Sources: Bush's Iraq plan calls for more troops, money (1 Viewer)

[KidRocks]

Sources: Bush's Iraq plan calls for more troops, money



It's my humble opinion that the headline should truly read...

Sources: Bush's Iraq plan calls for more dead American troops, money, dead Iraqi citizens, more terrorists generated, more chaos festered etc, etc, etc!









Sources: Bush's Iraq plan calls for more troops, money - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's new plan for Iraq will call for increasing the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad -- and perhaps other areas -- by at least 20,000, sources said.

 

[Goobieman]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's new plan for Iraq will call for increasing the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad -- and perhaps other areas -- by at least 20,000, sources said.

Good!

:yes:

 

[KidRocks]

Good!

:yes:

So, may I assume that you whole-heartedly support President Bush's Iraq plan and that you are for... more dead American troops, money, dead Iraqi citizens, more terrorists generated, more chaos festered etc, etc, etc?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

So, may I assume that you whole-heartedly support President Bush's Iraq plan and that you are for... more dead American troops, money, dead Iraqi citizens, more terrorists generated, more chaos festered etc, etc, etc?

I don't see where Goobieman said any of those things. I only see you saying them. It is quite easy to see what Goobieman is saying in his post and I echo it, wholeheartedly - regardless of your spin and desperate attempt to put words in his mouth.

The President wants to win this war, finish the job and get home. More troops, not fewer, is what is necessary to complete the task.

We all know you celebrate dead soldiers, kid. You make that clear with every post. The more dead people, the more chances you have to criticize the President. Thing is, you're playing to an audience who sees through your pathetic hate and doesn't care what you think or say.

 

[disneydude]

So...the Generals on the ground that said that increasing troop levels will not help and may actually make matters worse were wrong?

And explain to me how increasing troop levels is going to stop the civil war going on there. Neither side supports us....so how is this going to help us "Win the war....and bring the troops home"? Seriously.


Do any of you who continue to support this war even have a definition for what "Victory" in Iraq is. If so, I would love to hear it.

 

[KidRocks]

I don't see where Goobieman said any of those things. I only see you saying them. It is quite easy to see what Goobieman is saying in his post and I echo it, wholeheartedly - regardless of your spin and desperate attempt to put words in his mouth.

The President wants to win this war, finish the job and get home. More troops, not fewer, is what is necessary to complete the task.

We all know you celebrate dead soldiers, kid. You make that clear with every post. The more dead people, the more chances you have to criticize the President. Thing is, you're playing to an audience who sees through your pathetic hate and doesn't care what you think or say.

More troops mean more targets, which in turn means more dead American troops nothing else, but you knew that and, of course, you don't care, all you care about is President Bush winning, clearly, you just now stated as such yourself, in your own words.

It's just about President Bush and winning to you people! That's all!

 

[CurrentAffairs]

More troops mean more targets, which in turn means more dead American troops nothing else, but you knew that and, of course, you don't care, all you care about is President Bush winning, clearly, you just now stated as such yourself, in your own words.

It's just about President Bush and winning to you people! That's all!

It's about all of us winning, kid. I wish you could understand that.

 

[disneydude]

It's about all of us winning, kid. I wish you could understand that.

Again.....what is "winning" to you war supporters?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Again.....what is "winning" to you war supporters?

National Strategy for Victory in Iraq


Stay tuned for updated information tomorrow night, 9pm eastern, 8pm central

 

[KidRocks]

It's about all of us winning, kid. I wish you could understand that.

We can't win in Iraq, cannot you understand that?

When?

When will you admit as such and resolve to bring our troops home with their dignity still intact?

When will you concentrate on the health and well being of our troops and our great nation instead of focusing on 'winning' at all costs?

When?

 

[disneydude]

You are joking right?

I ask a serious question and you link the Whitehouse talking points?

Have you even read this? Just in case you haven't....I'll post a lil bit:

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

And you're going to tell me that this was a serious response?

As far as tommorrow...let me give you a preview...it will be something like this:

Terrorists attacked out country on 911.....we took the initiative to fight these terrorists and that is why we removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq ....and the world is a better place......911 taught us that we cannot be safe from terrorists...we have to stay vigilant which is why we need the Patriot act.......911 is why we are in Iraq fighting for a better life for us and the iraqi people. We need to send a message that we won't forget 911.....we need more soliders and more money so that we can continue marching forward together for victory.......

