Can you stand the irony?

Barely

argue against pulling out? I have that arguement with my wife all the time.

Anyone ehere share my feeling Bush is stepping in deep dogshit by bringing up the subject of Nam at this point?

On the micro level, it would be interesting if responses began with Bush's own contribution to "embolding terrorists"---Staying the hell away from Nam.

this jackass cant justify anything. He will continue to posture and lie. we have seen it for over 6 and a half years now. no plan. no truth lots of B S

argue against pulling out? I have that arguement with my wife all the time.

Posted by wisgod

She never argues with me about it.

Bush and common sense are strangers, aren't they?

Hmmmmm.....we lost in Vietnam and now they are doing business with us....seems like defeat worked out better than continued war.
Oh, wait....it wasn't defeat....it was Peace With Honor, I forgot.

We as a group should have by now, learned about our fearful leader.

He is totaly out of his frigging mind!

That being said, back to that sock drawer.

Looks like his speech writers are going to need at least a couple of cases of caffeinated booze to get through this one!

I think he is just trying to gain his Republican support back on the war issue. I beleive he is aware of the fact that most [people will not support his actions.; In a strange way I think he is aiming this only at Republicans in hope to somehow help the election in a year and a half.

Who do we believe less?

Bush using Vietnam as an allegory for anything or Hillary suddenly surge-tastic support...before she was against it, before she was for it.

Bush knows about the Viet Nam war?
Wow!

But it's gonna be hard on all but one GOP candidate to follow up on any comments.

Funny thing is, if Bush had approached Iraq as he did Vietnam, we could have avoided this entire quagmire.

""or Hillary suddenly surge-tastic support...before she was against it, before she was for it.""

Her real comment: """It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said.""

Yeah right, surge-tastic my ass!
She merely commented that yes, with additional troops as the generals had told DUMBYA since the beginning , the situation is improving.
Her comment really underscores the incompetence of Bush and Rummy and highlights their guilt in the deaths and injuries that our troops have endured up til now while they steadfastly refused to send in enough troops.
If anything, the success of the surge should be causing the right to finally recognize the utter incompetence of Bush/Rummy and realize how many died unnecessarily.

""It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said.""

She merely commented that yes, with additional troops as the generals had told DUMBYA since the beginning , the situation is improving.
Her comment really underscores the incompetence of Bush and Rummy and highlights their guilt in the deaths and injuries that our troops have endured up til now while they steadfastly refused to send in enough troops.


Actually, the only thing this underscores is the fact that the Democrats are equally complicit in the complete failure of our continuing interventionist Foreign Policy as much as the Republicans.

I don't care for this, "We aren't against the principle, just on the way it was done" argument. As far as I'm concerned, its a pussy argument for those who can't stand up and say, "It was wrong, period. Bring them home."

The Surge is working, but it can only hold out another 6 months or the Army collapses, at which point all these temporary gains will be lost, rendering the entire surge pointless.

The surge is using American lives to buy the politicians a year of time to sit around and do nothing instead of actually fixing the problem.

And the Vietnam analogy is crap. Yes, we're babysitting the civil war, keeping them from wholesale slaughter. But we have to leave eventually, and they're going to kill each other no matter what.

The Soviet Union occupied Yugoslavia for 50 years, and they still killed each other when the Soviets left, just like the Iraqis will even if we stay and die there for 50 years, because Iraq is an artifical construct as well.

I agree with you BEEKEEPER but I also think it was dishonest of IRAQBUKKAKE to try and make it sound as if she was saying the surge was "surge-tastic."
You are right though, Hillary needs to finally admit she was wrong.

Norm's comparison to Yugoslavia is accurate. The chaos and bloodbath in Iraq is inevitable, the only question is how many Americans will die first.

Amen, KG. Hillary trying to nuance her way around her complete capitulation to the neo-con fantasy in 2002 in no way makes her pronouncements now any less egregious since they only underscore the reality our troops should never have been in Iraq to begin with. Somehow championing the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by assessing the proper strategy for doing so still doesn't answer why she still gives tacit support to something that was both illegal and ill-planned and supported to begin with!

If this is her judgement, then I know we can do without it, particularly since Hillary couldn't be bothered to even read the classified NIE full of contradictory intelligence doubting all the assertions then being made by the Administration and CIA, saying that invading was the correct response when we all know it wasn't and the report outlined just why it wasn't.

Shrub will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents just to save face.

Not just a fucking lowlife snob, but a moron with one finger on the button.

And some of the dead-enders on this site wonder why we have stopped listening to this jerk.

A while ago he was keeping any comparisons to Vietnam at arms length and now, when it suits his specious arguments, he is embracing it.

He must be hoping that if he passes Iraq on to the next president that, like Kennedy, we will forget that he was the one who got us into this. Sorry Chimp, it ain't going happen unless you are assassinated.

And finally, the real argument for winning in Vietnam was the Domino theory: if we let Vietnam go Communist the whole region will follow suit. It never happened, never happened.

"or Hillary suddenly surge-tastic support...before she was against it, before she was for it."


YEAH!




"A generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the cause must be just, the goal must be clear and the victory must be overwhelming." [Bush address to RNC convention, 8/4/00]


Forgetting entirely the lessons that he claimed to have learned from a war in which he did not serve, Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 hastily, without just cause, and lacking a clear goal. For years, he maintained Iraq and Vietnam had no similarities. In April 2004, he said:

QUESTION: How do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false. I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops, and sends the wrong message to the enemy.


Indeed!

She never argues with me about it.

Why would she complain about something she can't feel, no matter how hard you thrust?

I have a cowboy shirt that the tag says "made in Vientnam". I'll bet Bushling does too. The best theng we did for Vietnam was to leave them alone.

You guys do realize that we (America) did not lose one single major battle in Vietnam. We got stagnate in that war for the same reason we are stagnate in this one. The politicians need to get the hell out of it and let the Generals fight it. In Vietnam we were not allowed to attack certain areas, in Iraq we are not allowed to go after the bad guys with everthing we have.

The only real way to win a war is to destroy and then rebuild. Reminds you of Germany and Japan. We really didnt give a crap what everyone thought about how it was done, just that we got the job done.

I say the White House and Congress needs to back off and let us win this damm thing.

Sickofthinking has given us the classic "Swiftboat excuse": "if only you would have let us we would have won the Vietnam war." Bullshit! we lost the war and we'll lose this one because of a idiot president and his bunch of crony generals who can't see past their well protected assholes.

Well Sicko... it just goes to show you that winning battles doesn't equal winning wars. I just love how everyone keeps trying to rewrite the outcome of the Vietnam experience... it is analyzed to death. Guess what... the US pulled out... ergo were defeated... ergo didn't accomplish their purpose... get fucking over it.

Unless you are willing to make the people citizens and part of a common wealth you cannot impose a government on them.

SICKOFLIBS pretends that battles are what determines outcomes in guerrilla type wars.
58,000 dead in Iraq before we finally realized we could stay there forever and still have the same outcome. Same is true in Iraq.

You guys do realize that we (America) did not lose one single major battle in Vietnam.

Uh-huh. We just lost the war. It's the price of Hubris, son, the price of hubris.

Bush will use Vietnam to justify the war.


Seems only fair and balanced since the dems use it to justify retreat and defeat.

What's the matter Danni, you don't like the "fairness doctrine"?

You gotta know when to hold 'em, Incubus, and you gotta know when to fold 'em.

Wow Inkyubutt you sure are good at meaningless catch phrases. There is no winning in this war because it is not a war of imperialism...right? The Iraqi's are free to do as they wish... right? So what happened to taking the training wheels off (Bushling words btw). Its their fucking country let them run it as they wish. Maybe soome day you can buy yerself a pair of shoes or some swimwear made in Iraq... and your gas from Kurdistan.

Vietnam was better off when we left them to figure out their own course. Democracy isn't a cure all.

""What's the matter Danni, you don't like the "fairness doctrine"?""

First, I don't really support the Fairness Doctrine because I think it is media ownership consolidation which is the real culprit for the imbalance between conservative and progressive radio air time.
Second, Bush can use all the Vietnam analogies he wishes but he is doing himself no favors by doing so. The death toll for Americans was so high in Vietnam that I believe most Americans will be quite appalled that he seems to think we should have stayed and lost more soldiers in that conflict, and his time spent in TExas instead of Vietnam, and Cheney's deferments will not be forgotten while he is doing so.
So go ahead, make a case for Iraq based on Vietnam, and watch as the Congress gets serious about getting us out of that quagmire.

"Bush Will Use Vietnam to Justify War"

Two more weeks and that idiot will be talking about "The Last of the Mohicans."

""It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics," she said.""

Posted by danni at 2007-08-22 12:18 PM

Danni, Hillary needs to realize that it's never too late for victory.

I think the problem many of you lefties are experiencing with Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam is that it brings to light what the Democrats position on Vietnam was, which was to surrender. And, we all know what a bloodbath Vietnam turned out to be after we surrendered. It's the same position that many Democrats are taking on Iraq. Do you lefties really want to see another Vietnam type of outcome in Iraq?

""Do you lefties really want to see another Vietnam type of outcome in Iraq?""

Better question, do you righties want to sacrifice a few thousand more soldiers lives and end up with the same thing anyway???
BE honest, how many years of this would it take for the Sunnis and the Shia to start getting along and develope a peaceful society???
How many years, how many lives???
Calling us Defeatocrats or whatever without answering those questions is meaningless.

"Danni, Hillary needs to realize that it's never too late for victory."

Tell it to the Carthaginians.

First, I don't really support the Fairness Doctrine because I think it is media ownership consolidation which is the real culprit for the imbalance between conservative and progressive radio air time.


