Fuck you war supporters

[red states rule]

I care so much about the troops that I don't want them to die on a mission devised by fools. Iraq is not a 'war" that can be "won" in a military sense, by American troops. The only way Iraq will ever be a stable country is if sunnis and shiites are allowed to settle their differences.... spill each other's blood until they both get a bellyfull...decide they need to devise a political solution that divides up the territory and the oil revenues in a way that is acceptable to both sides.... the American military right now is in the impossible situation of being both the protector and the target for both sides...we are trying to protect sunnis, and sunnis are trying to kill us...we are trying to protect shiites and shiites are trying to kill us.... our presence there is not going to make this situation resolve itself any easier or any faster..... in fact, exactly the opposite will happen.... the longer we are there, the more protracted this conflict will be...the more men we will lose, the more money we will flush down the toilet...and the less we will therefore be able to do to deal with our real enemies who we are all but ignoring because of our presence in Iraq.

Translation - SURRENDER!!!!!!!!

 

[maineman]

Whatever Dems are for MM supports

Whatever Pres Bush is for MM is against

It is easy to figure out

that is really not true, but it is really funny to hear it coming from you, who ARE the exact opposite of that statement.

 

[red states rule]

that is really not true, but it is really funny to hear it coming from you, who ARE the exact opposite of that statement.

If Dems actually wanted to win the war, not raise taxes, and not try to hijack powers for the CIC - I would support them

Then you would oppose them

 

[maineman]

Translation - SURRENDER!!!!!!!!

translation: RSR is a marginally idiotic moron who cannot string four words together.


Why not try this...why not take that paragraph that you "translated" and pick it apart, sentence by sentence, and, in your own words, explain where I am wrong. Can you try that?

 

[red states rule]

translation: RSR is a marginally idiotic moron who cannot string four words together.


Why not try this...why not take that paragraph that you "translated" and pick it apart, sentence by sentence, and, in your own words, explain where I am wrong. Can you try that?

Keep that white flag handy for your next meeting with elected Democrats

 

[maineman]

If Dems actually wanted to win the war, not raise taxes, and not try to hijack powers for the CIC - I would support them

Then you would oppose them

that is the difference between you and me....(well, besides the one where I have a functioning brain and you are a moron)
I am against anyone who is for our stupid war in Iraq, regardless of party.

 

[maineman]

Why not try this...why not take that paragraph that you "translated" and pick it apart, sentence by sentence, and, in your own words, explain where I am wrong. Can you try that?

can you try it? can you try to debate me point by point, or are you really incapable of it?

 

[red states rule]

that is the difference between you and me....(well, besides the one where I have a functioning brain and you are a moron)
I am against anyone who is for our stupid war in Iraq, regardless of party.

Go to your proctologist to remove that tumor from your brain so you see understand what really is going on and how Dems are fighting for surrender

 

[ErikViking]

I care so much about the troops that I don't want them to die on a mission devised by fools. Iraq is not a 'war" that can be "won" in a military sense, by American troops. The only way Iraq will ever be a stable country is if sunnis and shiites are allowed to settle their differences.... spill each other's blood until they both get a bellyfull...decide they need to devise a political solution that divides up the territory and the oil revenues in a way that is acceptable to both sides.... the American military right now is in the impossible situation of being both the protector and the target for both sides...we are trying to protect sunnis, and sunnis are trying to kill us...we are trying to protect shiites and shiites are trying to kill us.... our presence there is not going to make this situation resolve itself any easier or any faster..... in fact, exactly the opposite will happen.... the longer we are there, the more protracted this conflict will be...the more men we will lose, the more money we will flush down the toilet...and the less we will therefore be able to do to deal with our real enemies who we are all but ignoring because of our presence in Iraq.

If America just leave Iraq now, tell me what is the difference between your actions and that of 9/11 terrorists?

Smash!
Some people dead.
Hope they got the message. Whatever it was - we forgot to tell.