 

[CurrentAffairs]

You are joking right?

Nope.

I ask a serious question and you link the Whitehouse talking points?

Thank you, Ms. Streisand. Will you be recording an album in the near future?

Have you even read this?

Yep

Just in case you haven't....I'll post a lil bit:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.

Thanks, that's the best part.

And you're going to tell me that this was a serious response?

Completely serious. And you're going to dismiss it without consideration. Big surprise. Look, dillweed, you asked how I defined victory. Don't ask if you aren't interested in actually knowing.

 

[disneydude]

Look, dillweed, you asked how I defined victory. Don't ask if you aren't interested in actually knowing.

I asked for a serious response. I asked how YOU define victory. I didn't ask you to rehash GWB rhetoric about Victory means defeating the terrrrrrrrists.

In your own words. What is "Victory" in Iraq that will justify our withdrawl?

.....Ill anxiously await your response. Somehow I doubt there will be an answer. I'm still awaiting your link to the post where you made mincemeat out of Iriemon.....its interesting how you cut and ran from that topic when confronted.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I asked for a serious response. I asked how YOU define victory. I didn't ask you to rehash GWB rhetoric about Victory means defeating the terrrrrrrrists.

In your own words. What is "Victory" in Iraq that will justify our withdrawl?

.....Ill anxiously await your response. Somehow I doubt there will be an answer. I'm still awaiting your link to the post where you made mincemeat out of Iriemon.....its interesting how you cut and ran from that topic when confronted.

It was my serious response and the policy is how I define victory. Once again, if you really didn't want to know, then why did you ask? And what is this fascination with an old Iriemon thread? You and I had the same debate (on Mission Accomplished) and it ended in the same result. Big deal. I have no idea what you think you're trying to 'confront.' :lol:

Back on this topic. The President's outline for victory is what I support and is how I define it. Hey, you disagree....big surprise there, huh? Don't ask if you aren't interested in knowing.

 

[disneydude]

It was my serious response and the policy is how I define victory. Once again, if you really didn't want to know, then why did you ask? And what is this fascination with an old Iriemon thread? You and I had the same debate (on Mission Accomplished) and it ended in the same result. Big deal. I have no idea what you think you're trying to 'confront.' :lol:

Back on this topic. The President's outline for victory is what I support and is how I define it. Hey, you disagree....big surprise there, huh? Don't ask if you aren't interested in knowing.

Two responses:

1. The only fascination that I have with the Iriemon thread is your statement that "I made mincemeat out of him". It was the arrogant boasting coupled with the fact that there is no such thread. I guess the lesson here is that before trying to boast about how great you are....you gotta remember that we can all look at past postings to see if the evidence exists.

2. How is "defeat the terrorists" a definition of "victory". I have no problem with you "supporting the president".....but at least know what you are supporting.

Can you define what "Victory" is that will justify bringing our troops home?
If you can find it in the propoganda that you posted........link please.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Two responses:

1. The only fascination that I have with the Iriemon thread is your statement that "I made mincemeat out of him". It was the arrogant boasting coupled with the fact that there is no such thread. I guess the lesson here is that before trying to boast about how great you are....you gotta remember that we can all look at past postings to see if the evidence exists.

2. How is "defeat the terrorists" a definition of "victory". I have no problem with you "supporting the president".....but at least know what you are supporting.

Can you define what "Victory" is that will justify bringing our troops home?
If you can find it in the propoganda that you posted........link please.

Last I heard, Galenrox moved the thread (it was titled "Matt Damon wants the Bush Twins" yada yada....) to the Suggestions and Feedback forum where it was eventually deleted due to personal attacks - like most every thread recently, it seems). Look it up if you like. If the word mincemeat suggested boasting, then you misunderstood. I was only remarking that I felt to have won the debate - which, by the way, had spun way off target and was no longer about the Bush twins.

What is difficult about understanding the concept of defeating the terrorists? That is plain as day to me, but then I don't look for ways to hate the President.