Investigating to determine whether or not media ownership is engaging in illegal trust activity makes a lot more sense than the Fairness Doctrine.


Nevertheless, I think an imbalance of demand is the real culprit for the imbalance between conservative ald liberal radio air time.

""Nevertheless, I think an imbalance of demand is the real culprit for the imbalance between conservative ald liberal radio air time.""

Based on what??? I can give examples of markets where they took progressive, successful shows off the aair and replaced them with conservative shows that didn't match the ratings numbers. Or replaced them with local sports with infinitesimal ratings.
Or just the redundancy of conservative shows in markets where Rush competes with Rush.
It's corporate ownership which decides what is best for corporations and is determined to sell that point of view.

I can give examples of markets where they took progressive, successful shows off the aair and replaced them with conservative shows that didn't match the ratings numbers.

go ahead....

And, we all know what a bloodbath Vietnam turned out to be after we surrendered.
Posted by Republican4ever

See, this is the problem with home schooling.

Eberly beat me to it.


Seriously Danni, if you've got something, let's see it.

I'll give whatever you have a fair look.

Maybe Bush is gonna announce we're redeploying to Texas and Alabama. All the troops get coke, booze and Mexican hookers.

It's what he remembers about Viet Nam.

I think the problem many of you lefties are experiencing with Bush comparing Iraq to Vietnam is that it brings to light what the Democrats position on Vietnam was, which was to surrender.

Who did we surrender to when we left Vietnam? What did we lose?
Who will we be surrendering to when we leave Iraq? What will we lose?

It's a third world shithole, there's nothing there. There's nothing to win, nothing to lose.

This isn't the Crusades. The muslim horde isn't rampaging across the ME, and we're holding the line, and whole nations will fall if we leave, as was the case with the Nazis and Japan in WWII.

If we were dug in against the armies of Iran that were trying to take over Saudi Arabia and Syria and Israel, then you would have a valid point about not being able to surrender.

But Al-Queda's been moving across borders unimpeded for the last 6 years. Staying in Iraq has nothing to do with them.
There's nothing in Iraq to fight for. There is nothing to lose.

"""It's a third world shithole, there's nothing there. There's nothing to win, nothing to lose."""

You're kidding, right?

he is going to compare failures?

You're kidding, right?

Unless you're claiming that we actually are there to steal Iraq's oil, then yes, there's nothing there to win or lose.

Which ever government ends up in control of Iraq after we leave will still sell us oil, just like everyone else does.

norm,

The question is who gets to drill pump and distribute the stuff...who gets access to the primary ressources.

Anyone can buy, only a few can own.

And yes, say hallelujia!!: you guys are there for the oil.

ps: how much oil have you guys purchased from iran lately? did that "which ever" government strike a deal with uncle sam? didn't think so.

Better question, do you righties want to sacrifice a few thousand more soldiers lives and end up with the same thing anyway??? ( I'm not really a rightie, but in this instance I suppose I am. We don't have to if we take the gloves off)
BE honest, how many years of this would it take for the Sunnis and the Shia to start getting along and develope a peaceful society??? (at least a generation or two, but killing the radicals will help the cause along, remember the salvery thing? How many times did you fall before you were able to walk? Amazing how eaisly we forget, eh?)
How many years, how many lives??? (see above and above the above)
Calling us Defeatocrats or whatever without answering those questions is meaningless. ( I answered them and you're still defeatocrats, even though a better word might truly be traitors. Amazing how the rehtoric today paralells that of Lincolns time, good museum, Springfield Illinois. )

some senior U.S. military commanders even suggest privately the entire Iraqi government must be removed by "constitutional or non-constitutional" means and replaced with a stable, secure, but not necessarily democratic entity.

Yup, only a Bushie would say wasting a trillion dollars and 4000 lives to install another dictator is a smart move.

As far as Vietnam goes it was the cold war played on a hot battlefield. It was us and the ARVN vs. the NVA and VC(backed by China and Russia). LBJ didn't want to attack Hanoi or Haiphong because he thought we may accidentally kill Russian advisors.

The treaties signed in 73 were only possible because Nixon bombed the north like it had never been bombed before. Even the north said they couldn't hold out and had to sign the cease fire. Oh yeah, it was 2 years before the north defied the treaty and the south fell.
They waited until we were gone then took over. That by no means equals the US getting whipped by North Vietnam.

Most of you fools couldn't even find Vietnam on a map. Hell, most of ya couldn't even find your own state on a map.

I personally think we betrayed the Vietnamese seeing how they were our ally in WWII and Ho Chi Minh was quoting the fucking US Declaration on Independence in 1946. The problem was(and my few Nam vet friends will agree) that young Americans simply didn't know history.

argue against pulling out? I have that arguement with my wife all the time.

Posted by wisgod

She never argues with me about it.

Posted by RastaCyborg

You'd have to let her know you're in, NeedleDick.

North,

front page on cnn.com

Get ready for saddam deux.

Torches, noose, pitchforks: march and hang the fucker. You guys are close to 300 million, surely you can take out security at the WH and have a little "bobbing the buffoon from a tree" party.

Bush is an idiot.

Half the US soldiers who died in Vietnam died while Nixon and Kissinger were trying to find a way to cut and run without being accused of cutting and running.

What a dumbfuck.

for your reading, hope you don't puke:

Yes I know. So I'll ammend my statement. There is a lot for the oil companies to lose in Iraq. There is very little for the American people to lose in Iraq.

Doc

Nixon's Peace with Honor did cost thousands of US lives, just as Bush's version of this same CYA policy will.

And Gergen is right about Cambodia being such a mess because of our intervention there.

I still say that the factions in Iraq will agree sooner than later if we are gone.

Well, Bush knows as much about the Vietnam War as he does the Iraq occupation - he's firmly on the sidelines of both of them. Maybe if he'd actually gone to Vietnam we wouldn't be having this debate.

In Viet Nam we won just about every battle but lost the war.

What is happening in Iraq?

What battles? You mean, flattening Falujah? The rest of it seems to be firefights. And, yes, we're obviously losing.

In Vietnam we were not allowed to attack certain areas, in Iraq we are not allowed to go after the bad guys with everthing we have.


Posted by sickoflibs at 2007-08-22 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


The reason we dont is because it is not our country, we are in there country. Let me ask you a question would you be ok for some other country to start bombing the USA to kill there enemies? Would it be ok if they killed innocent american childern as long as they got their enemies? Because that is exactly what you are suggesting we do to them. Kill them all attack everything bomb everything if innocents get in the way tough shit. You must be boarder line retard to have such a small grasp on international affairs. Not to mention your utter lack of moral fiber. The worst part is i bet you call yourself a christian but i guess the whole do unto others thing doesnt apply to you right?

In Viet Nam we won just about every battle but lost the war.

What is happening in Iraq?

Posted by Sniper at 2007-08-22 04:16 PM


And you haven't learned a fucking thing have you.

Bush's performance today is taken straight from the dumb Giuliani foreign policy thing discussed last week.

When people started comparing Iraq and Vietnam three years ago the White House was all in denial.

Now, typically clutching at straws, they revive the old "we should have stayed in Vietnam longer" baloney.

Shameless idiots. And more deaths on their watch every day.

What the Hell does Bush know about Nam anyway?
Soon as he heard they were spraying all the bushs with agent orange, he headed for the club house.

QUESTION: What does that say to you? And how do you answer the Vietnam comparison?

BUSH: I think the analogy is false.


Bush Will Use Vietnam to Justify War

Priceless.

Murdering fucks.

Do ye all recall how Italy's fascist leader ended up... along with his mistress ?

Thanks Doc - I see that was April 2004 - three years and four months ago and what... 2500 US lives ago?

Sounds about right, Sitdown. More lives down the shute and more bullshit to justify the original error. It's truly pathetic. Should be a goddamn indictable crime.

Another classic statement from the same Press conference - April 13, 2004:

I fully understand the consequences of what we're doing. We're changing the world, and the world will be better off and America will be more secure as a result of the actions we're taking.

-George W Bush

What does that say to you?

That Dumbya was against the Vietnam analogy before he was for the Vietnam analogy.

Wot a disingenuous, historically challenged piece of shit.

Be Well.

"Another classic statement ..."

Take this dumbfuck out and beat his 1-ounce brain out with a velociraptor bone.

""I answered them and you're still defeatocrats, even though a better word might truly be traitors.""

Bull shit. You did not answer the question. The question was:
""How many years, how many lives???
???""

With the Lancet estimating now that 1,000,000 Iraqis have died due to the invasion/occupation I would have to conclude the gloves are off.
How many Iraqi deaths would constitute "gloves off?"

Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war

I feel fine with my traitorous comrades opposed to senseless death.


""Seriously Danni, if you've got something, let's see it.""

Jeff, I will get back to you on that, it will take a little research. I found one site that had some pretty good examples but I am looking for a better one.

argue against pulling out? I have that arguement with my wife all the time.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-08-22 08:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

ugh....you want her to leave the strap-on in you?

What the hell does Bush know about Vietnam except that his 2004 political opponent was there and therefore he's a traitor!

Bush and common sense are strangers, aren't they?

Posted by Sully at 2007-08-22 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

....never met the man, never want to.

ff for CommonSense!

I agree with you BEEKEEPER but I also think it was dishonest of IRAQBUKKAKE to try and make it sound as if she was saying the surge was "surge-tastic."
You are right though, Hillary needs to finally admit she was wrong.

Hillary simultaneously saying she's against the war and wants to end it, while saying that more troops was the answer all along is duplicitous bullshit. That's being dishonest.She wants this war...she has never said it was a mistake. She has never said her authorization was a mistake.

