This seems to reflect what I’m seeing:
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Peace as in submission.
S-L-M, the root from which the word Islam is derived is also the root for both Salam (peace) and Tasleem (submission) in Arabic. So, you’re absolutely right. The concept of submitting to God - and to God alone - is essential in Islam (as in every other monotheistic religion).
What about those of us that do not want to submit to god?[/quote]
I’m pretty sure people who rebel against God go to hell with the rest of the rebelling angels…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Anyways. Remember how Hillary painted the General as a liar? Now, that news outlets are reporting this dramatic amount of progress, she comes out looking the fool. Foot in mouth. This will come back to haunt her white house bid. In fact, this will end up being her downfall. Gen. Petraeus is widely respected by the public, but she took a gamble, and lost.
[i]At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday’s Times, attacking Petraeus’ honor as a man and as a soldier.
How disgusting was it?
Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she’d have “preferred that they won’t do such an ad.”
But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.
And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation."[/i]
By the way, read the entire article. Times sure did give move-on a rather huge discount to place the Betray-us ad. Hmmmm.
Another quote.
"But Hillary’s slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. “There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation,” said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. “I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander.”[/quote]
She lost what gamble? Has the surge’s goal been met? Of course, I guess it’s possible that turning Iraq into a multi-multi-multi-multi-multi-faction warlord state was your original hope, but it kind of more makes Hillary’s point, (predictable) failure.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Anyways. Remember how Hillary painted the General as a liar? Now, that news outlets are reporting this dramatic amount of progress, she comes out looking the fool. Foot in mouth. This will come back to haunt her white house bid. In fact, this will end up being her downfall. Gen. Petraeus is widely respected by the public, but she took a gamble, and lost.
[i]At issue was the MoveOn ad, published in Monday’s Times, attacking Petraeus’ honor as a man and as a soldier.
How disgusting was it?
Even Pelosi, one of the most left-wing speakers ever, said she’d have “preferred that they won’t do such an ad.”
But Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it, she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday.
And she slammed him (and Ambassador Ryan Crocker) as “de facto spokesmen for a failed policy,” pointedly refusing to criticize the ad - which called him an outright liar who’d “betray” his nation."[/i]
By the way, read the entire article. Times sure did give move-on a rather huge discount to place the Betray-us ad. Hmmmm.
Another quote.
"But Hillary’s slur was an effective way to provide aid and comfort to MoveOn. “There is no greater slander to a soldier than an accusation of betrayal to his nation,” said Sen. John McCain, a Vietnam War hero and Republican presidential contender in his own right. “I do not understand why those seeking to be commander-in-chief have yet to forcefully denounce, in their own words, this McCarthyite attack on our commander.”
She lost what gamble? Has the surge’s goal been met? Of course, I guess it’s possible that turning Iraq into a multi-multi-multi-multi-multi-faction warlord state was your original hope, but it kind of more makes Hillary’s point, (predictable) failure.
[/quote]
So you think Gen. Petraeus is a liar, too? Violence is trending down. Way down.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uh, we’re bribing them?
[/quote]
If so, they don’t hate us enough not to take our cash, weapons, or whatever we are bribing them with. Contrast that with Al-Sadr’s position.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If so, they don’t hate us enough not to take our cash, weapons, or whatever we are bribing them with. Contrast that with Al-Sadr’s position.[/quote]
Interesting point. But you’re missing the fact that Al-Sadr wouldn’t have refused cash and weapons from the US. It’s rather Sadr’s association with Tehran that would prevent the US from considering supporting the guy.
Of course, with all the failed attempts on his life, it’s safe to say that he won’t be thrilled at the prospect of working with you.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So you think Gen. Petraeus is a liar, too? Violence is trending down. Way down.[/quote]
“Liar too” You and the post made this up. Easier to just quote her directly instead of adding the venom.
The issue was would he give a full accurate assessment, as he had not done in the past (how them security forces coming?).
Also the goal in Iraq is not 6 fewer insurgent attacks last week vs. a year ago. You do get the actual issue is the political future of Iraq and its effect on our interests? You do realize a warlord state is not a jeffersonian democracy, and the only way to say things are going well is to have utterly destroyed and buried the goalposts. How are you going to get 3 sides to reconcile when those 3 sides are divided into hundreds of factions, divided even with our help, since it suits our current tactics. If Iraq goes the way of Basra (100 militias plus!)then the iraqi people are doomed (and forgot about resolving the refugee crisis!). Of course it goes without saying that this was entirely predictable, and even the dirtiest hippy blogger could have told you this 6 years ago, but nevermind that.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uh, we’re bribing them?
If so, they don’t hate us enough not to take our cash, weapons, or whatever we are bribing them with. Contrast that with Al-Sadr’s position.[/quote]
Uhmmm they’re getting cash and free weapons so that when they’re done defeating aqi (they’ve already declared victory over us) they’ll be able to take on the Shia. Don’t know if this is something to brag about.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uh, we’re bribing them?
