• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Democrats, only option failure in Iraq

Democrats will support the Commander in Chief towards victory in Iraq

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No they will cut off funding if Bush doesn't agree to failure

    Votes: 8 100.0%

  • Total voters
    8
At this point I don't think anyone but BushCo could possibly be blamed for this war going downhill...especially because that began long before the Democrats took power.

LOL - don't kid yourself. The cons will blame the Democrats for the entire Iraq fiasco. They already are. It's the "Global left" that encouraged the insurgents and are tying the hands of our soldiers over there, you see.

Why, if it wasn't for the leftists, Iraq would already be a prospering mini-US with porn shops, McDonalds, and Chevrons on every corner, doncha know that?
 
I am so sick of all the whining and b****ing from the anti-war crowd. Its hampering the war effort.

Do you have any evidence to prove this statement?

How exactly is dissent "hampering the war effort"???
 
I DO NOT THINK that doncha is a word Iriemon. ;) just joking

I do think that the Left is making this a PC war and that is screwing up the ability to achive objectives, just like in Vietnam and Korea. Compassion will just get us in a more difficult problem later unfortunately.
 
So, you are saying that is it acceptable to sent young men off to die for the free flow of oil? You are saying that this sort of act should be allowed? You are saying that it is acceptable? You are saying that it in no way is borderline criminal?
What is borderline insanity is expecting to pull up to a filling station and fill up your car, truck, airplane, ambulance, fire truck, tank, SP artillery platform or anything else that uses petroleum and expect it to be there when you refuse to allow exploration and drilling for the resource. The ME was placed under the allies winners control of WWI and WWII to assure the oil would be there if necessary to fuel an army in Europe. As it turned out America's apatite for oil outpaced our willingness to explore and develop our own reserves to fuel our own country. Yesterday, today and tomorrow we imported 20,000,000 barrels of oil each day to meet the need to fuel our stuff... Line those barrels up for a couple weeks and Kansas would be covered with barrels. You simply ignore reality... the light comes on at two AM when you open the fridge for a drink of water and if it don't come on you say "they" better fix this fast because I like my light to come on every time I want anything! Well azzhole "they" are the soldiers who cause the free flow of oil that the liberals won't allow to be produced domestically... the trial lawyers, the environmentalists the bleeding heart emotional liberals that think oh, we could just go green tomorrow and everything would be just fine and the light would come on at two AM. You are so hopelessly full of crap it is no wonder your brain doesn't recognize reality, the reality that Kansas would be covered by the empty barrels not sent from the ME and our friends in Venezuela to make it come on. Have you not lived through the OPEC embargo gas rationing and the Prez Carter administration or read history about the event? Are you gullible enough to think we could put up solar panels and make fuel from corn to replace the ME and Venezuela oil we import? Ignorance of "they" better fix this or I'll vote someone in who will fix this makes me want to puke. Oil is not a problem until it is a problem, when it is cheap we use the hell out of it and when it is expensive we bitch and use the hell out of it... liberals and conservatives alike demand the right to ride around alone in their living room size truck or SUV because it makes us feel safer than a 1200 pound car... we measure status in liters and horsepower and the more the better... if you have 280 horse power under the hood would you support the farmer to feed your 280 horses or tell him producing horse food pollutes the environment so you will buy your feed from the ME and Venezuela and if anything effects the delivery of that fuel you will, one fire the politician responsible and two send soldiers to fix the "they" that interrupts you light coming on when you want it to. Oh, you say the Democrats encourage alternative energy and green environmentally friendly ways of living... bull f**l<ing sh!t! They were in power in congress and the prez for decades and did nothing but smile as the ME/Venezuela imports rose as they supported trial lawyers and environmentalist that put big oil in its place... No fuel standards no weight or size of vehicles restrictions, no government example of green works better than ME/Venezuela imports just smiles with a wink that if the supply is interrupted we will send some aircraft carriers and soldiers to our "NATIONAL INTERESTS" so "they" will not interrupt the flow of oil.

