What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

[TheStripey1]

no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties. And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.

Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you?

perhaps it is his insatiable blood lust... or it's how he gets his vicarious thrills...

 

[TheStripey1]

I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards

IF you think they aren't fighting hard enough, why don't you enlist and go show them how it's done?

Are you too afraid to actually walk your BIG talk?

 

[TheStripey1]

Everytime the troops take on the terrorists we have libs ranting about their conduct

Did they torture, did they kill innocent civilians, did they have to kill the terrorists, ect, ect

Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of your family? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?

 

[red states rule]

Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of your family? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?

Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well

Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not

 

[maineman]

you've got as lot of room to talk about the troops...YOu are the one who claimed you like to see them work harder than they do.... all from the comfort of your trailer. ******* chickenhawk coward.

 

[mattskramer]

Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well

Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not

Too bad for these people. War is hell. Let's bring out the nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

 

[musicman]

If the purpose of this reply was to show how smart YOU are, then you failed... But I bet you're good at failure... aren't ya?

You possess an amazing gift, Stripey. You can appear to be replying to a post - without actually having SAID anything. And you haven't, you know. You practically messed yourself, fawning over Rosotar's post of a Joe Conason article in which he purportedly "explains" Iran-Contra. I called Joe Conason a ******* liar, and then explained why. And all I get from you is, "Since I don't understand what you're talking about, you must be crazy", or "You're just trying to show everybody how smart you are". Look - I'm not saying I'm the smartest thing to ever come out of the flyover states. But, I know when someone's pissing in my pocket and trying to tell me it's raining. I'll say it again: Joe Conason is a ******* liar.

Thoughts?

 

[Gunny]

IF all you were looking for were non partisan people, why did you lament all the while about partisan democrats? with no mention of your own party's partisan members?

One, you are incorrect in that I do not ***** about blind partisanship among Republicans. However, I am one of those used-to-be-a-Democrat, moderate liberals who had a political party stolen out from under me by extremsits. The evidence is I used to be called a liberal, hippy, etc, and while my views haven't changed, my label has, just as you are labelling me.

I hammer the shit out of Republicans all the time. Perhaps you just don't see it because it doesn't affect YOU?

I am not a Republican and that is not my party. I vote Republican becuase they suck less than Democrats.

You come up with a party that has some common sense and is interested in addressing the issues that confront us as a people and Nation today, and I'll vote for THAT party.

Which party was in control congress for the last 6 years? Yours. Did they vote along party lines rubber stamping everything bush wanted without ANY oversight? Yes.

In truth? The Democrats controlled Congress. They did not have the majority, but the Republicans were too much a bunch of pussies to do anything.

Partisans... they are the bane of our political system. It would be nice if they set their partisanship aside but, don't count on one party doing it while the other doesn't...

Non-partisanship is a two way street.

Do you think there is a chance that your side will see that?

Again, I'm on MY side, and I can easily rise above partisanship to do what's right. Why does it never occur to you that maybe I disagree with today's liberals because what they want to do is wrong?

The really funny thing to me in all this is Bush was about as bipartisan a Governor as one could be. You don't get to be Governor of Texas for two consecutive terms if you don't cater to the Dems. You'll be out on your ear. He went to Washington with that mentality, and the first time he told Dem's no, it was on.

So yeah, it's a two-way street -- something your party left back in the 60s with it's common sense and moderation.

 

[Gunny]

After they've had democracy for as long as we have, then they can take 2 month vacations... and also AFTER our troops are no longer dying to give them a chance.

If they want to go on vacation, we ought to leave while they do it.

That's what I said. I just wasn't so ornery about it.

 

[Gunny]

you, gunny, aren't the only one reading these words... catch my drift?

waves to the lurkers...

How much time should we give the Iraqi government to get their act together? the answer should be in the form of a number followed by a time increment...
How many americans will die during that time? this answer should only be a number... hopefully a number that does not include anyone you know.

when did you fight the Iraqis, gunny?