She has no desire to end the war. She desires what will:

1. Get votes.
2. Support her lobby.

Torches, noose, pitchforks: march and hang the fucker. You guys are close to 300 million, surely you can take out security at the WH and have a little "bobbing the buffoon from a tree" party.

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-08-22 03:06 PM

You do realize that the Secret Service can crawl in your ass with a microscope for saying shit like that.

Dont think just because you are a foreiner that you cant be touched.

Half the US soldiers who died in Vietnam died while Nixon and Kissinger were trying to find a way to cut and run without being accused of cutting and running.

What a dumbfuck.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Doc, let me get this strait, Bush is at fault for getting us into this and Nixon is at fault for getting out of Vietnam. Can you see the problem in your mind? Its only the Republicans fault. You are a close minded asshole who cant see past your own party lines.

Fender,

I never said that we should bomb them like we did in Germany and Japan. What I was saying is that is what it takes to completly win a war.

As mosts libs you cant seem to take things as they are written or intended. You have to call names and make a complete asshole out of yourself.

Obviously nobody wants to see children hurt for any reason. Unfortunatly that does happen in war.

As far as our enemies bombing the U.S. Well I am sure that if they could they would and not care at all about who gets killed. This is prevented by our military that I am sure you hate as well. There is not other country on this planet that has the capability to get bombers in our air space without being shot down.

Do yourself a favor and get a clue you closed mined idiot.

Bush is at fault for getting us into this and Nixon is at fault for getting out of Vietnam. Can you see the problem in your mind? Its only the Republicans fault.

Doc can't you see the Problem? Two different wars at issue the start of one the end of another. They just can't both be Republicans fault. That wouldn't be fair!
-Sickoflibs

Zap,

you are as fucking stupid as doc. If you want to blame Bush for getting us into this war then how can you not blame the Dems for getting us into Vietnam? You are a hipocrite.

As far as our enemies bombing the U.S. Well I am sure that if they could they would and not care at all about who gets killed. This is prevented by our military


Except on 9/11/01 the air farce was in Waco, tx on vacation, with friends...

You are a close minded asshole who cant see past your own party lines.

Posted by sickoflibs at 2007-08-22 08:51 PM

Example of the mind of a ditto head.

Sickoflibs-
How do you suggest that we "win this damn thing"? If you would be specific it would help, because I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

Except on 9/11/01 the air farce was in Waco, tx on vacation, with friends...

Again Zip, you are showing your true knowledge, which is very little. You are right that we were attacked on 9/11, other than that you are still stupid.

does anyone really care or believe what he says?

You have to call names and make a complete asshole out of yourself.




self retorting retort

You are right that we were attacked on 9/11, other than that you are still stupid.


Well then where was the air farce when 4 airliners were meandering around the most populous and many would say vital real estate in the US for HOURS without being intercepted.


Oh of course they are the very best!

How do you think that they are going to respond to something like that. You fucking asshole, once the determination was made of what was going on there was no way to respond.

Sickoflibs,

Where was the air farce.

The whole web waits on YOUR insight.

once the determination was made of what was going on there was no way to respond.


I'm just sure there is something here. Well maybe not.

They were exactl where they were supposed to be you moron. I will write it slow so even you can understand this time. There was no way to determine what was happening since they were all commercial airlines who are a llowed in our air space.

I would not expect you to understand anything like that. You see, planes that come from other countries and are not authorized, do not transmit a specific signal and are instantly intercepted.

That is what would keep enemy bombers from getting close enough to attack. And yes, I know what planes fly from what bases and cover certain areas. You cant understand the simple ideas so there is no way you could understand this.

I have to ask myself, why do I bother trying to make an american hating liberal understand. You could have all the facts in front of you still could not understand.

You fucking asshole, once the determination was made of what was going on there was no way to respond.

Posted by sickoflibs at 2007-08-22 09:17 PM | Reply

Obsession with gay sex is symptomatic of the ditto head syndrome.

Speaking of parallels.

Isn't "Stand down as they stand up" really just Iraqification same as Vietnamisation?

Be Well.

The whole web waits on YOUR insight.

Expert on Air Warfare are you?

What are you getting to other than being a paranoid liberal.

Calif,

You are going to use a left, liberal written piece of shit and try and show that as evidence. Do you really believe that these idiots know what was going on? If you do then that explains a lot.

You see, planes that come from other countries and are not authorized, do not transmit a specific signal and are instantly intercepted.

The Muslims already had that figured out six years ago genius.

Wow you learn something everyday. "There was no way of determining...."

They weren't communicating with ATC. They deviated course. They turned off there transponder. ATC reported this to the command.


AND the air farce can't find them!

Well at least they weren't russian Bombers..

The whole web waits on YOUR insight.

Expert on Air Warfare are you?

What are you getting to other than being a paranoid liberal.

Posted by eberly

Your mixing your authors and responders but but keep going your doing GREAT...

zippy,

Talking to you is a lost cause. You obviously hate America, the military and everything that is not a screaming liberal. You must be right this was all set up by Bush and the Air Force was told to ignore it. There you have it.

Sick,

Remember where you are. conspiracy theories are the foundation of much ideology here.

Exactly,

Then again these dumbasses are good for the occasional laugh.

You must be right this was all set up by Bush and the Air Force was told to ignore it. There you have it.

Never said it was setup. I just asked a question.

Where was the air force?


They royally screwed the pooch. And who got fired, reprimanded, a demerit?



no one, ain't it grand. Doesn't it make YOU feel secure?

You obviously hate America, the military and everything that is not a screaming liberal. You must be right this was all set up by Bush and the Air Force was told to ignore it. There you have it.

Posted by sickoflibs at 2007-08-22 09:31 PM | Reply | Flag

King George is America? You learn something new every day.

They royally screwed the pooch. And who got fired, reprimanded, a demerit?

You're obviously lying. You believe it is a conspiracy.

You're obviously lying. You believe it is a conspiracy.

Posted by eberly


Sorry but no I really don't believe it is a conspiracy.

I just ask a question who in the military paid for 4 airliners flying for hours in our airspace?

Sickoflibs-
I'm sorry for bringing this up again, but I'm wondering how we are going to win, and what you meant -specifically- in your earlier post that "The only real way to win a war is to destroy and then rebuild. Reminds you of Germany and Japan. We really didnt give a crap what everyone thought about how it was done, just that we got the job done.

I say the White House and Congress needs to back off and let us win this damm thing."

Posted by sickoflibs at 2007-08-22 12:51 PM | Reply


I really don't want to push the point too much, but if you would say what you specifically mean I could have a better idea of what you are talking about.

I am sure that you know exactly what I was saying. The only way to win a war is to blow the crap out of everything and then rebuild it. Make the enemy want to give up. So far we have not done that.

The only way to win a war is to blow the crap out of everything and then rebuild it. Make the enemy want to give up. So far we have not done that.

They're sick and getting sicker. This dumb fuck thinks the rest of the world is going to cheer us on.

Sickoflibs-
I didn't know what you were saying, because there were no specifics in your statements. I guess I now know that your solution is to "blow the crap out of everything", and although it's rather vague (ie, what do you actually mean, specifically), that's a start. But in Iraq our mission as promoted by the Bush administration was to topple Saddam, get rid of the threat of WMD, and liberate the population from tyranny, so I guess "blow the crap out of everything" seems confusing. I'm sure if I understood the analogy to Germany and Japan it would make more sense, but then Bush has chosen the comparison to Vietnam, so I'm totally confused now.

Of course it's not the only way to win a war. A serious history deficiency someone suffers from, only curable by reading.

This "blow the crap out of everything" meme is a projection of someone's feelings, masquerading as realism.

You won't get specifics from this man, therefore. He's discussing neither strategy nor tactics. He's trying to discuss is what war was like when he had plastic soldiers.

Cooper,

I will try to say this a little more clear.

You can not win a war by going after selective targets. If we did that in Germany and Japan we probably would not have won. I have been to Germany many times and there are still parts of castles left that were destroyed.

In Vietnam we did the same thing we are doing now and went after selective targets and were not able to get the job done. The enemy in Iraq knows that we will not destroy a mosk so where do you think they are going to hide?

We should not have been in Iraq in the first place, I dont argue that. If we are going to go in a try to win then we should do it. If we dont have the guts to do it then we should just stay home and defend our own shores.

Notice what it took to make Japan surrender. There were many inicent civilians killed and mamed, but the Japanese army was not willing to put all their military in one area and let us bomb them.

I am not saying that we should completly destroy Iraq. What I am saying is that if we are not willing to destroy Iraq and crush the enemy there will not be a victory. War sucks and inocent people die, there is not a lot that can be done about it other than not go to war.

Now are you even more confused?

I'm sure this still isnt clear to you but this is all I am going to post on it.

Don't destroy Iraq. Just have generalized targets. No reason for confusion.

I am not saying that we should completly destroy Iraq. What I am saying is that if we are not willing to destroy Iraq and crush the enemy there will not be a victory.

Sickoflibs - I have selected this phrase from your voluminous posts. You are clearly not of sound mind. No wonder you support Bush/Cheney.

Just get lost, why don't you?

Sickoflibs-
I agree with some of what you say, primarily the one unstated thread that runs through your posts which you do not acknowledge: Vietnam and Iraq are not comparable to WWII.

He does have a point..... ever tasted some of the nasty snacks Vietnam produces now?

There is no winning available in Iraq. There is only dying on both sides. GTFO and live.

The goal of attacking Iraq was to remove Saddam and put a stable, West-leaning Democracy in his place within less than a year. Rummy and the rest clearly stated that at the outset.

