Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   


Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives
Author Message
joeyjock
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 592
Location: Fort Lauderdale

PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Good God...
I never thought I'd see it for real but now I have
"...people are actually doing better that under Saddam"??
"...it's getting better but it's a slow process"??
Can I ask you guys a question?
Can you report with any conviction how many Iraqi's have died in this conflict?
...and how many would it take for you to say...ya know maybe this whole Bush war thing might not have been worth it?
now put a number in your head of how many you think have died and keep it there...and I guarrantee it when they give the green light to tell you (because they're obviscating the truth on purpose....it's gonna be WAY over that number
If this isn't a war crime rivelling any of this century I don't know what is
Back to top
Nesta13Maldini
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 173
Location: My Computer Chair

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
joeyjock wrote:
Good God...
I never thought I'd see it for real but now I have
"...people are actually doing better that under Saddam"??
"...it's getting better but it's a slow process"??
Can I ask you guys a question?
Can you report with any conviction how many Iraqi's have died in this conflict?
...and how many would it take for you to say...ya know maybe this whole Bush war thing might not have been worth it?
now put a number in your head of how many you think have died and keep it there...and I guarrantee it when they give the green light to tell you (because they're obviscating the truth on purpose....it's gonna be WAY over that number
If this isn't a war crime rivelling any of this century I don't know what is


The U.S does not investigate it's own war crimes. So trying to get the number of Iraqi's that died is pretty impossible.
Back to top
Kels
Newbie


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Location: Konigstein, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
After that, you can tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of some other country. Any time I ask this, people ignore the question.


Simply because it was an easy target. Hideous ruler, "WMD", ties with Al-Qaeda, ties to 9/11, enormous untapt energy resources. Why do you think people were saying "no blood for oil." If people were really afraid for losing their 'freedom' then the U.S should go after North Korea.



ROFL. North Korea is not a threat. While their people starve to death, they're too busy putting all their g's into making third rate missiles that wouldn't even ironically hit Iran.

If you understand anything about the Richter scale, you'd know that these attention craving drama queens in N.K. did not set off an anything worth a damn. I think it reistered as 4.2. that is the equivalent to a very small nucleat test or a dud. ha ha.

They just want attention! The Middle East is making Kim's pussy hurt, and he had a hissy fit with a boat full of fireworks they confiscated off the coast of Pukchong ....

Maybe they should just stick to perfecting glass.
Back to top
Nesta13Maldini
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 173
Location: My Computer Chair

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:04 am    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Kels wrote:
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
After that, you can tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of some other country. Any time I ask this, people ignore the question.


Simply because it was an easy target. Hideous ruler, "WMD", ties with Al-Qaeda, ties to 9/11, enormous untapt energy resources. Why do you think people were saying "no blood for oil." If people were really afraid for losing their 'freedom' then the U.S should go after North Korea.



ROFL. North Korea is not a threat. While their people starve to death, they're too busy putting all their g's into making third rate missiles that wouldn't even ironically hit Iran.

If you understand anything about the Richter scale, you'd know that these attention craving drama queens in N.K. did not set off an anything worth a damn. I think it reistered as 4.2. that is the equivalent to a very small nucleat test or a dud. ha ha.

They just want attention! The Middle East is making Kim's pussy hurt, and he had a hissy fit with a boat full of fireworks they confiscated off the coast of Pukchong ....

Maybe they should just stick to perfecting glass.


You know this thing sucks at sarcasm... I meant to say it as in terms of Iraq. North Korea was the same thing as Iraq. That's why I said if they were afraid they should go after them... I forgot to put [/sarcasm] my bad Laughing
Back to top
Kels
Newbie


Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Posts: 19
Location: Konigstein, Germany

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:11 am    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
Kels wrote:
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
After that, you can tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of some other country. Any time I ask this, people ignore the question.


Simply because it was an easy target. Hideous ruler, "WMD", ties with Al-Qaeda, ties to 9/11, enormous untapt energy resources. Why do you think people were saying "no blood for oil." If people were really afraid for losing their 'freedom' then the U.S should go after North Korea.



