Be Brave --- Tell Us All You Want to Lose in Iraq
-
Le Centriste wrote:
I think the goal here for the Democrats is that U.S. young people must stop dying there.
actually the goal for the dems is to gain power. they're using this as a way to manipulate people.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
Hmmm so are you implying that the Republicans are not using similar strategies?
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
I know it is of no consequence, because the other countries are too weak compared to you. So, you take whatever decision you want, without caring on the side effectes on the countries who do not want to be involved in it. The only reason Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is because you dragged them there, so they don't fight you on American soil. The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power. -- modified at 18:54 Wednesday 2nd May, 2007
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power.
George Bush has the dubious distinction of having killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein did.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power.
George Bush has the dubious distinction of having killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam Hussein did.
No, in fact, he hasn't.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I know it is of no consequence, because the other countries are too weak compared to you. So, you take whatever decision you want, without caring on the side effectes on the countries who do not want to be involved in it. The only reason Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is because you dragged them there, so they don't fight you on American soil. The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power. -- modified at 18:54 Wednesday 2nd May, 2007
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
The only reason Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is because you dragged them there, so they don't fight you on American soil. The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power.
We didn't drag them there. They came of their own accord because a successful establishement of a stable democracy in Iraq would be devastating to their cause, just as it would to Irans ambitions. They have no choice but to fight us there. Tactically, that was a brilliant, even if unintional, move on our part. Most of the innocents dieing in Iraq are being killed by their fellow muslims, not by us. Which is why the Iraqis are increasingly turning against the terrorists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Those of you who are taking the stance that the US needs to exit Iraq in accordance with the Democrat timetable, please step forward and claim your allegiance --- if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, please so state for all of us to see. It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose. C'mon, boys, step up to the plate. Here's your chance.
John P.
So according to you, setting a timetable for our withdrawal is equivalent to losing? When is setting a timetable considered a good thing? Why should we continue wasting our limited precious resources indefinitely to intervene on someone else's affairs inside their own land? And for nothing in return? Talk about a losing proposition. The timetable is actually a smart strategy, when you think about it: 1. It sends a clear signal to the Iraqis, those that want us there and those that don't, that we don't intend to occupy their land indefinetely. Those that don't want us there because of all trouble we've brought them, will finally get some hope of peace in their lives. Those that don't want us there and have been fighting us, may finally decide to give the violence a rest. Those that want us there will finally feel the need to begin preparing for a day when we're no longer there for them. In other words, the Iraqis may actually get their country back in order as a result. Nothing else has worked. 2. It tells the American people that our involvement in this conflict is finally going to end. We would breathe a sigh of relief and the families of the soldiers would rejoice. The soldiers would begin looking forward and preparing to put an end to their struggle. It might actually inspire them to finish their duties in Iraq with a better disposition. 3. Bush would finally do something right for the nation (instead of just his corporate cronies). Who knows, this might give the next Republican presidential candidate a chance against whatever breathing human decides to run against him. So you see, it's a winning strategy. Face it: four years of violence says that there's very little chance we'll ever leave that place any other way. Doing it sooner is a lot better than later.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
-
Le Centriste wrote:
The only reason Al-Qaeda is in Iraq is because you dragged them there, so they don't fight you on American soil. The problem is that thousands of innocent people are dying because of this. Far more than when Hussein was in power.
We didn't drag them there. They came of their own accord because a successful establishement of a stable democracy in Iraq would be devastating to their cause, just as it would to Irans ambitions. They have no choice but to fight us there. Tactically, that was a brilliant, even if unintional, move on our part. Most of the innocents dieing in Iraq are being killed by their fellow muslims, not by us. Which is why the Iraqis are increasingly turning against the terrorists.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Those Iraqis would still be alive if you wouldn't have gone there, period.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Those of you who are taking the stance that the US needs to exit Iraq in accordance with the Democrat timetable, please step forward and claim your allegiance --- if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, please so state for all of us to see. It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose. C'mon, boys, step up to the plate. Here's your chance.
John P.
-
Those Iraqis would still be alive if you wouldn't have gone there, period.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
We have tolerated the deaths of innocents in order to defeat bad guys for a very,very long time now. To suggest that we should not be doing likewise now brings into question similar efforts in earlier wars. This might not be the ideal war in the ideal time and place, but it is the one we have and we should determine to win it. In addition, the killing that would ensue after a withdrawel of US forces might well dwarf anything the Iraqis have yet experienced.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Those of you who are taking the stance that the US needs to exit Iraq in accordance with the Democrat timetable, please step forward and claim your allegiance --- if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, please so state for all of us to see. It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose. C'mon, boys, step up to the plate. Here's your chance.
John P.
plate? whats for dinner?
-
Those of you who are taking the stance that the US needs to exit Iraq in accordance with the Democrat timetable, please step forward and claim your allegiance --- if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, please so state for all of us to see. It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose. C'mon, boys, step up to the plate. Here's your chance.
John P.
Given the US's reasons for being there, and actions since being there, yes, I want the US to loose. By doing so it will also save the lives of a lot of US troops, pointlessly wasted on a ficticous mission. As for the people of Iraq, its their future, let them partition the shit hole, or blow it all to hell.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Sunni and Shia have been fighting longer than Catholics and Protestants.
