A Prophetic Look In The Mirror
- Thread starter Three 44s
- Start date
No, you're right. Clearly, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is the better course for us.
Rim_Runner
New member
Quote:
No, you're right. Clearly, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is the better course for us.
That’s exactly what we did when we let Afghanistan slide to go and get bogged down in Iraq.
No, you're right. Clearly, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is the better course for us.
That’s exactly what we did when we let Afghanistan slide to go and get bogged down in Iraq.
redeyeddawg
New member
"Saddam had plenty of time to bury or move his WMD's to Syria and Iran while a handful of buffoons from the U.N. stumbled around an area the size of California for a few months. "Aren't Iraq and Iran enemies?" many would ask. In the traditional sense, yes. Overiding their disagreements as to which flavor of Islam is the purest is the concept of 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend'."
"You have any proof of this wild claim. The idea that they could have moved the WMDs run directly counter of administration claims that they had these weapons pinpointed."
The administration claimed they knew the locations PRIOR to them being moved. The absolute proof of Saddam's possession of WMD's would be the thousands of Kurds he killed with chemical weapons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822157/posts?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480?access=848545
"The intelligence was there. The current administration didn't act on it and the best you can do is it's Clinton's fault."
The intel was piecemeal at best. Clinton was there for 8 years while Bush was in office 8 months. You failed to dispute the fact that Clinton gutted our intelligence and refused to take OBL into custody. Is it safe to say his role in 9/11 would have been somewhat reduced had been locked up in a U.S. prison several years beforehand? Clinton absolutely should bear the bulk of the responsibility for the intelligence situation along with the pathetic responses to terrorist attacks. A glaring example omitted from the first post was Somalia. Some blame could also go to Reagan for pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1983. Terrorists seize on weakness, real or perceived- that's why surrender in Iraq would be a HUGE mistake.
"again your answer it to shoot the messenger rather than seek the truth"
Nobody is shooting the messenger by questioning their motives. The Democrats have no interest in truth. The truth on anything is anathema to them. Their shameless lust for power has driven them to undercut the President in a time of war regardless of the cost to the nation. For that they should tried for treason and subsequently shot. Win the war FIRST, then start the Monday morning quarterback routine. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
"You have any proof of this wild claim. The idea that they could have moved the WMDs run directly counter of administration claims that they had these weapons pinpointed."
The administration claimed they knew the locations PRIOR to them being moved. The absolute proof of Saddam's possession of WMD's would be the thousands of Kurds he killed with chemical weapons.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1822157/posts?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
http://www.CNSNEWS.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/24480?access=848545
"The intelligence was there. The current administration didn't act on it and the best you can do is it's Clinton's fault."
The intel was piecemeal at best. Clinton was there for 8 years while Bush was in office 8 months. You failed to dispute the fact that Clinton gutted our intelligence and refused to take OBL into custody. Is it safe to say his role in 9/11 would have been somewhat reduced had been locked up in a U.S. prison several years beforehand? Clinton absolutely should bear the bulk of the responsibility for the intelligence situation along with the pathetic responses to terrorist attacks. A glaring example omitted from the first post was Somalia. Some blame could also go to Reagan for pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in 1983. Terrorists seize on weakness, real or perceived- that's why surrender in Iraq would be a HUGE mistake.
"again your answer it to shoot the messenger rather than seek the truth"
Nobody is shooting the messenger by questioning their motives. The Democrats have no interest in truth. The truth on anything is anathema to them. Their shameless lust for power has driven them to undercut the President in a time of war regardless of the cost to the nation. For that they should tried for treason and subsequently shot. Win the war FIRST, then start the Monday morning quarterback routine. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
redeyeddawg
New member
Quote:
Does any sane person not believe Iran has nuclear ambitions? Perhaps they were suspended, but only AFTER they saw we meant business in Iraq. There was some disagreement as to whether Iraq had a nuclear program in the 80's, but Israel settled that arguement. How can anyone think a nuclear Iran is a good thing?
Within the last month the administration has portrayed the Iranian Weapons program as a immediate danger. While we do need to keep an eye on them they aren’t the danger that they are being made out to be.
This applies to lefty "independants" as well.
Does any sane person not believe Iran has nuclear ambitions? Perhaps they were suspended, but only AFTER they saw we meant business in Iraq. There was some disagreement as to whether Iraq had a nuclear program in the 80's, but Israel settled that arguement. How can anyone think a nuclear Iran is a good thing?