ROFL. North Korea is not a threat. While their people starve to death, they're too busy putting all their g's into making third rate missiles that wouldn't even ironically hit Iran.

If you understand anything about the Richter scale, you'd know that these attention craving drama queens in N.K. did not set off an anything worth a damn. I think it reistered as 4.2. that is the equivalent to a very small nucleat test or a dud. ha ha.

They just want attention! The Middle East is making Kim's pussy hurt, and he had a hissy fit with a boat full of fireworks they confiscated off the coast of Pukchong ....

Maybe they should just stick to perfecting glass.


You know this thing sucks at sarcasm... I meant to say it as in terms of Iraq. North Korea was the same thing as Iraq. That's why I said if they were afraid they should go after them... I forgot to put [/sarcasm] my bad Laughing


ha, I know. It's hard to portray those things on a forum.... for instance some guy got seriously butt-hurt in the music section because i responded to his post, and he didn't quite get it.
Back to top
Nesta13Maldini
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 173
Location: My Computer Chair

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:19 am    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Kels wrote:
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
Kels wrote:
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
PeaceLoveandRockNRoll wrote:
After that, you can tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of some other country. Any time I ask this, people ignore the question.


Simply because it was an easy target. Hideous ruler, "WMD", ties with Al-Qaeda, ties to 9/11, enormous untapt energy resources. Why do you think people were saying "no blood for oil." If people were really afraid for losing their 'freedom' then the U.S should go after North Korea.



ROFL. North Korea is not a threat. While their people starve to death, they're too busy putting all their g's into making third rate missiles that wouldn't even ironically hit Iran.

If you understand anything about the Richter scale, you'd know that these attention craving drama queens in N.K. did not set off an anything worth a damn. I think it reistered as 4.2. that is the equivalent to a very small nucleat test or a dud. ha ha.

They just want attention! The Middle East is making Kim's pussy hurt, and he had a hissy fit with a boat full of fireworks they confiscated off the coast of Pukchong ....

Maybe they should just stick to perfecting glass.


You know this thing sucks at sarcasm... I meant to say it as in terms of Iraq. North Korea was the same thing as Iraq. That's why I said if they were afraid they should go after them... I forgot to put [/sarcasm] my bad Laughing


ha, I know. It's hard to portray those things on a forum.... for instance some guy got seriously butt-hurt in the music section because i responded to his post, and he didn't quite get it.


Laughing Laughing
Back to top
Just Me
Newbie


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 34
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
to put it simple... "war doesn't determine who is right, but rather who is left"
Back to top
mulch
Newbie


Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 30

PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 6:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
JesusLopezViejo wrote:
"President Bush acknowledged for the first time Tuesday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists."



I mean...is there a real winner in this invasion we call a war?


I would have thought after 3 national elections and the ratification of their constitution people like you whould have shut up. Ignoring the facts is easy isn't it?

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

We basically invaded a country, fucked it up more than it was...people don't want us there...there were no WMD, there were no terrorists and then we say we went there to spread democracy!


No we didn't "basicly" do anything we went in and kicked skull.

Who doesn' want us there? The terrorists? Who cares what they want? The people? Well tell that to 82dn ENG Bat. Tell that to the men and women at Capm Stryker. They'll tell you a different story. But you'de rather believe the MSM when they telly ou wat you want to hear anyway right?

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

It is like the Arab world coming to America and insisting we install Muslim rule across our land, it just won't work.


But don't you understand that is just what they want to do. Allahy Sword have stated this many timesin the past.

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

So, of course we aren't winning in Iraq. There is nothing to win.


Define winning and losing? you and people of your ilk have never done this. You just spout talking points the talking heads tell you to spout and yer happy lil campers.

What about the almost 30 million people in Iraq? Don't they have a say? You just won't let them.

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

Too many people dead for a lost cause or no cause at all.