You have to be a sick little person to think our national interests in the ME when we took on Iraq were anything other than the concern over "they" might become more powerful than OPEC and interrupt the flow of oil... Oh, please do explain our national interests in the ME you sick little puppy that refuses to consume only what is produced in America. These people served you and me for the free flow of ME Oil so we could have the light come on at two AM:
U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths
• Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
• Navy 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
• Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
• Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
• Women killed, 15
U.S. wounded in action: 467.
DefenseLINK News: The Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm Timeline

If you refuse to acknowledge our greed for oil was the national interest for which these Americans died you are undoubtedly the most ignorant person I've ever communicated with. We don't invade Darfur that is equally brutal but it simply isn't elevated to our "national interests" equal to our dependence on oil yet.


Dude, If you wan't debate with more sense than this, im going to have to just sit back and laugh at you. This is ridiculous, Rush Jr!
Can you offer a reason outside of politics that the DP would desire Bush to lose in Iraq? Oh, we all hate the loss of the service members but a change in political party will not change a thing... we are still missing the oil that would litter Kansas with empty barrels in a couple weeks and if the DP doesn't have a policy that keeps it flowing or creates an alternative to not make it noticeable they will be fired in a heartbeat. It is unanimous, liberals, conservatives and independents alike that "they" better not cause anything that puts me in a line at the gas pump where someone cuts in front of me, because if that happens I'll be really pissed off.


This poll is an excellent example of a false choice.

Is this a philosophy lesson or (heaven forbid) serious?
The poll is black and white... the DP will or will not support the law they helped enact... yes, war is equal to law like a woman's right to choose. The legislation they voted on was serious, it caused the expenditure of billions of tax dollars and the deaths of over 3,000 service members and of course the injuries and the civilian casualties... these elected officials are not stupid they know what war choice causes. The poll question is simple as the issue will the DP support the legislation they helped to put into law or not? The issue they helped to pass resulted in dead and injured citizens and non citizens for a purpose they considered in the best interest of the US government. If two of the people killed were your parents then possibly you would like to hold them accountable for your parents dieing for nothing, which will be the result if anything less than victory is acceptable.
 
I DO NOT THINK that doncha is a word Iriemon. ;) just joking

I do think that the Left is making this a PC war and that is screwing up the ability to achive objectives, just like in Vietnam and Korea. Compassion will just get us in a more difficult problem later unfortunately.

I may be an idealist, but I believe in the principles upon which America was founded and the things that made this nation what Reagan called the shining city on the hill to humanity.

I agree with the concept of democracy and the rule of law. But when we start wars based on pretext, lock people away for years in dungeons without the slightest regard for due process, torture people, or kill indiscriminately, we underscore the meaning and value of the system that we are asking the Iraqs (and ME nations more broadly) to embrace. We are undermining our own efforts to convince the people of the ME -- our ultimate audience -- that our way is better.

This is ultimately a war of ideals we are in against the principles and ideals of the radicals who attacked us. I think we win, like we won the cold war, because our system is better, and American principals of respect for laws that respect human rights is good and just. We hurt our chances when we act inconsistent with our ideals and what our nation stands for, I believe.

Even if there is a short term cost associated with it, I think we win this war of ideals by standing by the things we stand for, not stooping down to their level.
 
Last edited:
By Iriemon
lock people away for years in dungeons without the slightest regard for due process, torture people, or kill indiscriminately, we underscore the meaning and value of the system that we are asking the

But we did all this in WWII as well. Nobody bitched about beating Hitler and bombing the **** out of civilian populations. See, my fear is that if we had had this P.C. issue and rampant Liberalism back then, Patton would have been canned for cussing about ripping the guts out of the dirty Huns and using their guts to grease the treads of our tanks. We would not have bombed the crap out of the Industrial heartleand of Germany and the war would have lasted a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot longer. See, I see Liberalism hindering the war effort by dismissing what we did to win in the past by setting up new unrealistic and unattainable standards that we must adhere to against an enemy that will use those rules against us while embracing Freedom of Religion and Speech to preach Treason and death so that they can chop off everyone of our heads, hang girls when the defend themselves from rape, stone to death gays, etc. Yes, Liberalism and PC is ruining the war effort.
 
I think the democrats have been put basically in a catch 22 they believe the war will fail and supporting it will only cause more death, if they cut funding they will be blamed for losing the war and contribute to more deaths.
Duh, how could a war fail if every member of the Congress of the US desired victory? We have a military with superior power, a government that can fund better than those that oppose peace and we have the power to influence all neighbors... there is no way to lose other than for part of the government and the American people to not want to win.

We will not only win in Iraq we will win against Iran and we will do all of this with the Democratic Party on our side or not... It wont get better until Iraq is at peace and Iran has its claws clipped. This may result in a temporary lul in war as a result of public influence by the democrats but the reality will smack the American people in the face and we will return twice as mean and all the men of the ME will be as docile as the camera toting Japanese after WWII... the American people can be the exact opposite of what they protray when they see the alternative is getting on their knees and will punish those who put them there.
 
Beside the fact that you just put every single "No Blood For Oil" person in the perspective of being correct the whole time.... Lets see what else I can pick apart here.
Well azzhole "they" are the soldiers who cause the free flow of oil that the liberals won't allow to be produced domestically...
A. Calling other members of the forum "azzhole" is a good way to get banned!
B. Soldiers don't fight for oil. I did not swear to uphold the needs of the Oil Industry of the United States of America. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
You are so hopelessly full of crap it is no wonder your brain doesn't recognize reality
A. Calling other members "hopelessly full of crap" is a good way to get banned!
B. Show me where I support the Environmentalists and the "Green" movement. Where have I stated this? Or are you making sweeping generalizations.......again......
Ignorance of "they" better fix this or I'll vote someone in who will fix this makes me want to puke.
Well.. Go puke.... But you trying to put words in my mouth is going to make me puke on you. I never made this statement, its one that you made up in your own mind, and now you have convinced yourself that I said it.
Oil is not a problem until it is a problem, when it is cheap we use the hell out of it and when it is expensive we bitch and use the hell out of it... liberals and conservatives alike demand the right to ride around alone in their living room size truck or SUV because it makes us feel safer than a 1200 pound car... we measure status in liters and horsepower and the more the better... if you have 280 horse power under the hood would you support the farmer to feed your 280 horses or tell him producing horse food pollutes the environment so you will buy your feed from the ME and Venezuela and if anything effects the delivery of that fuel you will, one fire the politician responsible and two send soldiers to fix the "they" that interrupts you light coming on when you want it to.
Wow... look at this unnecessary rant.... What was the point of this again? Oh, thats right, its a build up to another one of my responses farther down.
Oh, you say the Democrats encourage alternative energy and green environmentally friendly ways of living... bull f**l<ing sh!t! They were in power in congress and the prez for decades and did nothing but smile as the ME/Venezuela imports rose as they supported trial lawyers and environmentalist that put big oil in its place...
And yet, fuel prices were low and were only raising on par with inflation.. :doh(And im NOT talking about under Jimmy Carter, but the rest of the 80s and 90s)
No fuel standards no weight or size of vehicles restrictions, no government example of green works better than ME/Venezuela imports just smiles with a wink that if the supply is interrupted we will send some aircraft carriers and soldiers to our "NATIONAL INTERESTS" so "they" will not interrupt the flow of oil.
Sounds like a brutal Empire to me... :roll:

You have to be a sick little person to think our national interests in the ME when we took on Iraq were anything other than the concern over "they" might become more powerful than OPEC and interrupt the flow of oil... Oh, please do explain our national interests in the ME you sick little puppy that refuses to consume only what is produced in America. These people served you and me for the free flow of ME Oil so we could have the light come on at two AM:
Sounds like the building of an Empire to me... :roll:



Can you offer a reason outside of politics that the DP would desire Bush to lose in Iraq?
Sick of empire building? Sick of killing our men and women for oil maybe? I mean, if the purpose of our military is to acquire oil resources, we SHOULD have a draft then. Everyone should be forced to share the sacrifice of life for lower oil prices!!! Absolutely! That sounds fair!!!
Oh, we all hate the loss of the service members but a change in political party will not change a thing...
Im sorry, But I will walk on my own two feet everywhere I go before I DEMAND that someone else give their life up so that I can have affordable oil. This is the most ridiculous drivel I have ever heard from a conservative.