It's over 4 years later and no stable West-leaning Democracy. Therefore, we failed. It's that simple. The army defeated Saddam, but no one had figured out how to create the stable, West-leaning Democracy. Defeating Saddam was the Army's job, and they did it. Creating the stable, West-leaning Democracy was BUSH'S job, and he didn't get it done. Bush failed. Period.

Whether we stay or go at this point really doesn't matter. The damage has been done. Staying longer won't change anything.

That is, unless you think that Hillary/Edwards/Obama can succeed where Bush failed. That's the only reason to stay at this point. Otherwise, we're just wasting our strength.

Bowa, Bush will eventually prove years old prognostications, that whatever he leaves in Iraq is the "victory" he sought.

Bush is not a smart or a good man. He didn't run his war as a smart or good man, or even an energetic one. The best thing he can fo for the nation is go away. Aren't you tired of him?

"Painted into a corner from which they can't escape...."

Then surge ends next summer, Bowa. Almost everyone else on the planet was willing to admit this save Bush.

"If Bush policies produce a political settlement...."

Oh, but they have, Bowa. Just nothing you care to discuss.

"Sustained reduction in violence...."

Yeah, right. Why don't you define "sustained"? I'd like to see if it's anything bigger than nine weeks.

Discussion of the Iraq War from the neoconservative right has always been the most dishonest I've ever seen. I don't know why any real person even attempts to talk to them about it, and my confusion extends to myself.

well I for one dont see the problem any of you might have with this.....you have been trying to turn iraq into nam since before it started, so whats the big deal.
oh I know......when that same comparison is shown to not comply with all of your appeasing little whiny arguments, well then.......that's something different and you dont like it.

in this entire speach, bush just kicked some serious ass and he should have been talking like this for a long time.

in this entire speach, bush just kicked some serious ass and he should have been talking like this for a long time.

I agree.

I thought Bush chastizing the democrats who are calling for Prime Minister Maliki's removal was especially powerful as he pointed out that Maliki is the democratically elected President of Iraq and only the Iraqi people could remove him.

It's like the Democrats just refuse to believe that Iraq is a democracy albeit a struggling one but a democracy nevertheless.

They are on the wrong side of history, and all their views on the war, national security, even the Constitution reflect a complete denial that 9/11 even happened.

And this 9/10 mindset that they carry into the 2008 election could be the scariest thing about a democrat becoming the next president.

"(Bush) pointed out that Maliki is the democratically elected President of Iraq and only the Iraqi people could remove him."

...And the world instantly recognized the tragic irony.

I have to say I will be one happy camper when Iraq does not dominate the news and our national life anymore.

This war had nothing to do with terrorism, but for the use by Bush and Cheney of 9/11 to compel Congress to 'authorizie' war IF Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. - which he did. We now know the premise Bush used for (prematurely) invading was empty. Saddam did not have WMD's, and unfortunately the U.N. Inspectors were not allowed the time to reach that conclusion before the bombs fell. Bush rushed to war and used the ill gotten authority to invade before the inspections the authorization was premised on were complete.

I'm old enough to remember the Vietnam era. While I was just barely too young to have fought in it, I remember how it dominated our lives then as Iraq does today. But, on the other side of the coin we were also landing men on the moon, acheiving other amazing accomplishments, most people had a good paying job with benefits so life was good, and the world respected us tremendously. We don't have anything like that today.

Once iraq is over, I hope we can once again find reasons to be optomistic. To think that we can leave America a better country for our kids than it was for us - as generations before us left America for us.

This issue has been so divisive. As Abraham Lincoln said (to paraphrase): "A Nation divided cannot stand". The first step in healing is for all to admit this was a mistake, and start taking steps to heal the divisions here at home. The first step is for Bush supporters to admit he blundered in historic terms and hold him to account rather than point the finger at others who rightfully recognize that over 4 years later - and a thousand second chances - Iraq is a situation without a chance for 'victory'.

"They (Iraq) are a democracy...."

If you ignore the three major Shia private armies and the Sunni one sometimes referred to as the insurgency. I guess this falls under the "struggling" part.

Dishonest and disingenuous. But you aren't tired of any of it.

This issue has been so divisive. As Abraham Lincoln said (to paraphrase): "A Nation divided cannot stand". The first step in healing is for all to admit this was a mistake, and start taking steps to heal the divisions here at home.

LOL

in other words, The way to heal the divide is for all those who disagree with my assesment to stop disagreeing with me.

"A complete denial 9/11 ever happened...."

No, Bowa. Just contempt you have the gall to assert 9/11 matters in this context.

Maliki is the democratically elected President of Iraq and only the Iraqi people could remove him.



and look at yet another example of liberal hypocracy..

how many times have we read here that we cant trash chavez because he is a 'democratically elected' president........and no matter how much he does like close all disent and make himslef president for life, the left still tells us this.

but maliki? well thats different all of a sudden.............


AND how does it feel....LEFTIES.....to be dissed by one of us righties who NEVER READ........and to be dissed with YOUR OWN WORDS>........

DAMN......that was a good one.......

I'll make a prediction here, based on late-breaking news, that Maliki will suddenly "retire" in the next several weeks or months. It will all be very democratic.

Bowa

No. For folks to admit Iraq, 4 years later, is not 'winnable', hold Bush to account for his massive blunder, and start demanding that he find a way out - as quickly as possible.

The Sunni and Shiite are going to have it out whether we stay or we leave. How many bodies more are you willing to send home while the situation continues to deteriorate?

Basra, only a few months ago touted as a 'success' in Iraq is now in chaos, and the British are holed up in bunkers waiting to come home.

Baghdad is only one city. Sectarian problems are now rampant in Basra, and Kurdish Iraq is now experiencing waves of suicide bombings.

In short, this war is not winnable. Just admit it. That's all.

:-)

The first step in healing is for all to admit this was a mistake, and start taking steps to heal the divisions here at home. The first step is for Bush supporters to admit he blundered in historic terms and hold him to account rather than point the finger at others who rightfully recognize that over 4 years later - and a thousand second chances - Iraq is a situation without a chance for 'victory'.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2007-08-23 09:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e



so in other words even though this seems like a heartfelt plea for us all to come together......
THATS NOT AT ALL WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN.....

you mean for us to say that you have been right along........and what you are saying is that we have to come to the 'dark side' and admit that libs have been right and we have been wrong......
so how about this....LETS COME TOGETHER by you saying that the war in iraq is the front lines in the war on terror and IF WE ALL COME TOGETHER we can defeat them in iraq and anywhere else they crawl through the slime to escape..

but no....any 'heartfelt plea'.....( and I am sincere when I call your post that .) means that we move to YOUR SIDE.,...and thats bullshit..

the left has been wrong from the days of chamberlain to the war in nam to the cold war.....and so now they are all of a sudden the right way.............Uh.....I dont think so.,.....

BushLover

We have made a national effort at great expense to save Iraq and it's not working. We have as many troops in Iraq as we can spare and yet the situation is still perilous and worse than it was four years after invading.

Yes, you're on the wrong side of this issue. Read the headlines every day. Tell me all the 'good' news. Tell me average Iraqis have running water, electricity, feel free to live normal lives, that thousands of innocent citizens aren't dying each month, that American forces aren't having to watch their asses, that we know who our 'friends' are.

Tell me what gives you hope that another 2, 4, 6 years is going to lead to a peaceful Iraq when the last 4, with a massive effort has yielded success.

Sorry, I have to say it's you who is on the wrong side of this one. Any realistic person coud see that we're not 'winning', and never will. There's no goverhment to negotiate 'peace' with as we supposedly had in Vietnam. The people America is fighting are, in many cases, our 'friends'.

Let's hear your optomistic outlook, and why you think staying another few years and another 5000 lives will change the status quo.

BushLover

If you want a historical precedence for our leaving Iraq, read about India after the British left in 1947.

Factional fighting broke out (as we've already had in Iraq for 4 years), they had it out, India was partitioned, creating Pakistan, and India finally got on the road to a lasting peace.

They're fighting while we're there, they'll fight when we're gone.

One more thing......

Where's all the oil money from Iraq that was promised by Bush and Cheney to repay us for this war? I haven't heard another word about it - but I sure have seen the numbers rise on our national debt. .

I would have thought you were a conservative and concerned about fiscal responsibility. I would have thought you'd hold Bush accountable for this blunder even though you voted for him. I'd have thought you'd hold him to his word and call him out for the false premise he gave for starting this war. Since he's 'your' guy you give him a complete pass, eh?

Well if Bush wants to use Vietnam as an example he needs to look no further than what Vietnam is like now. IT'S A SUCCESS STORY!! The mistake we made back then was painting communism with a broad brush in which meant communism was the same all over. The fact is you have many different forms of communism just like we have different forms of democracy. Democracy in Europe looks a lot like socialism. He may try to point to the atrocities that followed our leaving but that was in countries we weren't supposed to be in anyway. The atrocities were committed by thugs who just took over. Lets not forget how many Iraqis are dead because of our invasion. There are estimates from 400,000 to over 700,000 Iraqis who have been killed and and far more than that number have left and are leaving.More Iraqis have been killed with us being there than would ever have been killed by Saddam. The social fabric of Iraq does not exist anymore. The power grid is in shambles, the economy doesn't work, the military exists only for a paycheck and when it comes time to fight they leave or don't show up. Now the country is fighting a civil war with its root cause being religion and we are in the middle of it. Where is Rush Limbo on this? One of his favorite analogies is that throughout history peace was never accomplished via treaties etc. One side had to vanquish the other. So lets hear it RUSH , say it, we should pull out and let them settle it on the playing field and let the chips fall where they fall.