Nice of you to insult and spit ion the mena nd women who serve our nation and the people of Iraq. Real good show guy. Please repeat that sentance to a Marine or a soldier who had to bury a friend. Please by all mean do that but only if you have good health insurance.

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

Don't even try and tell me we are safer now in America because we invaded Iraq...Don't even tell me we REALLY went to Iraq to help the people. If you remember back when this first started, it wasn't about that at all. It has been spun to the American people that freedom for Iraqi's was the real reason only because they have nothing else to back up this illegal invasion with.


What illegal invasion? Remember your sex offender of a president had the UN resolutions that never ran out? Remember those? Good lord are you people really that stupid? Or is it that your memories so short?

he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

Can you even believe this? Struggle against terrorists? In Iraq? The ones we attracted there because of our illegal invasion?

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

Why is it that when the government has a chance to do something right, they just choose to go the total opposite way. Troops dying nonstop...For every "terrorist" we kill, they kill 20 American troops. So the government has a new idea...Let's just send in MORE TROOPS to die.


Where do you get your numbers? I mean just because you say so doen't mean it's true. I still have friends there and they paint a completly different picture. I believe them you I don't. I'm calling your bluff. Post your sources to these numbers. My friends tell me different.

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

I wonder what the next war will be...War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Christmas, War on ______ fill in the blank.


There already is awar on Christmas. It was declaired by you and people like you who hate.
Back to top
Nesta13Maldini
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 173
Location: My Computer Chair

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hate when people say that they are 'disrespecting' our troops. I think the biggest disrespect would have to be that of Bush

Bush-
"Guys we are going in to get those WMD!"

Troops-
"Yea!"

Bush-
"Well guys there were no WMD but you guys are still gonna have to put up with it while I make jokes about not finding them"
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3907

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just Me wrote:
to put it simple... "war doesn't determine who is right, but rather who is left"


here here!
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 3:43 am    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
mulch wrote:
JesusLopezViejo wrote:

I mean...is there a real winner in this invasion we call a war?


I would have thought after 3 national elections and the ratification of their constitution people like you whould have shut up. Ignoring the facts is easy isn't it?


That depends. Was that the goal of the invasion? 3 national elections and a constitution? If so, i guess we won, and now we can leave.

Quote:

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

We basically invaded a country, fucked it up more than it was...people don't want us there...there were no WMD, there were no terrorists and then we say we went there to spread democracy!


No we didn't "basicly" do anything we went in and kicked skull.


It's cool to glorify or trivialize death and destruction. [/sarcasm]

Quote:

Who doesn' want us there?


Well, the iraqi people, for one.

Quote:

The terrorists? Who cares what they want? The people? Well tell that to 82dn ENG Bat. Tell that to the men and women at Capm Stryker. They'll tell you a different story. But you'de rather believe the MSM when they telly ou wat you want to hear anyway right?


Warm fuzzy anecdotes don't do much for me. I need information that is indicative of reality.

Quote:

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

It is like the Arab world coming to America and insisting we install Muslim rule across our land, it just won't work.


But don't you understand that is just what they want to do. Allahy Sword have stated this many timesin the past.


Oh i get it. Since our enemies want to do something, that means it's okay for US to actually go and do it...

Or not.

Quote:

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

So, of course we aren't winning in Iraq. There is nothing to win.


Define winning and losing? you and people of your ilk have never done this. You just spout talking points the talking heads tell you to spout and yer happy lil campers.


I don't think anyone knows what constitutes victory. The reasons we were given for going to war have turned out to be illegitimate, so where does that leave us?

Quote:

What about the almost 30 million people in Iraq? Don't they have a say? You just won't let them.


No, they don't have a say in american foreign policy.

Normally, we'd have every right to pull out right now.

Unfortunately, we caused this shit storm, so we're obligated to clean it up, in a sense.

Quote:

JesusLopezViejo wrote:

Too many people dead for a lost cause or no cause at all.