Other conservatives..........are you folks going to be able to repair the damage to the conservative credibility that Topsez and just made to your image here at DP?
 
But we did all this in WWII as well. Nobody bitched about beating Hitler and bombing the **** out of civilian populations. See, my fear is that if we had had this P.C. issue and rampant Liberalism back then, Patton would have been canned for cussing about ripping the guts out of the dirty Huns and using their guts to grease the treads of our tanks. We would not have bombed the crap out of the Industrial heartleand of Germany and the war would have lasted a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot longer. See, I see Liberalism hindering the war effort by dismissing what we did to win in the past by setting up new unrealistic and unattainable standards that we must adhere to against an enemy that will use those rules against us while embracing Freedom of Religion and Speech to preach Treason and death so that they can chop off everyone of our heads, hang girls when the defend themselves from rape, stone to death gays, etc. Yes, Liberalism and PC is ruining the war effort.

In WWII, we didn't start a war with invade Germany on pretexts or even for the purpose of installing a democracy. During the war our goal was generally not trying to convince people that democracy was better than fascism. That was our objective after the war (or that it was better than communism). We went to war because Germany declared war on us, and their nation made war on ours.

The US and Patton didn't face a situation in WWII where he could not identify the enemy because they were within the civilian population. The guys Patton ripped the guts out of wore grey uniforms with little swastikas on them. If Patton had gone into France and after the Germans were defeated started ripping the guts out of innocent civilians, yeah he probably would have been canned.

Once we defeated the Nazi forces, we didn't keep bombing the crap out of their cities. And when we captured the nazis, we didn't lock them away in secret dungeons, we put them on trial and proved the evidence against them. Some we even let go when the evidence of their involvement of crimes was lacking.

The emperor of Japan we actually left in power. Can you even imagine somehting like that? Leaving the leader of your enemy in power after defeating them? Talk about PC!

We went to war in WWII for justified reasons. We fought hard, but once we defeated enemy forces we acted consistent with our principles -- PC if you want to call it that. And IMO, it made a difference in how those we had defeated accepted our occupation and became our allies.
 
It is interesting that the failure of Iraq is now somehow the "liberals" fault...even though the Democrats just got into power last week.
Put the blame of the mess to where it really lies, the neo-cons, the Bush Administration.
Even the President said he was responsible for it.

Yelling at liberals isn't going to do any good. You should be yelling at the Bush Administration for this calamity.

Anyone find it funny that people are blaming liberals for the actions of conservatives trying to spread liberalism in the Middle East. lol
 
Moderator's Warning:
Topsez, a few times on this thread you have been treading on the line when it comes to insults. Calm down, or the thread will go into the basement and you will incur a fraction.
 
I did not vote in this one. The choices given are lame. and reflect nothing but BushPooP (BS)

We will never win in Iraq. Bush lost this one for us, a long time ago when he invaded Iraq for no reason Known to mankind.

We need to start putting the real stats in the paper. 250,000 Iraqis dead and fifty thousand dead and wounded Americans in Iraq. The only way we will ever have democracy in Iraq is to kill all of the muslims and replace them with American citizens. Maybe that is what Bush wants to do?????
 
I agree, its a huge problem for Bush. Bush and his supportes want to stay the course and pass the buck of his mess to the next president (ie the Democrats) so that they can blame the Dems for the aftermath. But Bush will continue to have tremendous pressure from Republicans that don't want to see the rest of the ship go down. ....... Stay tuned.

Its more of a problem for dems because they have to hope for failure in Iraq even if that means the our troops losing their lives becasue success means they don't win the presidency........

I am sure glad I am not on that side..........stay tuned.........
 
Moderator's Warning:
Topsez, a few times on this thread you have been treading on the line when it comes to insults. Calm down, or the thread will go into the basement and you will incur a fraction.

Who and where are his insults?:confused: I went back several pages and did not see them.....
 
Its more of a problem for Democrats because they have to hope for failure in Iraq even if that means the our troops losing their lives becasue success means they don't win the presidency........