I hold bush responsible for several things.....

he has lowered the 'conservative' part of the republican party
he has tried to screw up immigration
I do not like for one moment, his international leanings like the superhiway thing....or north american union and all of that......he is flat out wrong on those issues, but as we saw with the people rising up and voicing our rights to speak out on immigration, those can be stopped.

in iraq, yes they talked about oil money and what would you say if we had that oil money.....you would then accuse him of raping the iraqis of thier birthright of oil, so whats the difference.........

I ALSO HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR NO ATTACKS SINCE 9/11......
someone somewhere has been doing something right and it isnt democrat appeasers of terrorists.

rez......

lets look real close at your success story.......

cambodia, laos, nam.........just how many MILLIONS Of people lost thier lives when the enemy there took over after we left...........and lets see......the democratic south was overrun by the communist north.......well sure thats a real success, BUT I do understand what you are saying......hey they are all happy and jolly now.......but what of the souls of the MILLIONS who were put to death.....or does that matter?

Sitdown,

Why dont you just BLOW ME you stupid bastard.

american.,.........I appreciate the historical reference but one thing is different.......9/11

and when the events you mentioned happened in india, we werent involved and werent brought into a global war against them by the 9/11 bastards and it doesnt matter how many were from saudi arabia.......they were still islamic radicals which are in iraq and iran and so many other places....and even if they are in iraq because we are there.....so what.....I contend that we must fight them whereever we find them.........and no amount of appeasement will stop them as the naive left seems to still believe...

and of course you can make a case that india and pakistan are not all that buddied up today.........

"I ALSO HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR NO ATTACKS SINCE 9/11......"

Well, I ALSO HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS ON 9/11...

and let me repeat my two main points.
it doesnt matter where the 9/11 people were from, they showed that we were no longer protected by two oceans, we could be hit by anyone

and the other.......while sadaam might not have been a part of 9/11....he was definitly a member of the terrorist family and he deserved his fate.....
and iraq is where we are fighting this enemy for now......


AND AGAIN....

here is the lib line..

chavez is a democratically elected president so we cant accuse him of anything.


mailliki, even though he is ALSO a democratically elected president....has to go.......


wow......go figure.....

"democrat appeasers of terrorists.

BushLoverTwo"

I'm an independent, guy.

Your statement is so rhetorically reckless I'm shaking my head in wonderment at either how gullible or mean spirited you are - or both. What a stupid, inflammatory and ultrapartisan statement.

Go to a VFW hall and take a straw poll as to whether or not Vietnam was a good idea. i think you'd be surprised to find that the overwhelming majority think it was a mistake in hindsight.

As long as the GOP is filled with blind and mean spirited folks who make statements like you did I won't be pushing any 'R' buttons for the forseeable future - like millions of others. I'm not willing to support anymore candidates who throw around statements like you made. And unfortunately we've heard too much of that type of empty and untruthful rhetoric.

"In only four years the U.S. has ousted one of the world's most brutal dictators ever and helped replace his regime with a democratically elected government - doing this without the backing of one political party, without liberal Hollywood, with numerous security leaks, with interfering politicians, and with a hostile anti-war press that continually misfires with bogus news stories. Not bad!" --gatewaypundit.com

Well, I ALSO HOLD HIM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ATTACKS ON 9/11...

Posted by DB_Cooper at 2007-08-23 10:18 AM


thats right..

just as the numbnutted prof said on the radio last week..

the planes were hijacked, they were just rerouted

the plane over penn was shot down by an f-15

and the building was rigged with explosives so more americans could be killed.........


and you are as big of a nut job as the prof if you believe all that bullshit........

Don't be so gullible about conspiracy theories. I hold Bush respnsible for 9/11 because the CIA told him Bin Laden was one of the three greatest threats the US faced, because he receivd a PDB on the subject, and did absolutely nothing about it. Even a moron has to be held to account once in a while. It's probably happened to you on occasion, Bush Lover, and while you refuse to hold Baby Bush responsible for his actions and inactions I doubt history will be as kind, gullible, or stupid.

so american......you want to cut and run and leave all of the iraqis who support us being there to the fate of the millions in nam who were slaughtered......and you get upset with an appeasers comment........please save the sanctamony for others....

so do you agree with the poster who said bush was responsible for 9/11........your answer there will go a long way towards credibility...

but alas.....the thread gets to over 100 and it takes way to long to even type.......

look for answer later.......

Bowa

The most ruthless dictator, if you want to count bodies, is living in Beijing. That regime bulldozes entire villages when they protest, imprisons dissenters, and hundreds of millions live in fear for their lives if they speak up. But, we don't rock the boat - we need their money.

Meanwhile, our 'friends' in Saudi Arabia and Kuiwait maintain their dictatorships. Why haven't they seen the light and held elections for president or prime minister?

"the millions in nam who were slaughtered......"

How many? When? By whom?

You post here as a spoof, right?

lets look real close at your success story.......


cambodia, laos, nam.........just how many MILLIONS Of people lost thier lives when the enemy there took over after we left...........and lets see......the democratic south was overrun by the communist north.......well sure thats a real success, BUT I do understand what you are saying......hey they are all happy and jolly now.......but what of the souls of the MILLIONS who were put to death.....or does that matter?

Posted by bushlovertwo
=============================
Yea lets look at the present. Its all a success story. Your "democratic South Vietnam' was anything but a democracy. What about the souls of those who are and were killed by us invading Iraq? You have to stop looking at us good and them bad. There is a whole perspective you just don't understand. For example when we squack about 2500 mia's do you realize they have 50,000 and we invaded them! If you were really concerned about saving lives then you would be jumping of the conservative band wagon and urging the president to sit down with the surrounding countries to divide it up if necessary to end the nonsense. You can't even tell me who the enemy is or what victory would look like. There is no leader to topple, no ground to take and the election we fought so hard to enact produced a theocracy run by the Shia. Now Iraq and Iran are both run by Shia and we can't accept that fact. The only way to "win" is to outlaw Islam and take control and occupy Iraq for a hundred years or more. Do you think this is possible? Do you think its worth it because people like you don't want to car pool or ride the bus?

BushLover

I'm looking for your reasons why this will be a success when the last 4 years hasn't given us an inkling of hope that will happen......

You must have at least one.

That shouldn't take more than 15 seconds to type.

'Cut and Run' is a statement that just makes me yawn it's been so overused. Bush and Cheney started using it 3 years and 4000 American lives ago.

db.....in typical liberal fashion, you forget all about clintons role in not seeing the danger or not doing enough about it.....


and we have caught him in another lie about the runup to 9/11.......

on fox news sunday he wagged that famous monica finger in wallace's face and told him that he tried really hard to kill OBL and now we know from cia bickering lately that this was not the case at all....that clinton was afraid to do anything because of how it would look.........


at least my point on this is that the entire government was blind and FIGHTING EACH OTHER......you remember that......WHEN THE CLINTON ADMINITRATION TOLD THE CIA AND THE FBI THAT THEY couldnt help each other.......or they couldnt use bad people to help find bad people.......

and the left can only see bush as a culprit and thats nonsense.


must go.........its hard as hell in texas and the AC is out...............

its HARD as hell in texas???

meant its HOT as hell..

oh shit.....thats not some sort of fraudian slip is it?

argue against pulling out? I have that arguement with my wife all the time.

Posted by wisgod

She never argues with me about it.

Posted by RastaCyborg

Why would she complain about something she can't feel, no matter how hard you thrust?

Posted by Axiom

She is obviously not as experienced as you are Axiom

"must go.........its hard as hell in texas and the AC is out...............

Posted by bushlovertwo"

Add 20 degrees and a 60 pound pack and you have an idea what our troops will be putting up with for 10 hours of patrol today.

Most Iraqis havn't had AC or running water for 4 years.....

Man, you've got it rough

"In only four years the U.S. has ousted one of the world's most brutal dictators ever and helped replace his regime with a democratically elected government - doing this without the backing of one political party, without liberal Hollywood, with numerous security leaks, with interfering politicians, and with a hostile anti-war press that continually misfires with bogus news stories. Not bad!" --gatewaypundit.com

Posted by Bowa
=======================
Thats not why we went to Iraq. If regime change is what the US is all about why not go Korea or China? Lets show the world where our balls really are. We invaded Iraq who had no WMD's and he never rebuilt his army from the first invasion. Yea we really are tough guys. There is no anti war press Bowa. Do you realize how many reporters have to be wrong for you to be right. The only press that agrees with you is Fox news and the the other sabre rattlers who never saw combat nor served.

It is a simple as admitting that the war in Iraq was a diversion to get oil contracts signed, and when they do then we can begin a draw down to a level that insures basic safety of the pipeline.

As soon as you can admit that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 or fighting Dictators, or spreading Democracy and we're only there to privatiaze their oil then maybe you will be able to look yourself in the mirror without laughing.

The comparision to Vietnam is a joke, get real, these wars are fought for 2 completely different political reasons.

Just more Bushit

"democrat appeasers of terrorists.

BushLoverTwo"

I'm an independent, guy.

Your statement is so rhetorically reckless I'm shaking my head in wonderment at either how gullible or mean spirited you are - or both. What a stupid, inflammatory and ultrapartisan statement.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY


Get used to it AU,
ButtLoverToo is the stupid dog we like to kick around everyday, hes not very intelligent and often shits on the carpet, but if you ask him to speak he will bark and then you can kick him again, its kind of fun when your bored and dont want to intelligently discuss anything...

Robert McNamara said in interview on CNN

""On the war in general:

This was much more a civil war than a war of aggression. I'm not arguing that there wasn't an element of aggression in it; I'm not arguing that the Chinese and the Soviets might not have tried to use South Vietnam as a launching pad to knock over the dominoes of Malaysia and Thailand and Indonesia and whatever. But what I am arguing is that the conflict within South Vietnam itself had all of the characteristics of a civil war, and we didn't look upon it as largely a civil war, and we weren't measuring our progress, as one would have in what was largely a civil war.""