Nice of you to insult and spit ion the mena nd women who serve our nation and the people of Iraq. Real good show guy. Please repeat that sentance to a Marine or a soldier who had to bury a friend. Please by all mean do that but only if you have good health insurance.


Haha, so you mean to say that these noble, valient individuals would physically assault someone because they exercised their first ammendment right?

That kind of contradicts what you're trying to say here.

It may come as a surprise to you, but acknowledging reality is not the same as insulting american soldiers.

This war was a stupid mistake, and it's a failure. That's fact. It's not an insult to soldiers, because they don't control their lives; they don't get to decide if they go to war or not.

It's an insult to the people who started the war.

Quote:

What illegal invasion?


The one where the president kept soldiers in combat without a declaration of war.

Quote:

Remember your sex offender of a president


A: consentual sex is not illegal. You should already know that.

B: "B-b-but Clinton!" is not a valid defense of anything, much less this war or this administration. You should already know that.

Quote:

had the UN resolutions that never ran out? Remember those? Good lord are you people really that stupid? Or is it that your memories so short?


Do you mean to say that the UN actually has power, and that we should actually do what it says?

I suspect that, under different circumstances, you would be singing a different tune.

Quote:

he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

Can you even believe this? Struggle against terrorists? In Iraq? The ones we attracted there because of our illegal invasion?


We didn't attract them. We created them; most of them are not foreigners.

Quote:

I'm calling your bluff. Post your sources to these numbers. My friends tell me different.


His numbers sound iffy to me too, but i'm certainly not inclined to believe 'your friends' over him, either.

Quote:

There already is awar on Christmas. It was declaired by you and people like you who hate.


Haha, of course, the "war on christmas". How could i have forgotten? Apparently i'm one of the foot soldiers in this war...despite the fact that i celebrate christmas...

(I'll put it more bluntly if you don't understand: there is no war on christmas. Nobody gives a fuck.)
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1131

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
I hate when people say that they are 'disrespecting' our troops. I think the biggest disrespect would have to be that of Bush

Bush-
"Guys we are going in to get those WMD!"

Troops-
"Yea!"

Bush-
"Well guys there were no WMD but you guys are still gonna have to put up with it while I make jokes about not finding them"

the whole WMDs thing is a red herring. the fact is we are locked into a death struggle with terrorism. Conservatives want to fight. Libs don't even realize the danger. WMDs or not Iraq was bent on destroying America. Iraq was bent on producing the kind of weapons that terrorists could use. I am glad it isn't that way anymore.
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1131

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesta13Maldini wrote:
How can you win in an Invasion? Oh yea you win by taking what you need from that country. Oil/Energy Resources Very Happy

If that was the goal of the invasion, then why aren't we taking the Iraqi oil right now?
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1131

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Quote:
Okay... good job. Now explain to me why invatind a country with no Al-Queda presence saved us from being attacked by Al-Queda.

b/c the war on terror is bigger than Al Qaeda. AQ is not the only terrorist group out there.


Quote:
After that, you can tell me why we invaded Iraq instead of some other country. Any time I ask this, people ignore the question. Did we decide to liberate a nation and pull one out of a hat? Because I don't remember Bush ever publicly considering a belligerent invasion of any other oppressed country.

I would say that the reason was b/c at the time everyone thought Saddam had WMDs. Iraq was a state sponsor of terror and the Bush doctrine is that nations that sponsor terror need regime change. it was president Clinton who advocated regime change in Iraq. bush was simply following his lead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Perhaps we should have attacked Iran first. I think you could make a case for that.

Let me guess.........you don't think we should have attacked any nation? yes? do you think we need to attack nations that are state sponsors of terror?
Back to top
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 1131

PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Bush: U.S. `not winning' in Iraq Reply with quote
Joshua1978 wrote:
As a service member I would like to speak on behalf of my brothers who are coming home from Iraq.

You would be a good one to answer this question...........for every American soldier that dies in Iraq, how many insurgents die? can you give us a rough estimate? I previously said something like 20 insurgents to 1 American. what is your thot?
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Add to My Yahoo!

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites