‘Serious Success in Iraq Is Not Being Recognised’

[maineman]

you don't know what "truth" is. you only know what Rush and Sean tell you.

you are incapable of independent thought.

 

[Kid Pickle]

no...democrats have never wanted America to lose anywhere. fact.

Anybody who want us to pull out wants us to lose. It is called retreat. There can only one of two outcomes in a war, victory or defeat. I don't care how you nuance it, thems the facts.
We had the argument before we went in. Iraq is better off. Lots of terrorists are dead. Places that used to be no man's lands are firmly under U.S. military and local control. The Iraqis are taking responsibility and ratting out the murderous scumbags, which we find and destroy, hopfully getting information on other murderous scumbags in the process.
The surge is working and the moonbats are panicking. It is not possible for the United States to lose a war unless we give up.

 

[red states rule]

Anybody who want us to pull out wants us to lose. It is called retreat. There can only one of two outcomes in a war, victory or defeat. I don't care how you nuance it, thems the facts.
We had the argument before we went in. Iraq is better off. Lots of terrorists are dead. Places that used to be no man's lands are firmly under U.S. military and local control. The Iraqis are taking responsibility and ratting out the murderous scumbags, which we find and destroy, hopfully getting information on other murderous scumbags in the process.
The surge is working and the moonbats are panicking. It is not possible for the United States to lose a war unless we give up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/30/VI2007073001325.html

Watch a Dem admit if the surge works it would be a problem for the Democrat party

He was right

 

[maineman]

Anybody who want us to pull out wants us to lose. It is called retreat.

question: if you are all done fucking your girlfriend - you've filled her up with your splooge, and you pull out, is that "losing"? Is that "retreat"? Or, is it just finishing what you set out to do?

"Our mission [singular] is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament"George Bush 3/6/03

Iraq disarmed... splooge deposited.... time to pull out, wipe it off, and get on with the war against islamic extremism!

 

[AllieBaba]

Denying that we have accomplished anything in Iraq, while at the same time calling for retreat and refusing to earmark adequate funds for the venture is setting us up for defeat, and dems know it. They want out because they don't want to win, and they want the money being spent there to be spent on themselves and their own socialist programs.

There's no other way to label it.

 

[Shogun]

no, we just don't want to sponsor colonialism this side of the millennium.

You wouldn't walk in baghdad without military escort TODAY like you wouldn't last year just like you won't in a year from now.

how long is the world supposed to wait for your big plan to produce something beyond a waist-deep river of shit to wade through?

 

[AllieBaba]

no, we just don't want to sponsor colonialism this side of the millennium.

You wouldn't walk in baghdad without military escort TODAY like you wouldn't last year just like you won't in a year from now.

how long is the world supposed to wait for your big plan to produce something beyond a waist-deep river of shit to wade through?

It's safer now than it was, and we're safer here in the US because we're there. Regardless, it's admitting defeat and accepting it to say that we should leave because we haven't gotten where we want to be. So in essence, you're proving my point.

You're for defeat. You're not interested in winning.

 

[Shogun]

no, it's not safer. especially when your choice can't seem to kill OBL. Instead, sending us into iraq over bullshit intel.

nope. sorry. There is still no peace. There is still no reason to stop waiting for the next 9/11. Pretending otherwise, in light of the last 7 years, is laughable.

Your concept of "victory" is still as ambiguous as your concept of withdrawal. The military did it's job by removing saddam. You expect a miracle by assuming that their presence will create good will towards the US. It is simply not the case today and it won't be the case a year from now when Baghdad will still be as unsafe as it is today despite your claim that there is forward progress.


I don't really care about your opinion or weather you think I want defeat. I don't respect your ability to think critically enough for that water to soak into these ducks feathers. If left up to your kind we'd take the next 50 years to beat our heads into a bloody pulp insisting that the brick wall is about to give way while accusing anyone of walking AROUND the wall of wanting to surrender. Trust me, this far beyond the fruits of your pathetic opinion on foreign policy, your criticism goes about as far as your current success in the mid east.


but, anytime you or one of your fvorite talking heads wants to stroll down the street out of the green zone sans flak vest and military guard then be my guest... You;ll be in danger 6 months from now as you are today as you were last year.

 

[red states rule]

It's safer now than it was, and we're safer here in the US because we're there. Regardless, it's admitting defeat and accepting it to say that we should leave because we haven't gotten where we want to be. So in essence, you're proving my point.

You're for defeat. You're not interested in winning.

the kook left is pissed we have NOT had an attack here since 9-11. They dismiss the fact no attacks have taken place - but if an attack did happen they would be the first to blame Pres Bush and his policies

 

[red states rule]

no, it's not safer. especially when your choice can't seem to kill OBL. Instead, sending us into iraq over bullshit intel.

nope. sorry. There is still no peace. There is still no reason to stop waiting for the next 9/11. Pretending otherwise, in light of the last 7 years, is laughable.

Your concept of "victory" is still as ambiguous as your concept of withdrawal. The military did it's job by removing saddam. You expect a miracle by assuming that their presence will create good will towards the US. It is simply not the case today and it won't be the case a year from now when Baghdad will still be as unsafe as it is today despite your claim that there is forward progress.


I don't really care about your opinion or weather you think I want defeat. I don't respect your ability to think critically enough for that water to soak into these ducks feathers. If left up to your kind we'd take the next 50 years to beat our heads into a bloody pulp insisting that the brick wall is about to give way while accusing anyone of walking AROUND the wall of wanting to surrender. Trust me, this far beyond the fruits of your pathetic opinion on foreign policy, your criticism goes about as far as your current success in the mid east.


but, anytime you or one of your fvorite talking heads wants to stroll down the street out of the green zone sans flak vest and military guard then be my guest... You;ll be in danger 6 months from now as you are today as you were last year.

Using your "logic" you have have left Europe after we secured the beaches on D-Day

 

[Shogun]

hitler was an actual threat...


you know... no phantom WMDs needed to convey an ACTUAL threat...

someday you might figure out the difference before tossing out easily returned jabs..

 

[red states rule]

hitler was an actual threat...


you know... no phantom WMDs needed to convey an ACTUAL threat...

someday you might figure out the difference before tossing out easily returned jabs..

Did the Kurds die from the common cold Shogun?

Are the folks still alive, living with the disfigurements from the chemicals unleashed on them - a fraud?

 

[maineman]

Did the Kurds die from the common cold Shogun?

Are the folks still alive, living with the disfigurements from the chemicals unleashed on them - a fraud?

why are the kurds any reason for America to invade Iraq when we have real threats elsewhere?

 

[red states rule]

why are the kurds any reason for America to invade Iraq when we have real threats elsewhere?

Dems called to take Saddam out and said how Saddam had wepaons, and was a threat

We had an election over all these old, tired, and worn out talking point - and you side lost

Give it up

The US is winning in Iraq so you clowns have to try and change the subject

 

[Shogun]

Did the Kurds die from the common cold Shogun?
Are the folks still alive, living with the disfigurements from the chemicals unleashed on them - a fraud?

Did you accept that as an excuse for military conflict when clinton tried that same logic?

no?

we didn't enter iraq for the sake of kurds. WE invaded because of phantom bullshit WMDs. Saddam wasn't in any way the threat to the west that hitler was. Pretending otherwise is laughable.

 

[Shogun]

Dems called to take Saddam out and said how Saddam had wepaons, and was a threat

We had an election over all these old, tired, and worn out talking point - and you side lost

Give it up

The US is winning in Iraq so you clowns have to try and change the subject

You simply can't argue this topic so you toss out frantic bullshit hoping something will stick. I've already told you waht Id do with dems who voted for war. Indeed, we've had elections.. and 06 should tell you a thing or two about whose tired talking points will help whose side lose in 08. YOU may not want to have this conversation because hindsight seriously makes your political viewls tragic and laughable.. Either way, it may be your OPINON that we are "winning" but you sure as hell can't provide tangible evidence of such.. and you SURE as hell won't be walking alone at night in baghdad a year from now without military escort.


