leave

 

[Gunny]

There is one main differance fewer Americans dead.

I also say leave

Got that donkey poster on your wall? The symbol of the American quitter?

 

[Annie]

There's one big difference ... since we ARE there, I support doing what it takes to win. If that means killing every militant religious extremist between Syria and Iran, so be it.

The Marshall Plan worked because we didn't take any shit, and we forced the Germans to do shit our way. Asking gets the results we now see.

Sorry, when even those on the right as yourself say the thing was lost from the beginning, there really isn't a chance.

Bail and pay the consequences, our kids will.

 

[Gem]

GunnyL Wrote:

We could salvage a victory. Just need some pussies to shut up and let the military do the job they're trained to do without all the wah wah back here.

Gunny, what, in your opinion, does the military need to do that will ensure victory in Iraq?

 

[ReillyT]

There's one big difference ... since we ARE there, I support doing what it takes to win. If that means killing every militant religious extremist between Syria and Iran, so be it.

The Marshall Plan worked because we didn't take any shit, and we forced the Germans to do shit our way. Asking gets the results we now see.

That assumes that we can win. If however, no application of military power would be sufficient to resolve the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites and prevent further Iraqi loss of life, then we shouldn't continue our presence in Iraq, hoping that the next strategy might do the trick. I think if people truly believed that we had the means to bring stability to Iraq, they would be inclined to continue the mission. Unfortunately, there is precious little to support this belief.

 

[Annie]

That assumes that we can win. If however, no application of military power would be sufficient to resolve the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites and prevent further Iraqi loss of life, then we shouldn't continue our presence in Iraq, hoping that the next strategy might do the trick. I think if people truly believed that we had the means to bring stability to Iraq, they would be inclined to continue the mission. Unfortunately, there is precious little to support this belief.

You really doubt we could, if the committment was there? But it's not. So you win.

 

[maineman]

Bail and pay the consequences, our kids will.

Changing venues to fight and destroy the people who attacked US, and leaving Iraqis to settle their own issues is not "bailing"

 

[ReillyT]

You really doubt we could, if the committment was there? But it's not. So you win.

Why do I win?

Whose committment?

If by that you mean the committment of the US, then yes, I still doubt we could bring stability to Iraq. It's not an indictment of the military to admit that there are some problems that military force alone cannot solve.

 

[Truthmatters]

Remember we already won the war , we are just ending the occupation when we leave and not losing a damn thing.

 

[maineman]

You really doubt we could, if the committment was there? But it's not. So you win.

yes...I doubt the ability of a primarily christian occupying force from halfway around the globe to teach Iraqi sunnis and shiites to bury the feud that has been brewing between them for a millennium. I don't care how committed we are, we cannot expect soldiers to act as policemen, and diplomats and referees. We are strangers in a strange land and we do more harm than good by continuing our occupation. IMHO

 

[Annie]

Why do I win?

Whose committment?

If by that you mean the committment of the US, then yes, I still doubt we could bring stability to Iraq. It's not an indictment of the military to admit that there are some problems that military force alone cannot solve.

You win, meaning the US will be out of there. On the other hand, do you truly doubt the US could 'win' there, meaning bring the factions under control and let them take over? The first will prevail, the second will become 'what if' and our kids will pay the price.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry, when even those on the right as yourself say the thing was lost from the beginning, there really isn't a chance.

Bail and pay the consequences, our kids will.

I didn't say it was "lost" from the beginning. I said what is currently going on was predicted.

We CAN win.

We won't, because we no longer possess the balls as a nation to do what it takes to win. No it's more about partisan politics and dishonest, relativist arguments and false accusations, and the left demanding our military be held to a higher moral standard than Christ, while at the same time whinign and bitching about Christians here at home.

 

[Annie]

I didn't say it was "lost" from the beginning. I said what is currently going on was predicted.

We CAN win.

We won't, because we no longer possess the balls as a nation to do what it takes to win. No it's more about partisan politics and dishonest, relativist arguments and false accusations, and the left demanding our military be held to a higher moral standard than Christ, while at the same time whinign and bitching about Christians here at home.

We agree, we are going to bail and our children will pay the price. They may still lose, but many will die then.