Opinions are welcome but be civil. Bush Bashing and anonymous posts are not tolerated.
We've been hearing this "good news from Iraq" nonsense since the day we invaded, and it's always wrong.
The main point here is the separation between those who are serious on national security and those who aren't. If you're serious about national security, like Pelosi or Murtha, you accept the fact that we cannot "win" in Iraq and look for a decent way out.
If you want America to be humiliated, as Bush does, then you want to stay in Iraq forever, and you make up stories about how we're "winning" and spout idiotic myths about who we're fighting (so conservative posts are full of talk about Al-Qaeda, ignoring the fact that Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in the Iraq violence). Bush wants America to be defeated and humiliated by staying in Iraq forever; Democrats want America to salvage something from this mess.
So are you with the serious people who want a solution, or with Bush, who just wants more dead Americans and is willing to pretend that we can "win" Iraq's civil war?
M. A. YOUR A BOOB. PELOSI AND MURTHA ONLY PLAN IS TO GET MORE AMERICANS KILLED IN THE FUTURE BY GIVING UP. APPARENTLY YOU'VE NEVER BEEN IN MILITARY OR HAD TO DEFEND YOUR HONOR. HERE'S MY THING I DON'T WANT MY SONS OR DAUGHTER HAVING TO GO BACK TO THE MIDDLE EAST IN 5 TO TEN YEARS BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS AND LIBERALS DICTATE POLICY AND LEAVE AN AREA WHEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS. IF WE KEEP ALLOWING NATIONS TO DO THINGS TO US SUCH AS KILL OUR CITIZENS THEN WE ARE NOTHING AND SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BE CALLED THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD. IF YOU THINK THAT WE CAN NEGOTIATE WITH NATIONS SUCH AS IRAN AND NORTH KOREA AND THEY WILL LISTEN. LOOK AT WHAT HISTORY TELLS YOU. THEY WOULD RATHER TAKE ALL YOU'VE GOT AND KILL YOU RATHER THAN BE FRIENDS WITH YOU. HOW LONG DOES NEGOTIATIONS NEED TO GO ON BEFORE YOU REALIZE THAT THEY AREN'T WORKING. HOW LONG DID SADAAM THUMB HIS NOSE AT THE WORLDS NEGOTIATIONS. WHAT 13 YEARS. HOW MANY PEOPLE DID HE KILL DURING THOSE YEARS. (AROUND 25O,000) HOW MANY PEOPLE DID HE KEEP IN ABU GHARAIB AND TORTURE( AROUND 500,000 +) HOW MANY NEW PALACES DID HE BUILD WITH THE UN MONEY ( 25 PLUS) HOW MANY PEOPLE STARVED OR WENT HOMELESS BECAUSE OF HIS WANT TO BUILD PALACES. WHAT DID PELOSI AND MURTHA DO THEN. NOTHING AS THEY ARE DOING NOW. NICE GOING M. A. YOUR A REAL CITIZEN OF THE WORLD
First off, it is a reconstruction effort, the US commanders tell us this conflict doesn't even meet HALF the criteria of what makes up a civil war.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/
me...tion=cnn_latest
Maybe you should actually learn the terminology and the definitions of words before you use them M.A.
Secondly,even your liberal newspapers tell you it is a reconstruction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/
2...econstruct.html
Thirdly, the Inspector General, who is in no way friendly to the Bush administration, tells us this is a reconstruction effort:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7032102418.html
So, maybe instead of actively rooting for failure, you should quit closing your eyes are pretending there is no success in Iraq... not one of these releases have ever been disproven, the media usually just doesn't report on them and now they are starting to because they have no choice.
Your talking points are so full of holes it is like swiss cheese.
Try doing some research yourself M.A. and then you might actually sound like you know what you are talking about.
Then again, maybe you wont.
.
You GO Richard!!!!!!
Nicely put.
Hoping for America to fail doesn't make a person patriotic, it makes them anti-American.
One can have doubts about Iraq, it is only natural to question things, but to actively HOPE and WISH for America's failure as Pelosi, Murtha and crew do, IS NOT PATRIOTIC, it is sick.