I am sure glad I am not on that side..........stay tuned.........

That's not true...its just a right-wing talking point. I don't know of any Democrat that hopes for failure....so thats one misconception. The second misconception is that failure means the Dems win the presidency....which I don't think is the case. The war could continue to go poorly and I still think there are a number of Republican candidates that have the edge.
Additionally....I don't think success (whatever that is)...means the Republicans win the Presidency...because there still has to be a correlation b/w the nominee and Iraq...which is not going to be an easy correlation.
 
Beside the fact that you just put every single "No Blood For Oil" person in the perspective of being correct the whole time.... Lets see what else I can pick apart here.
I'm in the no blood for oil group, are you stupid or just slow? The point is there are people in the splinters of the DP that refuse nuclear power, they want to tear down Hoover Dam so the fish can swim upstream, they say windmills kill birds, solar panels are ugly and don't meet zoning requirements, no oil refineries in my hood, no drilling on the off shore or Alaska because of the possibility of a environmental disaster and support all the trial lawyers to make it happen while not protesting the import of foreign oil.


A. Calling other members of the forum "azzhole" is a good way to get banned!
Allow me to be PC and say persons that support the above and don't protest foreign oil imports share the responsibility for the dead soldiers in the Gulf war. If you, your family, friends and enemies supported those splinter groups that caused the import then you helped kill the soldiers to secure a supply of oil.


B. Soldiers don't fight for oil. I did not swear to uphold the needs of the Oil Industry of the United States of America. I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is nothing to do with the oil industry, it is all to do about reality that America cannot function on its current demand for oil without the current supply. Again, you speak only from emotions, what do you think the military fought over in the ME in WWI and WWII?

Withholding oil from America is equal to withholding air or water from America and is basis for war. If you live in an alter universe then there is little I can recommend other than to read history and ponder why the ME is a national interest of America. So, if you think soldiers don't fight for oil then what possible reason would America lead the Desert Storm invasion on Iraq?

A. Calling other members "hopelessly full of crap" is a good way to get banned!
Please forgive me but I thought it had more impact than to say you were delusional or filled to the brim with misinformation.

B. Show me where I support the Environmentalists and the "Green" movement. Where have I stated this? Or are you making sweeping generalizations.......again......
Show me where you protested imported oil or wrote letters to congress or executive branch begging for alternatives to imported oil. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.

Well.. Go puke.... But you trying to put words in my mouth is going to make me puke on you. I never made this statement, its one that you made up in your own mind, and now you have convinced yourself that I said it.
Again, you are either part of the solution or are part of the problem. Few people vote in America but let a line form at a gas station and see how many citizens want representation... They will not forgive any elected representative for causing the line. If you block oil drilling in America and do not create a replacement for the demand then you are at fault. MSNBC reported today that the Iraq War may cost two trillion dollars before it is finished but MSNBC did not report that the Democratic Party or other party has committed two trillion dollars to make America independent from foreign oil. Why should the first sound worse than the latter?

Wow... look at this unnecessary rant.... What was the point of this again? Oh, thats right, its a build up to another one of my responses farther down.
And yet, fuel prices were low and were only raising on par with inflation.. :doh(And im NOT talking about under Jimmy Carter, but the rest of the 80s and 90s)
The exact point is that if lines form on gas stations politicians will not be able to back paddle fast enough to say in office...

We maintained ME power balance in the 80's and 90's with dictators of our choice that led to 9-11. Prez Bush clearly stated we will no longer manage the ME by propping up dictators prior to restarting hostilities in Iraq because it leads to events like 9-11.


Sounds like a brutal Empire to me... :roll:

Sounds like the building of an Empire to me... :roll:
Saddam desired an empire as king of ME oil and now the leadership of Iran desires the same Empire... America desires free flow of oil because the American citizens refuse to demand we create our own oil or alternatives to replace it. We have no grand plan to own the sandbox because the sandbox has only one redeeming value and that is oil.