Sometimes, dude, it's just better to admit that you made a mistake instead of riding the flaming plane down to the end.

 

[red states rule]

You simply can't argue this topic so you toss out frantic bullshit hoping something will stick. I've already told you waht Id do with dems who voted for war. Indeed, we've had elections.. and 06 should tell you a thing or two about whose tired talking points will help whose side lose in 08. YOU may not want to have this conversation because hindsight seriously makes your political viewls tragic and laughable.. Either way, it may be your OPINON that we are "winning" but you sure as hell can't provide tangible evidence of such.. and you SURE as hell won't be walking alone at night in baghdad a year from now without military escort.


Sometimes, dude, it's just better to admit that you made a mistake instead of riding the flaming plane down to the end.

What mistake?

All the doom and gloom rants from the left are being proven wrong

 

[red states rule]

Did you accept that as an excuse for military conflict when clinton tried that same logic?

no?

we didn't enter iraq for the sake of kurds. WE invaded because of phantom bullshit WMDs. Saddam wasn't in any way the threat to the west that hitler was. Pretending otherwise is laughable.

How about Senator Clinton? "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002.

Did she lie about WMD? If President Bush is a liar, then Senator Clinton is as well.

Let us hear what Charles Schummer said about the threat of Iraq. "[It] is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

Was he misleading himself into voting for the war? Did he lie for oil as President Bush has been accused of?

What of Senator Jay Rockefeller? What did he say about Iraq before Selective Memory Syndrome, a common Leftist malady struck? "We must eliminate that [potential nuclear] threat now before it is too late. But that isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. ... [He] is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

Congressional Record, October 10, 2002

How about failed lifeguard Ted Kennedy? What did he think about Saddam? "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Remarks at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, October 27, 2002

Democratic Senator Chris Dodd had this to say. "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly."

Congressional Record, October 8, 2002

Finally let me close with the words of President Bill Clinton! "In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now — a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"[Let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too." Remarks at the Pentagon, February 17, 1998

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." Remarks at the White House, December 16, 1998

Was Bill Clinton helping Bush mislead Democrats with these words? Was he plotting to assist George W. Bush in misleading us into a war on false pretenses over two years BEFORE Bush was elected? If you are a Leftist then you have to believe this if you believe Bush lied.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hagin/051128

 

[Shogun]

I keep telling you that Id get rid of every dem that swallowed that hook. How many times do you have to hear it? Hilary sure as hell didn't drag the WMDs into the public sphere for invasion in the first place but she did go along with it. Do I strike you as a hilary supporter every time I post a Barak Obama pic or talk about Ron Paul?

Perhaps if you'd stop looking for any way to generalize the left, dude.. It's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the bullshit of your own previous talking points and, therefor, insist on grabbing at dems..


but, at the end of the day, this was still bushs war. This was still the wave that YOUR side created. You won't be walking down the streets of baghdad without military escorts within the next year, I garenfuckingtee. Pointing a finger at hilary wont be your water basin and towel, pilate.

 

[red states rule]

I keep telling you that Id get rid of every dem that swallowed that hook. How many times do you have to hear it? Hilary sure as hell didn't drag the WMDs into the public sphere for invasion in the first place but she did go along with it. Do I strike you as a hilary supporter every time I post a Barak Obama pic or talk about Ron Paul?

Perhaps if you'd stop looking for any way to generalize the left, dude.. It's pretty clear that you don't want to deal with the bullshit of your own previous talking points and, therefor, insist on grabbing at dems..


but, at the end of the day, this was still bushs war. This was still the wave that YOUR side created. You won't be walking down the streets of baghdad without military escorts within the next year, I garenfuckingtee. Pointing a finger at hilary wont be your water basin and towel, pilate.

With the success in Iraq Dems may regret calling it Bush's war. So you like Obama - another appeaser and surrender guy