Any “exit strategy” announcement will likely include words along these lines…
Who is the creator? Finding Allah (Video) Surah Al-An'aam (Ayah 74-110)
Do you: 1) Assume every one in the west is a catholic or a protestant? If so, you are badly wrong. Most people here think all religions suck. 2) Think that historical violence between catholic and protestant excuses hostoric violence between Shia and Suni?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
We have tolerated the deaths of innocents in order to defeat bad guys for a very,very long time now. To suggest that we should not be doing likewise now brings into question similar efforts in earlier wars. This might not be the ideal war in the ideal time and place, but it is the one we have and we should determine to win it. In addition, the killing that would ensue after a withdrawel of US forces might well dwarf anything the Iraqis have yet experienced.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
The important thing is that America is safe, whatever non-american lives it takes to achieve that goal.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In addition, the killing that would ensue after a withdrawel of US forces might well dwarf anything the Iraqis have yet experienced.
I think you are right here. But you got yourself into this.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Those of you who are taking the stance that the US needs to exit Iraq in accordance with the Democrat timetable, please step forward and claim your allegiance --- if you want the US to lose the war in Iraq, please so state for all of us to see. It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose. C'mon, boys, step up to the plate. Here's your chance.
John P.
jparken wrote:
It's time you show who wants to win and who wants to lose.
What exactly is there to win? You're fixing your own bloody mistakes. That's not winning. Had your president really been intent on winning, he would've annihilated aQ and the talibans (which weren't present in Iraq before the invasion - go figure).
-
Hmmm so are you implying that the Republicans are not using similar strategies?
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
Hmmm so are you implying that the Republicans are not using similar strategies?
yes, the repubs are using similar strategies, however they're just not using the war.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
-
Do you: 1) Assume every one in the west is a catholic or a protestant? If so, you are badly wrong. Most people here think all religions suck. 2) Think that historical violence between catholic and protestant excuses hostoric violence between Shia and Suni?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Well, I for one, interpreted his statements to mean that when we do pull out due to it being unwinnable, we'll be citing the Shia Suni violence as the cause.
This statement was never false.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
U.S. had nothing to do in Iraq in the first place.
What about oil? :confused:
Le Centriste wrote:
I think the goal here for the Democrats is that U.S. young people must stop dying there.
Democrats have always looked upon the military with complete and utter disdain. Their goals have nothing to do with keeping them from dying. In fact, they're exploiting them for political gain.
Red Stateler wrote:
What about oil?
What about it?
This statement was never false.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
U.S. had nothing to do in Iraq in the first place.
Maybe. But considering how much the al quida goons are commited to defeating us there, I'd say we picked the right fight. We should fight them when ever and where ever they choose to oppose us. Iraq is as good a place as any to do that. Iran would be better though. Or Pakistan. Or Syria. Or Saudi Arabia.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
This is something I've never understood. We choose to fight the terrorists in someone elses country. So that country's people can die in the crossfire instead of our own. So, in affect, we're saying that the Iraqi people aren't worth anything. That we can just use their country for a battle ground against people that weren't there before we arrived. This war has probably killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam. I wonder what it is we've done for them.
This statement was never false.
-
Too late. I beat you. It is now you who sucks.
So sayeth the faulty vaccuum.
This statement was never false.
-
This is something I've never understood. We choose to fight the terrorists in someone elses country. So that country's people can die in the crossfire instead of our own. So, in affect, we're saying that the Iraqi people aren't worth anything. That we can just use their country for a battle ground against people that weren't there before we arrived. This war has probably killed more Iraqi citizens than Saddam. I wonder what it is we've done for them.
This statement was never false.
The isn't what happened at all. We invaded Iraq becuase Saddam was a dangerous, unstable madman unwilling to comply with numerous UN mandates and contained only by the presence of massive military force. I opposed the invasion, but not because it was not perfectal justified both militarily,politically and legally. After we had successfully liberated Iraq from Saddam's tyranny, then, other powers in the region, includeing Iran, Syria and al queda, instigated violent terrorist activities to prevent a successful transition to a stable democractic government. The fight with terrorism was brought to us, we did not intentionally invite it. But we are now engaged there. Effectively, there is no difference in us fighting Islamic fundamentalims in IRaq than there was fighting Nazis in France or Japanese in the Phillipines. It is they who choose to make Iraq an issue they wish to fight for. We should oblige them.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Hmmm so are you implying that the Republicans are not using similar strategies?
yes, the repubs are using similar strategies, however they're just not using the war.
Silence is the voice of complicity. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. -- monty python Might I suggest that the universe was always the size of the cosmos. It is just that at one point the cosmos was the size of a marble. -- Colin Angus Mackay
ahz wrote:
yes, the repubs are using similar strategies, however they're just not using the war.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement though, is it.. that your best distinction is that one group is using different means to the same ends as the other group.. Seriously, both parties in this country are f***ed and so are the American people for following them. I don't really see it ever going another direction though. Opinion is too easy to control.
Cheers, Patrick