Bin Laden Directing Iraq?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Next time you talk to bin laden, tell him that Rudy is coming.

Will Rudy be wearing a dress for that occasion?

I’m sure that would freak out OBL.
[/quote]

I think more of a guy with a sense of humor!!!

I’ve been meaning to tell you that I laugh every time you guys fail in your secession bid.

You can’t even manage to secede from Canada!!!

Sad and funny at the same time.

Sad that you can’t muster the sack to make it happen.

Funny that you spend all your time lecturing Americans on the use of force.

JeffR

22

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’re willing to trust people who announce ‘we’ve lost’ to an enemy, while our men are still in the field? You trust power hungry politicians? Good luck to you.[/quote]

After 4 years of nearly no progress, and with no workable plan to improve the situation in the future, there comes a point where enough is enough. How long do you bang your head in a wall before figuring out that the wall doesn’t care and can outlast your head?

It’s not as if you’re surrendering the country and will have Iraqis marching into DC to take over. You ran away from Vietnam and the planet kept spinning. It won’t stop this time either.

You’re stuck in the middle of a civil war. Pull out and let them settle it. You’re just getting in the way of them killing each other.

Maybe you could finish Afghanistan right while you’re waiting for the dust to settle? You sure could use the practice in waging a war correctly.

“Little” being the key word there. Sheesh.

23

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I think more of a guy with a sense of humor!!![/quote]

Doing it once can be funny. Doing it repeatedly quickly gets you into the weird zone.

But hey, whatever turns you on…

[quote]I’ve been meaning to tell you that I laugh every time you guys fail in your secession bid.

You can’t even manage to secede from Canada!!!

Sad and funny at the same time.

Sad that you can’t muster the sack to make it happen.[/quote]

Well, being oppressed by Canada is not that bad. It’s hard to muster some sack when you’re already pretty comfortable.

Anyway, with the sad sacks of shit we get to choose from for prime ministers in Quebec, I think we’re better off having Harper running part of the show.

The way you use it, I think you need all the lecturing you can get. I mean, come on, you’re letting piddly little Iraq mock you daily. You toppled the evil villain and disbanded the army and still you can’t get any results.

You want to see people who can’t muster enough sack? Look no further than your own leaders.

24

[quote]pookie wrote:

Maybe you could finish Afghanistan right while you’re waiting for the dust to settle? You sure could use the practice in waging a war correctly.
[/quote]

This is funny to me… The U.S. Military is good at one thing, and one thing only… WINNING. This is precisely what we did during the initial engagement in Iraq (nevermind the folks that stepped back into the wood-work, only to come out later). We kicked ass… the problem is with the sustainment phase of this mission - it is absolutely hosed!

Unfortunately, a large portion of this is attributable to the Democrats and the liberal media who have succeeded in undermining our troops (tieing their hands, exploiting bad conduct, etc) and our country at EVERY turn. We have fueled the fire from within… the islamofacist scum running around in the middle east are laughing at us; at our shear ignorance and inability to follow through with what we said we would… Sadly many of you folks don’t understand the repercussions of not having this thing go our way.

25

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ren wrote:
if there is any al-qaeda in Iraq, thank GWB.

Come on dems.

You can do better than “It’s George’s fault.”

Or, the canadian’s perspective.

I was hoping for some serious analysis.

Something along the lines of: “Today is April 25th, 2007 and if we leave, this will happen.”

Or even, some self-reflection.

I see one hell of a lot of Republicans critical of Republicans.

I see NEXT TO NOTHING being said by democrats about democrats.

If we are going to have real dialogue, there must be at LEAST an appearance of open discussion.

There are a few guys on here that SIMPLY CANNOT be happy with pelosi in Syria or the dems trying to cut funding. You CANNOT be happy with reid waffling about meeting with W. to discuss the issues and being openly supportive of your colleague meeting assad of syria.

Throw out the bradley’s and the renny’s.

I just have to believe that a few of you dems have SECRETLY had some misgivings about your party’s direction.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but, I expect more from guys like fighting irish and beowolf than “it’s all George’s fault.”

JeffR

[/quote]

Do you want a 1000 point essay on the mismanagement of the war and the failed strategies implemented?

We can go over everything that the US military has fucked up in the war, but at the end of the day, the President gave the order, he is the “decision-maker” as he likes to say, he made the call, so he sure as hell can take the blame.

26

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ren wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Reid (especially) and Nancy should be put on trial for treason.

For disagreeing with the war? Or what exactly is your reason behind that?

What would you think of a US Senator if he said, in 1942, that the war is lost? Japan has beaten us. The Nazis and Hirohito can now take over.

Traitors, all of them.