Within the last month the administration has portrayed the Iranian Weapons program as a immediate danger. While we do need to keep an eye on them they aren’t the danger that they are being made out to be.
This applies to lefty "independants" as well.
Bob Tobergte
New member
Quote:
So we should just blindly support something that isnt right? That kind of thinking sounds FASCIST to me.
FASCIST! That sounds like a dirty word. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif PATRIOT! Sounds like a winner. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
If we'd all get in the game we would win this & then see if anyone else wants any of US.
FASCIST! Nah, that name should mean chickens###. Not a name for Americans.
Like I said, if your not gonna take a shot then get out of the way.
This country doesn't need anyone that won't carry their own weight. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
So we should just blindly support something that isnt right? That kind of thinking sounds FASCIST to me.
FASCIST! That sounds like a dirty word. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif PATRIOT! Sounds like a winner. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
If we'd all get in the game we would win this & then see if anyone else wants any of US.
FASCIST! Nah, that name should mean chickens###. Not a name for Americans.
Like I said, if your not gonna take a shot then get out of the way.
This country doesn't need anyone that won't carry their own weight. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
redeyeddawg
New member
Quote:
I’ve got news for most of you. It’s not just the democrats that see the futility of the Iraq occupation. There are a lot of independents and republicans that see it also. A lot of the people that still support the occupation see it as a bad idea but are concerned about the results of a US withdrawal. Then you have some that are just like GWB in that they just can’t admit to a mistake. They are the kind of people that don’t care what the cost is in lives and tax dollars; they just have to salvage their pride.
This guy admitted his mistake.
Title: Another Surge Convert
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/another_surge_convert.asp
I’ve got news for most of you. It’s not just the democrats that see the futility of the Iraq occupation. There are a lot of independents and republicans that see it also. A lot of the people that still support the occupation see it as a bad idea but are concerned about the results of a US withdrawal. Then you have some that are just like GWB in that they just can’t admit to a mistake. They are the kind of people that don’t care what the cost is in lives and tax dollars; they just have to salvage their pride.
This guy admitted his mistake.
Title: Another Surge Convert
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/another_surge_convert.asp
jwp
New member
Quote:
Quote:
So we should just blindly support something that isnt right? That kind of thinking sounds FASCIST to me.
FASCIST! That sounds like a dirty word. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif PATRIOT! Sounds like a winner. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
If we'd all get in the game we would win this & then see if anyone else wants any of US.
FASCIST! Nah, that name should mean chickens###. Not a name for Americans.
Like I said, if your not gonna take a shot then get out of the way.
This country doesn't need anyone that won't carry their own weight. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
"True patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security." -Ron Paul
When something is wrong, it is still wrong even if you put "patriotism" in front of it.
Quote:
So we should just blindly support something that isnt right? That kind of thinking sounds FASCIST to me.
FASCIST! That sounds like a dirty word. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif PATRIOT! Sounds like a winner. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
If we'd all get in the game we would win this & then see if anyone else wants any of US.
FASCIST! Nah, that name should mean chickens###. Not a name for Americans.
Like I said, if your not gonna take a shot then get out of the way.
This country doesn't need anyone that won't carry their own weight. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif
"True patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security." -Ron Paul
When something is wrong, it is still wrong even if you put "patriotism" in front of it.
I do not agree with your premise that fighting for our lives & way of life is wrong.
redeyeddawg
New member
Quote:
I do not agree with your premise that fighting for our lives & way of life is wrong.
It is wrong Stu. We just have to wait until they attack us here. Ooops, they did that. Never mind. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
I do not agree with your premise that fighting for our lives & way of life is wrong.
It is wrong Stu. We just have to wait until they attack us here. Ooops, they did that. Never mind. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
Rim_Runner
New member
Quote:
It is wrong Stu. We just have to wait until they attack us here. Ooops, they did that. Never mind. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
When did the Iraqis attack us here?
It is wrong Stu. We just have to wait until they attack us here. Ooops, they did that. Never mind. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smiliesmack.gif
When did the Iraqis attack us here?
redeyeddawg
New member
When did the Afghans attack us here? How about Indonesians? Al-Qaeda is not a country. We should kill them wherever they are found, including Iraq, and have done so in great numbers.