 

[90K]

1. Badmouthing the CAUSE of the military is different than badmouthing the military. While in service, I went wherever the suits in DC sent me and did what they asked me to do as well as I could until they told me to come home. That is what the military does. They are the muscular arm of American foreign policy. They are not the people who MAKE that foreign policy, they only do their part to help implement it.
2.I disagree with your assertions about Iraq. How the fuck can you portray such an opinon as FACT (all caps)????
3. No doubt. After 9/11, a war was going to happen.... after 9/11 we were already IN a war. Does that make Iraq the place to fight it? WHy not Mexico? Why not South Africa? Neither of them had any connection to 9/11 either. I am all for fighting our enemies.... Iraqi sunnis and shiites are NOT our enemies...or at least they WEREN'T until after we shocked them, awed them, invaded them, conquered them, and occupied them.
4. I got no problems sending professional military men into harm's way.... my only beef is with the battleground selected by our president.
5.and FUCK YOU...you have obviously chosen to disregard all the ways that I show appreciation to our troops every single fucking week..... I have absolutely no doubt that I do more every month - of substance - to support our troops than you have EVER done.

First of all I'm not going to tell you to go Fuck yourself----But piss off dude!!!
I've made a reasonable amount of peace with you over time. I would like to see you debate each of us as we debate with you. We all ain't RSR, he debates me in good terms and you mister should do the same.
Now as FACT about iraq, wake the fuck up guy, you've got to be shitting me and yourself to think Iraq wasn't going to boil over. Shit the UN could fucking do a damn thing, that sleaze clinton was a pussy and GWB went after Saddam, however narrow sighted it was. History and looking at the M/East was the topic.
And stop fucking making excuses everytime about meaningless horseshit already! My deal with the liberals is they constantly point fingers and boo hoo and never give any explanation besides we are fucked up. BS I've said this before I have better respect over agreeing to disagree than point fingers every second of the day.
For the record I've taken your advice and started reading about Hillary, so when you talk about how fucked up I am, just remember I asked you to help me understand this person and I gave your suggestion a go. What have you done lately besides act like a frigging rabid dog to most every post that has conservative replies. Your greatest talent is not always going for the kill.
You don't have to agree with me and that is fine, but look in the mirror and see how you portray yourself. And if I'm totally wrong I'll stand corrected.

 

[red states rule]

Libs like MM actually belive if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists will stop hating us and not attack US interests anymore

 

[maineman]

First of all I'm not going to tell you to go Fuck yourself----But piss off dude!!!
I've made a reasonable amount of peace with you over time. I would like to see you debate each of us as we debate with you. We all ain't RSR, he debates me in good terms and you mister should do the same.
Now as FACT about iraq, wake the fuck up guy, you've got to be shitting me and yourself to think Iraq wasn't going to boil over. Shit the UN could fucking do a damn thing, that sleaze clinton was a pussy and GWB went after Saddam, however narrow sighted it was. History and looking at the M/East was the topic.
And stop fucking making excuses everytime about meaningless horseshit already! My deal with the liberals is they constantly point fingers and boo hoo and never give any explanation besides we are fucked up. BS I've said this before I have better respect over agreeing to disagree than point fingers every second of the day.
For the record I've taken your advice and started reading about Hillary, so when you talk about how fucked up I am, just remember I asked you to help me understand this person and I gave your suggestion a go. What have you done lately besides act like a frigging rabid dog to most every post that has conservative replies. Your greatest talent is not always going for the kill.
You don't have to agree with me and that is fine, but look in the mirror and see how you portray yourself. And if I'm totally wrong I'll stand corrected.

YOU piss off....you were the one who claimed that I did not support the troops. Do you DARE compare what YOU do to support the troops to what I do?

That was the only point you made that pissed me off because it was a slanderous personal attack. You want to retract that, and we can go back to being pals again. If you don't.... I'll remain pissed that you said that. OK?

I disagree with you about Iraq.... Iraq may very well have boiled over in a sectarian war between sunnis and shiites in the aftermath of Saddam, but methinks that the baath party could have maintained control even after Saddam.... but in any case, what does a sectarian turf war between sunnis and shiites in Iraq have to do with wahabbists flying airplanes into NYC skyscrapers? OUr war is with islamic extremists... wahabbists and sulafists who want to establish an islamic caliphate that stretches from spain to india.... our enemies are not iraqi nationists.

 

[red states rule]

YOU piss off....you were the one who claimed that I did not support the troops. Do you DARE compare what YOU do to support the troops to what I do?

That was the only point you made that pissed me off because it was a slanderous personal attack. You want to retract that, and we can go back to being pals again. If you don't.... I'll remain pissed that you said that. OK?

