If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
I see comprehension is not your strong point, so I'll make this as basic and easy to understand as I can so as not to confuse you more. (I didn't have too much trouble getting my 4 year old to understand it, so hopefully you'll be able to pick it up fairly easily...)
ya know, you're right. this is way over my head. my simpleton brain cant integrate your infinite wisdom. I apologize for wasting your time.
trying to show you the truth will obviously do no good. you suck at the teet of rush, hannity and quinn i'm sure, so you already believe what they tell you. our president can do no wrong, at leasat this time around....
This was never the intended reason for going into Iraq. You know this as well as the rest of the US populace.
So all those UN resolutions made before we went in were really made AFTER?? Hrmph. Damn that time-warp!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
Or so we're told.
It's funny how things change, isn't it? No, we didn't think we'd have that many problems afterwards, but we did, and now we're trying to stabilize it. The reason we're there is not the same reason we went. Life is dynamic, do try to keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
Here's where it gets tricky. How are we supposed to keep ourselves safe from terrorists, when our government has this nasty little habit of funding terrorist organizations? Refer to the Iran-Contra affair, Saddam Hussein in the 80s, etc. You really think the people in power of our government are genuinely concerned for the safety of the American people?
Ignorance is bliss.
It's really not that hard to comprehend. Well, so I thought until reading some of the replies here.
Sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils. Take the last Presidential election. Neither were good candidates, but we're better off with Bush than we would have been with Kerry, ergo we picked the lesser of two evils.
Yes, Ignorance IS bliss, isn't it?
BTW, I didn't vote for GW the first round. I'm a recovering democrat, and the main stream democrats are so hell bent on bringing down Bush, they don't give a shit what happens to the US because of it.
Quote:
Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Weapons of Mass Destruction!
Weapons of Mass Destruction!
LMAO!
Talk about stuck on talking points!
Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean that GW lied about them, neither does it mean they weren't there.
BUSH LIED BUSH LIED!!!
Quote:
our president can do no wrong, at leasat this time around....
Cry me a river...
There's a bunch of things I can't stand Bush about. Unfortunately, I believe we have a real problem with RIMs and so does Bush, so I support him on that.
__________________
What's in your sippy cup?
___□ □ □ □_
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)
There's a bunch of things I can't stand Bush about. Unfortunately, I believe we have a real problem with RIMs and so does Bush, so I support him on that.
seriously....dude.....you.....wtf?
if people like you can vote, no wonder we're in this mess. this administration has proved time and time again the superior level of incompetence. yet you choose to ignore the signs and continue to try to right a sinking ship. go down with your ship then sir, just be sure to stop back on this thread in Nov. so I can say....
if people like you can vote, no wonder we're in this mess. this administration has proved time and time again the superior level of incompetence. yet you choose to ignore the signs and continue to try to right a sinking ship. go down with your ship then sir, just be sure to stop back on this thread in Nov. so I can say....
TOLD YA SO!
Oh, whaaaa.
Not only do you have the same comprehension skills as my four year old (I may be giving you more credit than you deserve, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt), you also share his extremely childish behavior. Only when I tell my four year old to stop acting like a three year old, he usually does. Do you need a time-out?
I agree this administration has problems. That's painfully obvious. But no more than any other administration has had, and fewer than many.
At least Bush see's there's a problem with Iran and RIMs and wants to do what he thinks is right to deal with it, even if it's the wrong approach, but at least he's not running away and hoping the problem will solve itself.
Leaving Iraq to the likes of Iran would be a cluster-fuck of biblical proportion.
__________________
What's in your sippy cup?
___□ □ □ □_
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)
Not only do you have the same comprehension skills as my four year old (I may be giving you more credit than you deserve, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt), you also share his extremely childish behavior. Only when I tell my four year old to stop acting like a three year old, he usually does. Do you need a time-out?
...wow, you.....uh...got me there.....so ya wanna try talking about it instead of a feeble attempt to insult me, oh so mature 42 year old?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekd
I agree this administration has problems. That's painfully obvious. But no more than any other administration has had, and fewer than many.
those who smoke crack should share, cause your shits pretty fuckin good dawg!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekd
At least Bush see's there's a problem with Iran and RIMs and wants to do what he thinks is right to deal with it, even if it's the wrong approach, but at least he's not running away and hoping the problem will solve itself.
great, at least he's not running away...instead, its much better to risk more lives and money. great plan, again, on SIMPLY A HOPE it will work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekd
Leaving Iraq to the likes of Iran would be a cluster-fuck of biblical proportion.
whenever we leave, stable gov't or not, Iran will take over anyway. are you really this naive?
here's some more info about your flawless president...
Quote:
Olbermann: A Look Backward at the Commander’s Credibility
Keith Olberman reviews the lack of credibility that has permeated the Commander in Chief on Iraq.
Keith: We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists. The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Transcripts below the fold
Olbermann: President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results.
But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.
Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.
So, let's look at the record:
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.
Now, he says it is vital for America.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.
He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.
In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.
He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.
Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.
Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.
He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.
We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.
As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',
The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.
The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.
And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.
Posts: 493
Casino Cash: $251
Sportbike: SV650S @ 650th Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekd
Wow. Just wow.
I see comprehension is not your strong point, so I'll make this as basic and easy to understand as I can so as not to confuse you more. (I didn't have too much trouble getting my 4 year old to understand it, so hopefully you'll be able to pick it up fairly easily...)
We're in Iraq to
1)remove the dictator. Mission accomplished.
2) (try to) bring stability and rebuild the infrastructure. Getting much better but not done yet. having to fight the MSM's lies makes it harder.
3) have a foothold (militarily) next to Iran and other hostile countries that sponsor terrorists.
How on earth you came up with the notion that nobody can (or has) address(ed) the factional fighting is completely mind boggling.
They'll never stop fighting each other, but with enough force, (the only thing they seem to understand), they will reduce attacks to a more acceptable level. Iran is a very large supporter of the terrorists in Iraq, so we're fighting them via proxy.
That's right they're in iraq because America is perfect and there are no issues here that need to be addresses. That said lets just fix everywhere else right?
You prob voted for him. I thought blind people were the ones that couldn't see.
^same thing as providing food to other countries as our own starve.
Sorry ... I'm back. I had to change my drawers (I peed them) and had to go get my head bandaged up (I banged it on the floor when I fell over laughing) and I had to get the stitches in my side of course ... but I'm OK now.
When's the last time someone starved to death in the US?
__________________
What's in your sippy cup?
___□ □ □ □_
[l_,[____],
l---L - OlllllllO-
( )_) ( )_)--)_)
That's right they're in iraq because America is perfect and there are no issues here that need to be addresses. That said lets just fix everywhere else right?
You prob voted for him. I thought blind people were the ones that couldn't see.
To hell with Japan and Hitler! We have our own problems!
Posts: 9,283
Casino Cash: $18495
Sportbike: Katana - Sold 8/08
Rekd, I'm sure you know better about the situation in Iraq than every other military serviceperson, military officer, and cheif of staff that has adamantly disagreed with this new troop movement.
The sarcasm should speak for itself. If the guys "in the shit" are saying it's a bad move, I'm going to stick with my instinct and believe them over some GW-sympathetic keyboard warrior.
Maybe you missed the fact that most of Congress, the miltary, and US population isn't behind the W on this one.