Sick of empire building? Sick of killing our men and women for oil maybe? I mean, if the purpose of our military is to acquire oil resources, we SHOULD have a draft then. Everyone should be forced to share the sacrifice of life for lower oil prices!!! Absolutely! That sounds fair!!!
Agreed 100%

Im sorry, But I will walk on my own two feet everywhere I go before I DEMAND that someone else give their life up so that I can have affordable oil. This is the most ridiculous drivel I have ever heard from a conservative.
If every American would share your resolve the airlines would fall first followed by every free market enterprise in America... Hard to make a profit at the mall when everyone has to walk, hard to sell pizzas when everyone has to walk, hard to go to the hospital when everyone has to walk, hard to wait for a policeman when someone is stealing your last food when the police have to walk and it is hard to pay those people when everyone has to walk. America cannot function without those 20,000,000 barrels of imported oil, we couldn't function even if each citizen rode a moped to the places we need to go to to keep the economy functioning. Oil is our ME national interests. We don't lust for their women nor get hot for their butts sticking up in the air as they pray... they have no redeeming value and would not be missed if they all died tomorrow... the only value or national interest we have in the ME is oil. Oil has caused all the hate for America and the west along with Israel because as I said there is absolutely no interest in the ME outside of oil... you have to live under a rock to consider we value ME people's rights more than those of Darfur. Don't be dumb in public and think you would walk America into anarchy... you and neighbors would demand they die each and every one of them if they place you on your black leather Cadillac’s or Nike sneakers while not allowing a reasonable supply of oil. Be honest and say I refuse to allow drilling off shore and in the pristine Alaska wildlife reserve, I refuse to harm or even possibly harm an endangered species in a venture for domestic oil, no nukes in my backyard, no refineries either, windmills suck and I will not support a politician that would spend the same money on alternative energy that Bush has spent on Iraq. Be honest you soldier dispatching for oil demand hypocrite.
 
Its more of a problem for Democrats because they have to hope for failure in Iraq even if that means the our troops losing their lives becasue success means they don't win the presidency........

I am sure glad I am not on that side..........stay tuned.........

If i remember correctly you made such predications about the midterm elections also. Let me do a little research and find a quote.
 
If we found it necessary then to send soldiers off to die to ensure free flow of oil from the ME why in the hell would we leave the ME in total turmoil now?
According to your increasingly isolated leader this war is not about oil so where do you get your info from? Are you saying the President is lying to us and that it is more about oil than the spreading of Democracy that made the Iraqis greet us as liberators?

Your post sounds like you copied it from a radical right wing radio talk show website....
 
According to your increasingly isolated leader this war is not about oil so where do you get your info from? Are you saying the President is lying to us and that it is more about oil than the spreading of Democracy that made the Iraqis greet us as liberators?
America's interests in the ME is oil and Israel. Our most recent interest in the ME is that the ME terrorists be constrained as to not attack America. The Gulf War was about oil and the dictator Saddam was left in place for all the reasons we face today. After 9-11 reason and logic smacked Prez Bush in the face and advised this policy of propping up dictators is creating terrorists... some ME folks think we use the dictators like puppets so they convince young people to fly planes into our buildings... So, applying logic and reason Prez Bush said hey, how about if we don't prop up a dictator and allow the people to be represented in a democracy and then maybe they wouldn't blame America for causing problems in the ME. Prepare the conditions for the people and then step back away from the ME and allow the ME people to pursue happiness.

Your post sounds like you copied it from a radical right wing radio talk show website....
I really need to check into these radical right wing radio things because I live in Puerto Rico and have never heard even one radio talk show. My opinions are based on my opinions and not those of talking heads. If you find some bizzar then ask why I concluded such thoughts and I'll respond and usually without reference.
 
That's not true...its just a right-wing talking point. I don't know of any Democrat that hopes for failure....so thats one misconception. The second misconception is that failure means the Democrats win the presidency....which I don't think is the case. The war could continue to go poorly and I still think there are a number of Republican candidates that have the edge.
Additionally....I don't think success (whatever that is)...means the Republicans win the Presidency...because there still has to be a correlation b/w the nominee and Iraq...which is not going to be an easy correlation.