If Bush wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam then he should compare the real similarities. The fact that Iraq is primarily a civil war is just as true there as it was in Vietnam. We shouldn't have been involved in Vietnam's civil war and we should not be involved in Iraq's.

EVEN though its hot here and I am supposed to apologize because its hotter in iraq..........which I WONT.........I have to answer the last one....

so comparing iraq to nam is a joke..

and it wasnt so long ago that all we heard from the left was.......YEP YOU GUESSED IT........that iraq was JUST LIKE NAM......and when we talk about the consequences of leaving too soon and what happened after we left nam......

then the left is SAYING JUST THE OPPOSITE.........

sounds just like the CHAVEZ/ MAIIKI comparison........

and with apologies to ONLY THE AMERICAN SOLDIER who is there fighting in all the garb, in that heat while the iraqi parliment is on vacation...........it is the end of the broadcast day.......

have a good one.....

"It is a simple as admitting that the war in Iraq was a diversion to get oil contracts signed

Repugnant"

The Shiite are battling each other in Basra (the only oil terminal in Iraq) for control, and Iraqi ministries are fighting each other (literally with guns).

We'll never see a penny repaid for this war from Iraqi oil, let alone control any oil field there. Heck, I read they don't even have meters on many of the pipelines so they know how much oil is leaving Iraq.

Maybe we could send BushLover over there to install them, his being from Texas and all. But, BushLover has a hard time without AC - and it's not nearly as hot where he is as it is in Iraq. Poor guy.

"As I have said since April of 2004, Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. It is a quagmire. Our military has done its job and done it well, but cannot solve Iraq's problems or end Iraq's civil war," said Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts., the first to use the term "quagmire" to describe the Iraq war.

"Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars," said Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and Vietnam War vet.

"The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation," Clinton said. "It has failed to do so. The White House's report in September wont change that. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.

Reality Bites, at least some are willing to face it.

cant leave the "REPUGNANT" comment alone.

at least AU has the intellectual honesty to debate the issues without a response like yours......which is only worthy of the following response..

go to hell.

again...your side and arguements were wrong when chamberlain made them against hitler and wrong when they were made about the soviet union and the cold war and they were wrong about what would happen to nam when we left and they will be wrong here if we leave them in the lurch that the left proposes....

and AGAIN>.....once more.........nam and iraq were the same for a long time and now that bush used that comparison....all of a sudden.....they arent the same........well.........

and now must go........and its a damn shame that my lights are still on....it would make me and AU FEEL a lot better if more of us were in the dark and hot.........and to hell with trying to actually making a difference there so they could get those things.......

EVEN though its hot here and I am supposed to apologize because its hotter in iraq..........which I WONT.........I have to answer the last one....



So what your saying is that we should have stayed indefinetly in Vietnam, and we should also do the same in Iraq?

Is this the point your trying to validate BLT?

...your side and arguements were wrong when chamberlain made them against hitler and wrong when they were made about the soviet union and the cold war and they were wrong about what would happen to nam when we left and they will be wrong here if we leave them in the lurch that the left proposes....

you mean like Goerge Bush Sr did to the Kurds after the First Gulf War?

Damn republicans!

BushLover

I'm still waiting for the positive effects our massive effort has had in iraq the last 4 years......

Just one will do (excluding overthrowing Saddam).

The Iraq situation is better because (fill in blank):

(_____________________________
___________________)

Iraq has made us safer here at home because:


______________________________
______________

We don't have a problem with the comparison of Vietnam and Iraq, it is the conclusion that results from that comparison that we have a problem with. Trying to justify remaining in Iraq by speaking of our too late pull out from Vietnam really underscores the need to leave Iraq not some convoluted logic that it justifies staying.
It is a fact both in Vietnam and Iraq, the longer we stay(ed) the more people die(d).

so repugant......since you would have no problem attacking my sources, lets look at yours.

kennedy......a member of the 'bootlegging' dynasty who would be lobster fishermen without the old man bootlegging his way to a fortune......and of course he is also a MURDERER who swam away but couldnt report anything until he got home to MOMMA and lawyered up....

and kerry.........the soldiers are in iraq because they are too stupid to do anything else and when they are there....
they go door to door terrorizing the people...

so use those two if you want, but I say they are not the sources you would want to " get your back"

at least AU has the intellectual honesty to debate the issues without a response like yours......which is only worthy of the following response..

go to hell.



You just get the quality of repsonse returned that you dish out.

You claiming to have intellectual honesty is fucking hilarious, you hypocrite.

Go to hell? no thanks, your place is disgusting. Maybe when you can afford AC your brain will function more clearly.

"It is a fact both in Vietnam and Iraq, the longer we stay(ed) the more people die(d)."

That is, unfortunately, all too true Danni. I just posted an article by some pretty savvy military experts that completely debunk Bush's lame comparison. That is one of the key points they make.

BushLover

I'm still waiting.......


The situation in Iraq is better now four years later because:

__________________________

We are safer here at home because:


__________________________

""kennedy......a member of the 'bootlegging' dynasty ""

You want to compare grandparents????
Old Prescott the Nazi is probably not your best argument for the Bush family's allegiance to America.

And your description of Kerry's comments just makes you look either uninformed or dishonest.

BushLoverTwo?

The situation in Iraq is better four years later because:


______________________________


By starting a war in Iraq we are safer here at home because:


______________________________

so use those two if you want, but I say they are not the sources you would want to " get your back"

and as usual you offer nothing of substance, just another half asses pot shot at Kennedy and misrepresenting the words of Kerry, you swiftboat lover you.. did you buy that new Karl Rove Rap record yet Gee Money?

See how easy it is to kick this bitch around AU..

but your making a mistake asking for real answers to tough questions, BLT is a parrot.

but your making a mistake asking for real answers to tough questions, BLT is a parrot.

I would have thought asking for ONE plausible and undeniably acceptable answer to each question wasn't asking too much, but......

I was expecting to hear on #2 "We're fighting Al Qaeda", to which I would have replied, "you mean the young Saudi men pouring over borders where they weren't welcome in February 2003 before we invaded?

Repugnant

I'm not trying to kick anyone around. Just ask for honest answers to simple questions from someone who believes in his heart of hearts we're doing the right thing, and that with 'just enough time' things will turn out swimmingly - if only the 'defeatist/leftist/terrorist hugging Democrats' will quit trying to defeat America.

bush is right there is a similiarity between nam and iraq.


we became engage in the war from premeditated lies.

we were kept in it for the same reason as we are still in iraq. the misconception that the communists would be at our doorstep if we gave up nam.

in nam we found ourselves embroiled in the middle of a civil war that had been going on for 100's of years.

if we were stilll in nam BOTH SIDES would still be fighting. because our presence prevents the centralization of power that can only be attained thru blood.

and we were in nam for oil interests. off coast drilling leases. IN ADDITION WE ALSO BECAME INVOLVED IN NAM WITHOUT ANY FORETHOUGHT OF AN EXIT STRATEGY,CULTURAL HISTORY(300 YEARS OF HATRED TOWARD WESTERN CULTURE.)


CAN ANYTHING BE MORE SIMILAR?

The Powell Doctrine was created to prevent the same problems that the Vietnam War presented.
Amazingly, with Powell a part of the administration it was ignored when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Does anyone remember the old children's game called "a three-legged race?" In that, you have races between teams of partners who have one of their legs tied to each other and the other free. To win, you have to learn to run together.

One similarity between Iraq and Vietnam, along with them both being civil wars, is that in each case we had to run a three-legged race. Those who say that we could have won in Vietnam or at least staved off the disaster forget that we were in a three-legged situation. We could not win without the South Vietnamese government, and they were corrupt and unpopular.

The same applies to Iraq. The USA can fight another two or three years, but if the Iraqis do not stop their conflict with each other, when we leave the situation will be just as bad as it is now.

Bush argues that if we leave Iraq, it will get worse. Many Democrats and Independents agree with that. But he does not draw the logical conclusion that to stave off the disaster we must stay in Iraq forever. For the disaster may come if we leave now or leave in 10 years. It may come if the surge is a success or a failure.

Now the myth of the liberals losing Vietnam. Remember, please, that Richard Nixon (a Republican)withdrew all US troops from Vietnam, and Henry Kissinger, his secretary of state and a Republican, negotiated the terms of the US withdrawal with the North Vietnamese in Paris. Those terms were considered a sell-out by the South Vietnamese, and so the USA had to force the South Vietnamese government to accept the deal, by threatening to cut off aid. That was the end of the war for the USA. Not the helicopters in 1975.

Once the war was officially over, the US Congress refused to start it again. You could say that they had a hand in the fall of Saigon, by not authorizing new military action. Or, you could say that the first war having taken so long and achieved so little for the USA, they were reluctant to try fighting it again.

Subsequently to the fall of Saigon, the Khmer Rouge started the massive genocide in Cambodia. However, you cannot tie this to the fall of Vietnam. In fact, virtually all of Cambodia had fallen to the Khmer Rouge long before Vietnam. I was in Pnom Penh in 1973, and already we could hear the Khmer Rouge artillery in the distance. Laos had fallen to the communists quite a few years before Vietnam, so Vietnam did not touch off a spate of falling dominoes.