I have no problem with the President and/or the military having a plan that includes withdrawal timelines. I have a problem with the media and the enemy having those plans. In the President's position, if I DID have a plan, YOU and everyone else wouldn't be privvy to it so it could be broadcast to every corner and crevice in the world.

That's not the way to do business, and being a bet, you KNOW that.

I was in the First Gulf War. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Gunny]

Are you in favor of killing innocent civilians? What if those innocent civilians were members of your family? Would you still be inclined to help the occupiers? Or would you join up with the insurgents?

Innocent civilians die in war. That's just a fact. Regrettable, but fact.

Now if you were to as "Are you in favor of "targetting" innocent civilians?" then I would have to say HELL NO. That's wrong, not to mention illegal.

It is also a BIG difference between us and our current enemy who does.

 

[Gunny]

Since you claim to have served if the enemy hides among civilians - they can be killed as well

Wrong. The target must be determined to be valuable to warrant the death of X number of noncombatants. You cannot just walk into a house where gunfire was coming from after killing the sniper and murder everyone else.

Libs like you will never miss a chance to blame the military for anything they can - real or not

Unless, I miss my guess, he isn't blaming the military. He is blaming war itself.

 

[Gunny]

you've got as lot of room to talk about the troops...YOu are the one who claimed you like to see them work harder than they do.... all from the comfort of your trailer. ******* chickenhawk coward.

WHO the **** said THAT? Troops don't work hard enough?

Somebody needs their head twisted off.

 

[maineman]

I saddens me and I want the troops to fight back harder

as if they are not fighting back hard enough now?

you want an awful lot from guys and gals who are doing what you, yourself, have never had the courage to do!

 

[Gunny]

as if they are not fighting back hard enough now?

you want an awful lot from guys and gals who are doing what you, yourself, have never had the courage to do!

I take personal offense to that statement. Troops fight when and where told. They don't create orders, they carry them out. And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110%.

I expect an apology.

 

[maineman]

I take personal offense to that statement. Troops fight when and where told. They don't create orders, they carry them out. And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110%.

I expect an apology.

let me get this straight, my jarheaded friend...you expect an apology from RSR?

I KNOW you are smarter than that. newsbots cannot apologize!

 

[red states rule]

I take personal offense to that statement. Troops fight when and where told. They don't create orders, they carry them out. And minus the ten percent of dirtbags that exist in all walks of society, I have NEVER seen one give less than 110%.

I expect an apology.

You should know by now NEVER depend on MM for facts.

Here is the post

Originally Posted by maineman
no....I merely threw up the bullshit flag when you claimed a 60% decrease in casualties. And you know it is bullshit...and has been since the minute you asserted it...and you do not have the balls to admit when you are wrong.

Every american death in Iraq saddens me.... I am curious why they do not sadden you?

I saddnes me and I want the troops to fight back harder and kill the bastards

You smile and think how the Dems will benefit in 08





I want the US government to take the handcuffs off the troops and turn them loose on the terrorists

I want the US to win in Iraq

MM wants them to surrender and come home defeated

 

[maineman]

no....you clearly say you want them to "fight harder" which equally clearly shows that you do not think there are presently fighting as hard as they could.

easy to say from the comforts of hiome...easy to say for someone who has never served.

 

[red states rule]

no....you clearly say you want them to "fight harder" which equally clearly shows that you do not think there are presently fighting as hard as they could.

easy to say from the comforts of hiome...easy to say for someone who has never served.

and you left out the fact I wanted the to kill the terrorists

Meanewhile you want them to surrender - you would probably be happy to sign the surrender papers for the US

 

[maineman]

and you left out the fact I wanted the to kill the terrorists

Meanewhile you want them to surrender - you would probably be happy to sign the surrender papers for the US

well...I certainly don't think you want them to kill the doctors and nurses....of course you want them to kill the terrorists....I would never suggest otherwise...But also...you clearly think they need to fight harder than they are fighting. Who they are fighting is immaterial to the fact that you think they are relatively lazy and need to, somehow, fight harder.

and again....who are we surrendering to? WHo are these "terrorists" - these handful of deadenders in their final throes - that are capable of taking over the country of Iraq from an AMerican trained armed force?