I disagree with you about Iraq.... Iraq may very well have boiled over in a sectarian war between sunnis and shiites in the aftermath of Saddam, but methinks that the baath party could have maintained control even after Saddam.... but in any case, what does a sectarian turf war between sunnis and shiites in Iraq have to do with wahabbists flying airplanes into NYC skyscrapers? OUr war is with islamic extremists... wahabbists and sulafists who want to establish an islamic caliphate that stretches from spain to india.... our enemies are not iraqi nationists.

TRUTH hurts eh, MM?

 

[maineman]

Libs like MM actually belive if the US leaves Iraq the terrorists will stop hating us and not attack US interests anymore

I have never said that nor do I believe that. I do believe that our leaving Iraq allows us the ability to more effectively deal with our true enemies. We need to quit being in the middle of an Iraqi turf war and start hunting down and incapacitating islamic extremists.

 

[red states rule]

Here is how the Dems are helping the terrorists - FROM THE NY TIMES no less

(This reporter will be fired for this)

Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable To Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." Just wondering: when's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda?

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?

http://newsbusters.org/node/12261

 

[maineman]

TRUTH hurts eh, MM?

the truth will set you free little man....

the truth is, I do more every week to support our troops than you have done to date.

and I got a stack of thank you letters from maine national guardsmen that back that up. I have mobilized my office building to do a whole lot of great things to support our forces.... and they appreciate it,

 

[red states rule]

the truth will set you free little man....

the truth is, I do more every week to support our troops than you have done to date.

and I got a stack of thank you letters from maine national guardsmen that back that up. I have mobilized my office building to do a whole lot of great things to support our forces.... and they appreciate it,

You must be so proud your party is doing what the terrorists want them to do

 

[ErikViking]

You must be so proud your party is doing what the terrorists want them to do

I agree with Maineman. If chasing terrorists is the main objective, leaving Iraq seems logical. A civil war in Iraq would tie up and kill numerous terrorists with intrest in the struggle for power and free your resources to hunt down others.

 

[red states rule]

I agree with Maineman. If chasing terrorists is the main objective, leaving Iraq seems logical. A civil war in Iraq would tie up and kill numerous terrorists with intrest in the struggle for power and free your resources to hunt down others.

Al Qaeda has said many times, Iraq is the front on their war with the US - why should we do waht we want and leave?

 

[red states rule]

Let's see, France in Iraq,,,,Spain in Iraq,,,,,, NOPE. Why does Al Qaeda want to kill them, fellow members? The libs tell us all will be well if we would just leave Iraq



THE STORM GATHERS




Spain warns of possible Qaeda attack




Published: Tuesday, 24 April, 2007, 09:06 AM Doha Time


MADRID: The Spanish intelligence service fears that Al Qaeda militants could attack a target in Spain or in France in the coming weeks, possibly before the French election run-off, a media report said yesterday.
Private radio station Cadena Ser, which is close to the governing Socialists, said the information is contained in the latest intelligence report on Al Qaeda activity, compiled after April 11 suicide bombings in Algiers claimed by the network.
In Spain, the service is focusing on the possibility of an attack on May 27 during local elections, or during the America’s Cup yachting competition which ends on July 7 in Valencia in the east of the country.
In France, the network could strike before May 6, the day of the second round run-off between right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Segolene Royal, the radio station said on its website.
Earlier this month, Spain’s top anti-terrorist judge warned that the country, in particular its north African enclaves, is threatened by Islamist attacks following suicide bombings in Morocco and Algeria.
Judge Baltasar Garzon, one of six investigating judges for Spain’s National Court, told La Vanguardia daily that “there’s a big risk that Spain could be the subject of a new Islamist attack”.
Baltasar, who has successfully prosecuted Al Qaeda operatives, added that Spain’s tiny north African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla, on the border with Morocco, are particularly at risk.
The judge’s remarks came after two suicide bomb attacks in Algiers killed at least 24 people, and three suspected members of an Islamist cell blew themselves up as they were pursued by police in Morocco.
The attacks in Algiers were claimed by Al Qaeda’s branch in north Africa.
A statement posted on a website which often carries Al Qaeda messages claiming responsibility for the bombings included a warning against Spain. – AFP