The USA leaving Vietnam had nothing to do with the genocide in Cambodia. Instead, many historians argue that the USA bombing and invading Cambodia temporarily led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. They were effectively in control of all Cambodia except for the capital city, Phnom Penh, in early 1973 or even 1972. With that control, they COULD have started the genocide much earlier. And then, guess who stopped the genocide? Not the USA, not the UN; it was Vietnam that invaded Cambodia and defeated the Khmer Rouge.

Moreover, the obvious, Thailand did not fall; nor did Malaysia or Indonesia. And today, there is an Intel integrated circuit factory in Vietnam worth several billions of dollars and the US government doesn't have a habit of allowing such vital technical infrastructure to be build in countries we think could become enemies.

George Bush is so dumb he thinks agent orange works for the CIA.

Bush's mom is so dumb she thinks agent orange is what you mix with vodka to make a screwdriver. I mean what the help mixes with vodka to make a screwdriver.


"You do realize that the Secret Service can crawl in your ass with a microscope for saying shit like that.

Dont think just because you are a foreiner that you cant be touched.

Posted by sickoflibs"

The secret service has no jurisdiction outside the US. But I'll give you one thing, sickoflibs, the secret service are experts on assholes - they've been protecting a pair of them for nearly 8-years.

99% of the population of the US do not know any of the facts just presented by SMRSTRAUSS probably including George W. Bush.

Just ask for honest answers to simple questions

If your trying to get that from BLT, youre barking up the wrong tree.



I wouldnt be so mean if he wasnt suck a dick otherwise.

Retired US Brigadier General John Johns, an expert on counter-insurgency who served in Vietnam, said Bush was "cherry-picking" history to support his case for staying the course in Iraq.


We all know the fable that Goerge Washington chopped down the Cherry Tree and did not lie about it.

We now know that Goerge Bush is the one picking cherries and lying about it.

We are at a polar opposite of what this country started from.

Danni- Well, it's not like they teach this stuff in School anymore.

And the information about Kissinger selling out our allies was just released last year. People SAID it before, but it couldn't be proven.

The "libs lost the war" meme has been barked at america for decades now, facts be damned. That's one hell of a mountain to climb for anyone left of center. Propaganda tools are used because they are effective.

"I can not tell a lie, so please direct all inquiries to my staff."

George Bush is so dumb he thinks agent orange works for the CIA.

ROFLMAO!

We all know the fable that George Washington chopped down the Cherry Tree and did not lie about it.

We now know that George Bush is the one picking cherries and lying about it.

We are at a polar opposite of what this country started from.

Ha! FF fer Repugnant.

Sad Flag too. :(

Be Well.

ALEXANDRITE I have to admit, even though I am old enough to remember the Vietnam era quite well, I still get a little foggy on the details today. It was quite a while ago. My point just being that the use of the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq by Bush is a pretty dishonest attempt to take advantage of the fact that most people do not remember (or never knew) the truth about that war and our final exit from Vietnam. Our media should be filling in the details so that they can't get away with it but I doubt that they will. I know Chris Matthews is doing his show on this comparison today and I will be interested to see how he treats this.

Danni- Thanks for letting me know. Sometimes Matthews does a good show, other times(and this perplexes me) he comments on weird things, like Thompsons Aqua Velva/cigar smoke smell.

Vietnam was such a popular war among the American people, we all thought it was wrong to pull out!!!!! LOL!!!


You go Bush!!!! You go!!!!!

""show, other times(and this perplexes me) he comments on weird things""

like the political views of Ben Afleck...for a whole show!
Still, in my book, he's better than Tucker Carlson who is a waste of space. Even without the bow tie he sucks.

Tucker is a redundant pile of protoplasm.

Reid: Our nation was misled by the Bush Administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq
This is the real lie that continues to be spread, this time by the criminal from Nev. How was the nation misled by the Bush admin?

""This is the real lie that continues to be spread, this time by the criminal from Nev. How was the nation misled by the Bush admin?""

Do you really expect anyone do even take your question seriously any more Slickster???
I would guess the answers have been posted on this site at least 5,000 times. If you missed it every time someone posted it then to bad for you but something tells me you saw many of those postings and that you clearly understand exactly how the nation was misled but are choosing to be conveniently ignorant.

Why would I believe a History Failure?

The Vietnam Conflict was 10 years long!

As in that QUAGMIRE...

Historian Robert Dallek, who had compared the wars in Iraq and Vietnam, accused Bush of twisting history.

"We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn't work our will," he told the Los Angeles Times.

"What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion," he continued.

"We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II," he said. The disaster in Iraq "is the consequence of going in, not getting out," he added.

How was the nation misled by the Bush admin?

Posted by slicksterWilly at 2007-08-23 03:32 PM


Are you really that stupid?

DONNERBOY
the answer to your question is yes.

Our nation was misled by the Bush Administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq
This is the real lie that continues to be spread,

Posted by slicksterWilly

From your perspective Slick I tend to agree, as people like you who have their heads up thier asses have a difficult time seeing whats obviously in front of them.

Bush is using a brilliant tactical move invoking Vietnam. He is taking the Vietnam argument away from the libs ahead of an expected positive Petreaus report.

Like the popularity of Obama and Edwards, the Dems' anti-war argument is on its way down.

Stephen T. Banko III, a highly decorated Vietnam War veteran from Buffalo, said Bush's speech put him in mind of another famous World War II general, George Patton, and the nickname his troops bestowed on him.

" Blood and Guts -- his guts, our blood," Banko said. "That's exactly what Bush fails to realize. The sacrifice inherent in Vietnam cost us 58,000 American lives, 300,000 Americans seriously wounded, countless others emotionally destroyed, and still after 12 years of fighting alongside the South Vietnamese, they were unable to stand up for themselves."

How many American lives, Banko asked, will have to be lost until Iraq is stable -- if ever?

""This is the real lie that continues to be spread, this time by the criminal from Nev. How was the nation misled by the Bush admin?""

Do you really expect anyone do even take your question seriously any more Slickster???
I would guess the answers have been posted on this site at least 5,000 times. If you missed it every time someone posted it then to bad for you but something tells me you saw many of those postings and that you clearly understand exactly how the nation was misled but are choosing to be conveniently ignorant.

Posted by danni

Well Danni,

There have been opinions and even more lies about how this administration lied to the country. And you are probably right, there have been over 5000 of them. But thats only because the same people keep saying the same crap over and over again.

I have also asked many times for you to show me the evidence. Evidence is proof, that is not something that is taken as proof just because another liberal wrote it or something that comes from another liberal web site. That means there must be undisputed evidence. If you can show me any of the evidence to prove the Bush lied to start this war I will believe you.

The problem is that if there were any actual proof, the Congress would have moved to impeach. Without proof they would just look like the rest of you making baseless claims.

I know I am going to be attacked by the libs for this post but you all know its true. If I am wrong, PROVE IT!!!!!!

""The problem is that if there were any actual proof, the Congress would have moved to impeach.""

The Republicans would not go along with an impeachment no matter what they knew Bush had done or not done. It's politics baby, nothing but politics while people die in Iraq.

"Bush is using a brilliant tactical move invoking Vietnam."

Aw, nevermind. It sort of speaks for itself.

DonnerDumbAss, RepugNut, Danni-Dunce: Please explain why these comments were made before the Bush admin started the so called "lie".

If you SFB (s**t for Brains) need more of these, I can provide them for you. And I know I have posted these many times before, but unlike your revisionist history, time doesn't change the facts. It only serves to prove what GD fools you are.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

... more lies....

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Yawn.

Yawn
That is the typical of the responses from you when you can't "retort" the facts.

Just ignore it, and hate someone else.

Good job Slickster,

That should shut them up, at least until they can find somewhere on one of the liberal web pages that the Republicans made all this up to make the libs look bad.

Good job Slickster
Thanks, I was trained by the best. The Slick Willy himself.

Why would that list of highly selective quotes shut anybody up? They were all wrong. The Intelligence was wrong, and then after 2000 the interpretation of it was fudged and fiddled by the neo-cons, and, after 9/11 the administration did a brilliant job of convincing people like Hillary Clinton that she would be unpatriotic if she didn't vote for the war. There was never a second UN resolution which had been promised, and the disastrous occupation began, with hopeless plans from the start. ("Stuff happens") Now, after longer than we were in WWII, the White House reverses itself on the comparison with Vietnam and tries to dig up that old crap that we left Vietnam too early. No, we left Vietnam about five years and 50000 bodies too late.

You can give that line to the VFW, but not to the American people and expect them to take it seriously.

We have been in Iraq too long at too great a cost, in every sense.

Bush is a Category 5 on the Stupid Scale.

Slickster,

Quick question: Which president, Clinton or Bush, invaded and occupied Iraq, and which didn't?

I'm just trying to see if you know the difference between invading and not invading.

Bush is a Category 5 on the Stupid Scale.

Posted by CLINTONISKING at 2007-08-23 07:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does that mean if we dump him in the ocean he'll get stronger?

Only if the water is over 80 degrees, I've heard the temperature of many toilets rises to that level after use.

See Slickster,

I told you it would take a while before they started denying and covering for the libs.

"Why would that list of highly selective quotes shut anybody up? They were all wrong. The Intelligence was wrong, and then after 2000 the interpretation of it was fudged and fiddled by the neo-cons"

"The quotes were all wrong" I guess the libs that were quoted saying it were all wrong. The republicans must have created a fake liberal to make it look like they said it. "the interpretation was fudged". Again, as I have said many times, PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!

"after 9/11 the administration did a brilliant job of convincing people like Hillary Clinton that she would be unpatriotic if she didn't vote for the war."

And yet you want her as the President, someone who can be so eaasily fooled?

"There was never a second UN resolution which had been promised"

No, there were 14 of them so what was one more going to make a difference.