If so, they don’t hate us enough not to take our cash, weapons, or whatever we are bribing them with. Contrast that with Al-Sadr’s position.
Uhmmm they’re getting cash and free weapons so that when they’re done defeating aqi (they’ve already declared victory over us) they’ll be able to take on the Shia. Don’t know if this is something to brag about.
[/quote]
The odds of the Sunni taking over again are between slim and none. They know this now. That is part of the reason they are actually cooperating now.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So you think Gen. Petraeus is a liar, too? Violence is trending down. Way down.
“Liar too” You and the post made this up. Easier to just quote her directly instead of adding the venom.
The issue was would he give a full accurate assessment, as he had not done in the past (how them security forces coming?).
Also the goal in Iraq is not 6 fewer insurgent attacks last week vs. a year ago. You do get the actual issue is the political future of Iraq and its effect on our interests? You do realize a warlord state is not a jeffersonian democracy, and the only way to say things are going well is to have utterly destroyed and buried the goalposts. How are you going to get 3 sides to reconcile when those 3 sides are divided into hundreds of factions, divided even with our help, since it suits our current tactics. If Iraq goes the way of Basra (100 militias plus!)then the iraqi people are doomed (and forgot about resolving the refugee crisis!). Of course it goes without saying that this was entirely predictable, and even the dirtiest hippy blogger could have told you this 6 years ago, but nevermind that.[/quote]
I would like to highlight this post. This is the quinessential far left post.
It is filled with issue dodging (ignoring the clinton pandering to moveon.org who did accuse Patreus of being a traitor. She essentially supports the position with her “suspension of disbelief” crap). It’s filled with cherry picking statistics/under-reporting progress (Where did the 6 less insurgent crap come from?).
Finally, the middle section is full of more garbage. It’s so easy to link Bush’s 2002-2003 speeches. In fact, I’ve linked them about 40 times. His original goals are still the same.
Again, I want everyone to read lumpy/100meters/bradley’s post. Commit the tactics to memory as they are often repeated. Finally, it shows quite clearly how dangerous it is to support a party driven by pure politics. No bedrock positions. Just a lust for power.
JeffR
[quote]100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
[/quote]
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[quote]100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
[/quote]
How about because they and their people were being slaughtered? You do realize that AL Qaeda was holding entire neighborhoods hostage? Kind of a crappy thing to do, playing down the threat they lived under.
I believe Michael Yon has a couple entries of what these people experience under Al Qaeda (and their pals) rule. Nothing like digging up pits full of dead “uncooperative” Iraqis. Yeah, bribery.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
How about because they and their people were being slaughtered? You do realize that AL Qaeda was holding entire neighborhoods hostage? Kind of a crappy thing to do, playing down the threat they lived under.
I believe Michael Yon has a couple entries of what these people experience under Al Qaeda (and their pals) rule. Nothing like digging up pits full of dead “uncooperative” Iraqis. Yeah, bribery.[/quote]
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
Logrusmage
[quote]JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[/quote]
Seriously?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
How about because they and their people were being slaughtered? You do realize that AL Qaeda was holding entire neighborhoods hostage? Kind of a crappy thing to do, playing down the threat they lived under.
I believe Michael Yon has a couple entries of what these people experience under Al Qaeda (and their pals) rule. Nothing like digging up pits full of dead “uncooperative” Iraqis. Yeah, bribery.
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
Logrusmage
[/quote]
Proof for what? What part of my post weren’t you aware of? I get the feeling you quoted me, instead of whoever you meant to.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
How about because they and their people were being slaughtered? You do realize that AL Qaeda was holding entire neighborhoods hostage? Kind of a crappy thing to do, playing down the threat they lived under.
I believe Michael Yon has a couple entries of what these people experience under Al Qaeda (and their pals) rule. Nothing like digging up pits full of dead “uncooperative” Iraqis. Yeah, bribery.
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
Logrusmage
[/quote]
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
Read it and try to comprehend the evil of AQ and think about what a shitty deal it would be if we turned our back on the Iraqi people and let them live under this.
[quote]100meters wrote:
JeffR wrote:
100meters wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes for one second. Would you collaborate with a foreign military force that occupied your land, bombed the hell out of your country, turned it into a terrorist haven, supported and armed the cruel dictator you lived under, etc…?
Seriously. Give it some thought, and try to answer honestly.
I acknowlege the US screwed up royally in post war Iraq, no news there. But if they hate the US so much, why are the shieks collaborating to take out al-qaeda?
Uh, we’re bribing them?
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
Seriously?
[/quote]
Yes, seriously.
Thanks.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Proof please?
If you can’t provide proof, then either apologize or at least acknowledge that you are talking out of your ass.
Thanks in advance,
Logrusmage
[/quote]
Okay, you got me. I don’t know what logrusmage means. I looked it up on google and received several strange responses.
Please explain what you mean.
Thanks.
JeffR