Of course no democrat would ever come out and admit it but deep down in their heart of hearts they know that if President Bush is successful that it is history for them in 2008.........your right with good candidates like McCain and Romney they might win anyhow....
 
Its more of a problem for Democrats because they have to hope for failure in Iraq even if that means the our troops losing their lives becasue success means they don't win the presidency.
It is truly despicable that you regularly write that your fellow Americans want to lose this war and see other Americans killed.

Your posts constantly portray an America that only exists in your mind and that if it were true the USA would be a living hell to live in. Maybe that's where you're living and maybe you've become so warped, angry and full of hate for your fellow countrymen that you actually believe that Americans want to see other Americans killed in a war.

Life must suck if one truly believes that the your neighbors want you dead...
 
It is truly despicable that you regularly write that your fellow Americans want to lose this war and see other Americans killed.

Your posts constantly portray an America that only exists in your mind and that if it were true the USA would be a living hell to live in. Maybe that's where you're living and maybe you've become so warped, angry and full of hate for your fellow countrymen that you actually believe that Americans want to see other Americans killed in a war.

Life must suck if one truly believes that the your neighbors want you dead...


Sorry you feel that way but I can only go by what your leaders like Durbin, Kerry, Murtha and Kennedy say about our military....

No my neighbors believe as I do....
 
Sorry you feel that way but I can only go by what your leaders like Durbin, Kerry, Murtha and Kennedy say about our military....

No my neighbors believe as I do....
Once again I must emphasize how pathetic it is for ANY American to believe that American's want to LOSE the war and that they want their fellow Americans to be killed.

Those are YOUR words Navy Pride and you write them all the time so you obviously believe that Americans want to see other Americans killed. That is one damn lousy way to have to go through life believing such horsecrap.

If your neighbors believe as you do (and I don't believe they do because the concept that Americans want to see each other killed in wars is borderline psycho in my book) then the community that you live in must be one hellish place to live, a placed filled with doom and gloom and a complete lack of reality....

Americans who oppose the war do not want to lose the war Navy Pride nor do they want Americans to die. The lack of knowledge that one must have to convince oneself that being against the Iraq war means that you want us to lose the war is monumental, colossal and at the end of day one of the most evil conclusions any human being could ever make Navy Pride! :(
 
Duh, how could a war fail if every member of the Congress of the US desired victory? We have a military with superior power, a government that can fund better than those that oppose peace and we have the power to influence all neighbors... there is no way to lose other than for part of the government and the American people to not want to win.

We will not only win in Iraq we will win against Iran and we will do all of this with the Democratic Party on our side or not... It wont get better until Iraq is at peace and Iran has its claws clipped. This may result in a temporary lul in war as a result of public influence by the democrats but the reality will smack the American people in the face and we will return twice as mean and all the men of the ME will be as docile as the camera toting Japanese after WWII... the American people can be the exact opposite of what they protray when they see the alternative is getting on their knees and will punish those who put them there.

A army of sheep led by a lion is better than a army of lions led by a sheep ever heard that before.
I dont think the current republicans are capable of contributing positivly to winning the war on terror since so far they have only increased tensions with muslims made Iraq into a haven for extremists lost the support of the American people and Americas allies .I think the west will win the war on terror but its not just about war its about diplomacy and will if handled the best way take a generation Though the bush Administration has set the world back in achieving this.

also are you suggesting the US should nuke Iran like japan .
 
Now it might send a message that "holing up" and waiting for America to leave is the best military strategy, and they would be right. We have shown time and again to not have the stomach for sustained conflict.
There is no question that this is true. The key is the nature of the conflict. If iraq had attacked this nation and declared war on the United states this war would be over now because we would have gone in with overwhelming force and wiped the place clean. But when the president has to work to convince the country that war is the answer, it is obviously not and he will be left without support and be doomed to failure.

When war is the right thing to do, the president will not have to convince anyone, the people will be clamouring for it and that is the type of war we will not suffer defeat in.

I hope I am wrong and I hope we are successful in Iraq but I am also being realistic. If you have about 15% of the country behind the war then that also roughly represents our chances of success.
 
Back
Top Bottom