You libs want to take everything that has happened and twist it to fit you left wingnut little world. If we elect one of these knuckleheads as President, we are all doomed.

You libs want to take everything that has happened and twist it to fit you left wingnut little world. If we elect one of these knuckleheads as President, we are all doomed.

Priceless. 6 years of solid fuck-ups and it's all the libs fault when the democrats DONT represent them, or the polls.

"before (theh Dems) started denying and covering"

Bwahaha! Who's denying the difference between invading and not invading? Who's denying the difference between rhetoric and action?

.snoroM

First off, I could care less about the polls. Those are so easily manipulated.

Second, the democrats only represent who they thing are going to vote for them. They dont care one bit about what you want, only that you vote for them. Why do think that they always want to cater to the illegals. The libs are hoping that they can find a way to get the illegals to be allowed to vote and get more libs in office.

Please dont fool yourself by thinking that any politicion cares what you want.

You never heard me say that invading Iraq was a good idea. This whole thing is a major cluster fuck. My point is that the libs will never admit that they had any part of making a mistake. This whole thing was all Bushes fault and no democrat had anything to do with it. And as far as the rhetoric goes, we hear it every day from you libs.

Either SlickWilly or SickOfLibs want to take a stab at my simple questions:

The situation in Iraq is better 4 1/2 years later because:


______________________________


By starting a war in Iraq we are safer here at home because:


______________________________


If the Iraqii government can't achieve political progress we should:


______________________________

"There was never a second UN resolution which had been promised"

No, there were 14 of them so what was one more going to make a difference.

The difference is that the UN would not authorize an attack on Iran.

SickOfLibs

Democrats and Republicans alike voted to give Bush the 'Authorization' IF Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. inspectors.

Damn, if only Bush had given them the time to finish their job instead of kicking them out of the country so he could get down to business with the bombs....... But, then, he would have lost his excuse to invade when they ascertained Saddam didn't have WMD's. We couldn't have had that now, could we?

My point is that the libs will never admit that they had any part of making a mistake.

Well, you should change your handle to "sickofcons" since it was a republican admin that invaded Iraq and doesn't apologize for it.

I was against going into Iraq when Clinton sent Albright and Cohen into town hall meetings to drum up support for it then.

I was certainly against it in 2002. Don't add me to the list of people to blame.

PS- Edwards admitted he made a mistake 2 times, and apologized. I've yet to see any con do this. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

What does Iran have to do with this discussion?

"The situation in Iraq is better 4 1/2 years later because:"

It's not.

"By starting a war in Iraq we are safer here at home because:"

We're not.

"If the Iraqii government can't achieve political progress we should:"

Keep getting our troops killed in Iraq because pulling them out would only exacerbate our situation.

Democrats and Republicans alike voted to give Bush the 'Authorization' IF Saddam didn't comply with the U.N. inspectors.

Which was beyond retarded. Anyone paying attention knew this little twit had a raging hard-on for invasion, and that his trips to the UN were just window dressing.

I predicted W would invade Iraq when the Bush/Gore vote fiasco was going on. And that he would do something stupid with our taxes. Never thought he'd get re-elected though...

This whole thing was all Bushes fault and no democrat had anything to do with it. And as far as the rhetoric goes, we hear it every day from you libs.

You see what you wish to see. Some libs do that, yes. A lot don't.

I refuse to vote for anyone that authorized W's little adventure in the sand. I will not vote for edwards or hillary. Period.

My point is that the libs will never admit that they had any part of making a mistake.

That explains the terrible decision making. The Democrats are making Bush do it.

The situation in Iraq is better 4 1/2 years later because:


_I never said it was better, that is you trying to get us to say something that is not true.__


By starting a war in Iraq we are safer here at home because:


_Some would say that we are fighting them there instead of here. I dont necessarily believe that either but we have not been attacked on American soil since then._


If the Iraqii government can't achieve political progress we should:


_Ideally we should be done with them but what about all the people that would be left to slaughter. Going into Iraq was a mistake, I never disagreed with that. However, should we let those people be slaughtered now? Not a very easy decision is it?_

I hope you are satisified.

Alex,

You do make some good points and I would love to discuss further with you. I believe that it could be a real discussion with all the dipshit comments. But am starving and have to go.

Later

Alex

But you won't vote for any GOP choices, either, eh?

When I feel that way about some Dems, which I don't about Hil or Edwards, they did what they thought was right at the time, I vote Green Party or for Nader.

Even if he isn't running.

I would vote for Dennis the K's policies, Obama's charm, and Hil's experience against the VRWC, which, I think, counts for a lot in winning elections.

You don't get to make any changes at all, unless you win.

Having lived through the Vietnam era, I do see comparisons:

1. The governments of Vietnam and Iraq refuse to seize the opportunity we've given them to achieve real results and reconciliation.

2. Hawks continue to cry "If we only give it more time....."

3. U.S. and civilian casualties continue to climb while the Iraqi government continues to keep their thumbs up their asses as the Vietnamese did.

4. We're fighting in the middle of a civil war

5. We continue to throw good after bad while nothing changes from week to week, month to month, year to year.

6. America continues to get itself in massive debt

7. They'll continue their civil war no matter if we're there or not

8. All this was predicted and ignored while those who were pragmatic were demoted, fired, or resigned in disgust.

9. America has lost her luster in the world's eyes.
---------
If Bush only like to read books (or he and Cheney had fought in Vietnam) he could have made appropriate comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq rather than keep repeating #2 as the only answer.

In Nam, when the "elected" pres got out of line, we just killed him.

Ah, simpler times.

Corky- But you won't vote for any GOP choices, either, eh?

Not a chance. As mad as I am at the dem party, they're just weak greedy and stupid. Battered wives who still love their husbands even after returning home from the hospital again.

The republican rubber stamp congress is stupid, greedy, weak, AND evil.

Sickoflibs- Look me up sometime. I might yet change your mind about us libs.

Zat- where are the snipers when we need them?

PS- Go see Bourne Ultimatum. Good stuff.

However, should we let those people be slaughtered now? Not a very easy decision is it?_

Not at all. Ask how many American lives is it worth? Answer: zero, unless you are a chickenhawk.

SickOfLibs

I wasn't hassling you. I was trying to see why you think things are better - i.e. why we should stay.

2 million refugees living outside Iraq, 2 million inside Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead and climbing.

All with no real results after 4 1/2 years.

Just asking for a good reason we should stay. They're going to fight each other whether or not we're there. Meanwhile we spend our treasury and lives on them while their government hasn't made a lick of progress since we invaded and doesn't show any signs of wanting to.

Heck, just the other day Mailiki said we can't tell them what to do....that they can find 'other friends'. Let 'em I say. They're certainly not our friends.

Only when they tire of fighting each other will things change.

We're only prolonging their civil war by staying.

Leave it to Bush ... the "Nimwit of the class" to use Vietnam as a "good example" of why we should stay 10 more years in Iraq...before we leave!

loser!

get off the stage!

Danni is right Slickster... you think you are so right, but, you are so stupid!

Prolly got C's in history, too!

"Go see Bourne Ultimatum. Good stuff."

Posted by Alexandrite

I mean to do that.
It's just a light on a wall, though.
Apocalypto is art.

(silence)

I'm an Army brat.
Son a Ft Bliss gunnery instructor from the 30's.

"He could make the impossible seem simple."
-One of Dad's students at Ft Bliss

What was amazing about dropping that running coyote at ~700yds with my sweet Weatherby 7mm-08 was the cows' reaction: convergence. They were impressed.

Oh wait, my irony meter just imploded.

The best book I've read on the Vietnam War was 'The Best and The Brightest' by David Halberstam (won the Pulitzer Prize)

He chronicles well the cherry picked intel, the hawks who wanted a war no matter what, etc. from Eisenhower through Nixon.

---------

Those younger posters who scream about the 'War on Terror' never lived through the Cold War evidently. We did weekly 'Duck and Cover' drills, where we hid under our desks as we would when the nuclear bombs started falling (like that would have saved us LOL).

This 'War on Terror' pales in comparison to the 'Cold War'.

10,000 nuclear and hydrogen bombs aimed at us vs a rag tag bunch of Islamic fundamentalists with AK-47's in an era we can look up people's noses with satellite photography and listen to them farting in the bathroom from 10,000 miles away should hopefully put the 'War on Terror' in it's proper perspective I'd hope.

"She [The United States of America) well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own,"

Apparently she forgot.

"were they even the banners of foreign independence,"

Which what Iraq represents now.

"she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication,"

Yup, sounds like our situation in Iraq.

"in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individ-ual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."

Which we have since involving ourselves in WWI.

"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensi-bly change from liberty to force."

Yup, it sure did.

"The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffa-ble splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world:"

Which she has arguably become.

"she would be no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."

And she isn't. How the heck did John Q Adams know this on July 4th, 1821??? Maybe we should heed other warnings given by our founders???

Zat- it may only be "persistence of vision" but it's still a good film.

I'll give apocalypto a rental since you've consistently praised it for so long.

Ideally we should be done with them but what about all the people that would be left to slaughter. Going into Iraq was a mistake, I never disagreed with that. However, should we let those people be slaughtered now?

That argument makes a case against the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, the longest running excuse for why the American military is there.

Must see in theater.

Gibson's a genius.
OK He's an lunatic, too, but that movie is an incredible piece of work.

The only film I'd gone right back to see before was In The Heat of the Night.

"Courtney?"

Of course I own Blood of a Poet.

Generico

To borrow from Al Gore regarding Cheney, his statements in 1994 are 'An Inconvenient Truth"

Very good, Americanunity. If there was a painfully poignant flag then I would've given that to you.

If

you like Apocalypto

then

you must see The Fountain!