[/quote]

WW2 is a bad analogy, it was a real war at least.

anyways, how about what DeLay said back in 1999 while Clinton was in office and we were fighting in Kosovo:

?[Milosevic is] stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ? The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He?s much stronger with his allies, Russians and others.? Clinton ?has no plan for the end? and ?recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power,? added DeLay.

?The bombing was a mistake. ? And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end.?

and

?I cannot support a failed foreign policy. ? President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the US military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military-foreign policy precedent.

Was it worth it to stay in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far? Absolutely nothing.? ? Tom DeLay on the House floor in April 1999, when US troops were a month into their three-month mission in Kosovo

And for those of you that haven’t looked it up in a while, the definition of treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

27

[quote]b25 wrote:
pookie wrote:

Maybe you could finish Afghanistan right while you’re waiting for the dust to settle? You sure could use the practice in waging a war correctly.

This is funny to me… The U.S. Military is good at one thing, and one thing only… WINNING. This is precisely what we did during the initial engagement in Iraq (nevermind the folks that stepped back into the wood-work, only to come out later). We kicked ass… the problem is with the sustainment phase of this mission - it is absolutely hosed!

Unfortunately, a large portion of this is attributable to the Democrats and the liberal media who have succeeded in undermining our troops (tieing their hands, exploiting bad conduct, etc) and our country at EVERY turn. We have fueled the fire from within… the islamofacist scum running around in the middle east are laughing at us; at our shear ignorance and inability to follow through with what we said we would… Sadly many of you folks don’t understand the repercussions of not having this thing go our way.
[/quote]

The politicians who stab our soldiers in the back while they risk their lives for us will someday be called to account for their betrayal. To announce, as Reid that “The War is lost!” costs American lives. It increases our enemy’s determination and gives them hope.

He, Reid, is a traitorous dog.

28

[quote]b25 wrote:
This is funny to me… The U.S. Military is good at one thing, and one thing only… WINNING. This is precisely what we did during the initial engagement in Iraq (nevermind the folks that stepped back into the wood-work, only to come out later). We kicked ass… the problem is with the sustainment phase of this mission - it is absolutely hosed![/quote]

If a mission calls for the army to do 2 or 3 different phases, and the army is only able to do one of them, shouldn’t those who are planning the war postpone it until they figure out how to wage all of it?

There has been so much stupidity, ignorance and cultural insensivity displayed by those at the top, it’s no wonder you’re in deep shit in Iraq. Those planning the war knew nothing about Iraq, nothing about it’s people, culture or mores. They’ve been wrong about every prediction they made for the last 4 years.

Of course, it’s the democrats fault. It’s the democrats who converted part of the population to Kurdism and split the rest unevenly between Sunni and Shia. It’s the democrats who moved all the oil to the southern part of the country. It’s the democrat who keep the borders open for Iran and Syria…

The republicans had control of both houses and presidency until 2006. Tell me how they were prevented to do what they needed to do except by their own stupidity and incompetence. AMERICAN VOTERS gave back both houses to democrats and I would bet, will also give them the presidency at the next election because such incompetency and stupidity borders on the criminal. Not everyone is deaf, dumb and blind.

How could it go your way? It was misplanned, misguided, mismanaged from day 1. You expect to fuck up every step of the way and still get to destination? This ain’t a fucking movie where America always pulls it off in the end, this is the real world.

29

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To announce, as Reid that “The War is lost!” costs American lives. It increases our enemy’s determination and gives them hope.

He, Reid, is a traitorous dog.[/quote]

Well, then, I guess when we try and hang him for treason, we can have Bush at his side being tried for his “Bring’em on” comments. I’m sure challenging your enemies publicly emboldened quite a few of them and cost American lives too. Bush already admitted he was wrong about that, it’s only a matter of tallying up the resulting dead.

30

[quote]Ren wrote:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.[/quote]

Reid comforted them. They became comfortable that our leadership is weak and indecisive. They are now comfortable that homicide bombings do the trick.

Now that they know that homicide bombings are a useful tool, when will they try it (again) here, and more of them?

Reid should be arrested and put on trial at once.

31

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:
Yup, it would’ve been smart to exterminate Al-Quaida when we had them surrounded in Tora Bora in Afghanistan. Instead dummbass #1 and dumbass #2 decided it was time to invade Iraq and started the current BS war.[/quote]

Wow. An original thought…albeit one taken directly from every speech John Kerry made in 2004.

32

[quote]Ren wrote:
if there is any al-qaeda in Iraq, thank GWB. [/quote]

Okay. THANKS, GWB! Al-Qaeda is in Iraq…not downtown Manhattan!

33

Ask yourselves this: IF Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, President of Iran, Kim Jung Il, anyone out there who has an overarching desire to kill Americans…IF any of these people had a vote, who do you think they’d vote for? We all KNOW they pimped for Kerry in '04.