Rim_Runner
New member
Quote:
When did the Afghans attack us here? How about Indonesians? Al-Qaeda is not a country. We should kill them wherever they are found, including Iraq, and have done so in great numbers.
In less of course they are in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. How many Iraqis were among the hijackers? How many Al-Qaeda were in Iraq until we made it safe for them to be there? How many Iraqis have joined Al-Qaeda in Iraq because we’re occupying their country? Our occupation of Iraq is the best recruitment tool Al-Qaeda has. So we spend American lives and tax dollars fighting terrorists of our own making. War should not be managed stupidly.
When did the Afghans attack us here? How about Indonesians? Al-Qaeda is not a country. We should kill them wherever they are found, including Iraq, and have done so in great numbers.
In less of course they are in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. How many Iraqis were among the hijackers? How many Al-Qaeda were in Iraq until we made it safe for them to be there? How many Iraqis have joined Al-Qaeda in Iraq because we’re occupying their country? Our occupation of Iraq is the best recruitment tool Al-Qaeda has. So we spend American lives and tax dollars fighting terrorists of our own making. War should not be managed stupidly.
yawn.
We can argue about why we're there all we like. Here's the reality:
We are there. We can win, or we can lose. I prefer to win.
Why do you want to lose?
We can argue about why we're there all we like. Here's the reality:
We are there. We can win, or we can lose. I prefer to win.
Why do you want to lose?
Rim_Runner
New member
Quote:
yawn.
We can argue about why we're there all we like. Here's the reality:
We are there. We can win, or we can lose. I prefer to win.
Why do you want to lose?
So how many more of Americas sons and daughters are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of "winning"? Have you lost sight of what this is costing us?
yawn.
We can argue about why we're there all we like. Here's the reality:
We are there. We can win, or we can lose. I prefer to win.
Why do you want to lose?
So how many more of Americas sons and daughters are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of "winning"? Have you lost sight of what this is costing us?
No, I haven't. But you do not seem to have considered what losing will likely cost us in the long run.
Rim_Runner
New member
Quote:
No, I haven't. But you do not seem to have considered what losing will likely cost us in the long run.
I'm not the one that blundered into that mess. Many argued the same point about Vietman and were wrong.
No, I haven't. But you do not seem to have considered what losing will likely cost us in the long run.
I'm not the one that blundered into that mess. Many argued the same point about Vietman and were wrong.
Wrong how? We quit when we were winning & 100's of thousands of people died as a result.
This time we're in the same position, but the biggest difference is that we have an enemy who has a stated intent to come here. And we live in a world where that is far, far easier than it was 35 years ago.
Iraq is seeing incredible successes in a very short time. The political side is not developing in the way we wanted, but we're getting pretty much the same results we wanted via a different route. We wanted it consolidated at the federal level. Rather than that it's happening at the state & local level. Much as out constitution designed our country to work.
Now, we can give up, hand victory to the people we are beating & give them the morale they need to sustain their efforts against us, with all that is probable to cost, throwing away the lives & money spent to get us to this point, or we can, yanno, finish the damned job, continue to push to victory for our side with all the positives that holds for the future.
I repeat: We are there now. We are winning. We can win, or we can lose. Since you seem to want us to lose, why?
If you don't want to lose, then what exactly is your solution?
Like it or not, the problem does in fact exist and it does need a solution.
This time we're in the same position, but the biggest difference is that we have an enemy who has a stated intent to come here. And we live in a world where that is far, far easier than it was 35 years ago.
Iraq is seeing incredible successes in a very short time. The political side is not developing in the way we wanted, but we're getting pretty much the same results we wanted via a different route. We wanted it consolidated at the federal level. Rather than that it's happening at the state & local level. Much as out constitution designed our country to work.
Now, we can give up, hand victory to the people we are beating & give them the morale they need to sustain their efforts against us, with all that is probable to cost, throwing away the lives & money spent to get us to this point, or we can, yanno, finish the damned job, continue to push to victory for our side with all the positives that holds for the future.
I repeat: We are there now. We are winning. We can win, or we can lose. Since you seem to want us to lose, why?
If you don't want to lose, then what exactly is your solution?
Like it or not, the problem does in fact exist and it does need a solution.
Rim_Runner
New member
My solution was to not jump into the quagmire in the first place. While you’re at it what defines winning or losing in this situation?
Quote:
Wrong how? We quit when we were winning
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Quote:
Wrong how? We quit when we were winning
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.