The Victory document that you refer to as propoganda was written because the critical left had clammored for it for months. Are you saying you really didn't want to know the definition of victory? Just like this thread, why ask the President for this document if you really aren't interested in knowing?

 

[disneydude]

If the word mincemeat suggested boasting, then you misunderstood. I was only remarking that I felt to have won the debate

Oh.....I see. And this quote doesn't sound circular to you either.

Answer this.....has there ever been a debate that you did not feel that you won? Thought not.

But...back to the thread. So in answer to my question then. We will be victorious and the troops can come home when we have defeated the terrorists?

Sounds like justification to keep us in Iraq for a very long time....or at least as long as Bush is the commander in chief.

And neither side in the civil war in Iraq right now likes us....which do we support?
And which side of the civil war are the terrorists?

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Answer this.....has there ever been a debate that you did not feel that you won? Thought not.

Many times. I guess you thought wrong.

Sounds like justification to keep us in Iraq for a very long time

As long as it takes.

 

[disneydude]

Many times.

Link please.....

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Link please.....

links to debates which I feel I did not win? Is that even possible here? Furthermore, why would you want to see these? More to the point, it is clear you are making reference to when I ask for links, which is fine, but I do it when a blanket statement of content needs to be supported by evidence, for debates sake. Do you need me to prove that I have lost debates in the past? And if so, why? Isn't that being a little silly?

 

[disneydude]

links to debates which I feel I did not win? Is that even possible here? Furthermore, why would you want to see these? More to the point, it is clear you are making reference to when I ask for links, which is fine, but I do it when a blanket statement of content needs to be supported by evidence, for debates sake. Do you need me to prove that I have lost debates in the past? And if so, why?

Its called humor.........a little ribbing........at least you caught the satirical reference..... :2razz:

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Its called humor

Keep practicing.

 

[disneydude]

Keep practicing.

Suffice it to say.....I think anyone who visits these boards with any frequency will catch the humor in the post. Don't take it personally. Sometimes we all gotta laugh at ourselves.

 

[Iriemon]

I asked for a serious response. I asked how YOU define victory. I didn't ask you to rehash GWB rhetoric about Victory means defeating the terrrrrrrrists.

In your own words. What is "Victory" in Iraq that will justify our withdrawl?

.....Ill anxiously await your response. Somehow I doubt there will be an answer. I'm still awaiting your link to the post where you made mincemeat out of Iriemon.....its interesting how you cut and ran from that topic when confronted.

He did give you a response and ackowledged it. Victory in Iraq as Bush describes it will be achieved when: "Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."

Therefore, we should measure this administration's success in Iraq by that criteria.

 

[Iriemon]

Two responses:

1. The only fascination that I have with the Iriemon thread is your statement that "I made mincemeat out of him". It was the arrogant boasting coupled with the fact that there is no such thread. I guess the lesson here is that before trying to boast about how great you are....you gotta remember that we can all look at past postings to see if the evidence exists.
...

The thread was deleted by Galenrox for reasons I still don't quite understand.

FYI, the "debate" in which Current Affairs made "mincemeat" out of me was this: In the course of discussing Bush and the Vietnam war, someone made the post to the effect that Bush had been a carrier pilot and that took guts.

I pointed out that Bush was not a carrier pilot in the ANG but a land based pilot, and I guessed his perception about being a carrier pilot came from Bush landing on the carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished." And that is what I wrote: "he landed on a carrier proclaiming mission accomplished."

At this point, Current Affairs jumped in. He took the position that that statement must mean that *Bush* proclaimed mission accomplished. When I said no, I meant that the *carrier* proclaimed mission accomplished, he called me a liar and kept writing that I had stated that Bush proclaimed mission accomplished.

That was how he made "mincemeat" out of me.

I objected to his mischaracterizations of my statement which he did repeatedly. My last post in its entirety was: "For the record, that is a misrpresentation of my statement." That was the last post before Galenrox deleted the whole thread. I took a little offense to that, because I had spent a lot (too much) time researching and writing post on Bush and Vietnam, as did Stinger. That is why I raised a question about the deletion in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/feedback-suggestions/16617-galenrox-matt-damon-thread-deleted.html