They fucking LOVE what Pelosi and Reid are doing for them now. Don’t you think they’ll line up and stump for Obama’s appeasement policies in '08? You bet. Does it acutally make SENSE to you dumb fuckers that you support the same people that people who want you DEAD support? Fucking idiots. Seriously, the stupidity is absolutely mind-boggling.

34

[quote]ren wrote:
JeffR wrote:
ren wrote:
if there is any al-qaeda in Iraq, thank GWB.

Come on dems.

You can do better than “It’s George’s fault.”

Or, the canadian’s perspective.

I was hoping for some serious analysis.

Something along the lines of: “Today is April 25th, 2007 and if we leave, this will happen.”

Or even, some self-reflection.

I see one hell of a lot of Republicans critical of Republicans.

I see NEXT TO NOTHING being said by democrats about democrats.

If we are going to have real dialogue, there must be at LEAST an appearance of open discussion.

There are a few guys on here that SIMPLY CANNOT be happy with pelosi in Syria or the dems trying to cut funding. You CANNOT be happy with reid waffling about meeting with W. to discuss the issues and being openly supportive of your colleague meeting assad of syria.

Throw out the bradley’s and the renny’s.

I just have to believe that a few of you dems have SECRETLY had some misgivings about your party’s direction.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but, I expect more from guys like fighting irish and beowolf than “it’s all George’s fault.”

JeffR

Do you want a 1000 point essay on the mismanagement of the war and the failed strategies implemented?

We can go over everything that the US military has fucked up in the war, but at the end of the day, the President gave the order, he is the “decision-maker” as he likes to say, he made the call, so he sure as hell can take the blame.[/quote]

renny,

That is why I made a point to throw you out as the low value in the analysis.

Simply put, your analysis sucks. Even if the first four years were completely Bush’s fault, you simply have no ability to think beyond.

You completely ignore the fact that the dems control Congress and many of us feel they are doing quite a bit of harm.

Further, even if one takes all your conspiracy crap (Iraq was peaceful and had no support of terrorism in 2003) at face value, it still doesn’t address the conditions today.

Again, this is why I threw you out as an objective observer.

JeffR

35

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Ren wrote:
if there is any al-qaeda in Iraq, thank GWB.

Okay. THANKS, GWB! Al-Qaeda is in Iraq…not downtown Manhattan![/quote]

Sorry, DS,

You just don’t get it. GWB is worse than the terrorists. In fact, he created this entire conflict. He’s more of a risk to world peace than al qaeda.

Signed,

Fools.

36

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now that they know that homicide bombings are a useful tool, when will they try it (again) here, and more of them?[/quote]

Yeah, they weren’t sure that exploding car in crowds of people would have any effect, they had to run experiments to confirm the efficiency of the method.

And while they had tons of occasion to try it here, they politely decided to test it out in Iraq first, so as to not disturb the neighbors needlessly in case the method turned out to be a dud. Sensitive people, those terrorists.

And how fair would it be to try it here while a large portion of your National Guard is away? Asymmetric warfare is, after all, based on fairness and not playing dirty.

Yup, your views sure make a lot of sense. You should run for office.

37

[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Ask yourselves this: IF Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, President of Iran, Kim Jung Il, anyone out there who has an overarching desire to kill Americans…IF any of these people had a vote, who do you think they’d vote for? We all KNOW they pimped for Kerry in '04. [/quote]

Why not do away with all that democracy crap? Instead, let’s poll all the rogue nations and ask who they’d like in office and then (and this is the master stroke of this plan) name King of the US the other candidate?

38

Another pathetic troll thread by Jeff.

ROTFLMFAO!

Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any credibility on Iraq.

We F’ed up and we are now on the wrong side of history.

39

[quote]pookie wrote:
DS 007 wrote:
Ask yourselves this: IF Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, President of Iran, Kim Jung Il, anyone out there who has an overarching desire to kill Americans…IF any of these people had a vote, who do you think they’d vote for? We all KNOW they pimped for Kerry in '04.

Why not do away with all that democracy crap? Instead, let’s poll all the rogue nations and ask who they’d like in office and then (and this is the master stroke of this plan) name King of the US the other candidate?
[/quote]

That’s it? That’s your retort?

40

the major problem with this is the fact that both Dems and Rep are power hungry dogs that care about the next election more than the state of America. The war in Iraq was a BAD idea that hurt the US.

Pulling out now I think is just a bad idea and saying that we lost and are defeated is wrong. But to say were doing just fine in Iraq, and standing in front of banner saying mission accomplished is the same as the Iraqis saying that they are driving out the invading dogs when we are pulling down the Sadam statues in Baghdad.

truth be told it’s a bad situation and no one has a honest solution to the problem.

truth be told it’s a bad situation and no one has a honest solution to the problem.