Isn't it interesting also, that it makes people actually freak out to have to acknowledge that we are seeing success in Iraq and have been for quite a few weeks now?
They would rather close their eyes and deny it even as it is being reported on by their own LIBERAL MEDIA.
That HAS to hurt!!!!
Very interesting.
.
M.A. knows more about the status of al-Qaeda in Iraq than Zalmay Khalilzad does he? How about if you tell us what war is supposed to look like? Terrorists throw daisies instead of planting IEDs, right?
M.A. demostrates the embarrassing disconnect between uninformed America and the reality on the ground.
I'd be interested to know how M.A. determined the "good news" out of Iraq is always wrong.
Things do seem to be encouraging but the endgame is to get out of there. I would like to hear Bush publically state that we have no intentions of basing troops permanently in Iraq.
And Richard: please take the caplocks off!
Now Greg, you KNOW we still have people stationed in Germany, Japan, Korea and such, you KNOW how this works and phrasing that way is intellectually dishonest.
The President makes that type of speech, THEN ya'll can call him a liar when we have a minimal amount of troops there logistically for any length of time.
Nice try but everyone knows that we will have a presence there for quite a while even AFTER reconstruction is complete.
Amy, M.A. must be determining that all these articles coming from reporters in Iraq are a huge conspiracy and Bush and the admin owns them all... (appropriate twilight music here)
Spree: our presence in Japan and Germany didn't fuel terrorism, but our military presence in the entire ME does, IMO.
Amy, I don't believe Khalilzad is stupid enough to claim that Al-Qaeda is causing most of the violence. This is because he knows, as most people do, that Al-Qaeda is a minor factor in Iraq and that most of the violence is inter-Iraqi, home grown. That's why it's called a civil war.
Apparently you dudes think a "reconstruction" involves hundreds of thousands of dead people, which explains Bush's approach to reconstructing New Orleans.
And of course, this war is not at all comparable to Japan or Germany or WWII (thankfully, unlike the mighty German army, we now face only minor threats like Al-Qaeda or Iran -- only cowards think that these are threats on a par with Hitler).
P.S. - Of course I'm not saying that these MSM stories are wrong (though they do prove that the MSM does not have a liberal or anti-Bush bias), but that they don't prove we're "winning" in Iraq. While you post your "good news from Iraq" nonsense, people die horribly in Iraq every day and we can't stop it -- because it is a civil war, not a war that we can "win."
The best we can do is tamp down temporarily on violence in Baghdad while violence surges outside of Baghdad. Which is what's happening now. That's OK for Bush, because he just doesn't want to admit that we can't win. But people who are actually serious about national security, like Murtha, want to actually come up with a plausible solution (like promising the Iraqis that we'll leave).
So on the one hand, Bush, who knows we cannot "win" but wants to kill more Americans and Iraqis in order to avoid admitting it. And on the other hand, Pelosi and Murtha, who are actually serious about what's right for America's national security interests.
You can stand with America, or you can stand with Bush. But you can't do both, because Bush is working to defeat and humiliate America by making us stay in Iraq forever.
M.A. It might behoove you to look at OUR OWN reconstruction after the American Civil War, it is indisputably known as the MOST bloodiest time of our history.
Obviously you do not study history r ignored it when it was taught in school or you would have known this.
Perhaps you should go back to school.
For the record, OUR reconstruction lasted many many more years than the 4 that Iraq has been suffering through it.
SCHOOOOOOOOOOL M.A.
.
Reconstruction is still a sore spot to Southerners. If you'll look through some of MY postings here, you'll discover that while I'm a patriotic American, I'm also very much a Southern Nationalist. "American by birth, Southern by the grace of God," as the old saying goes.
TO HIS CREDIT, Lincoln planned to make it easy for the Confederacy to be readmitted to the Union. He was assassinated before his plans could be implemented, and his successor, Johnson (a fellow Tennessean, though I am not exactly proud of that) was not strong enough of character to force the will of northern political zealots who wished to punish a defeated enemy rather than to behave as gentlemen when the war was over.
The raping of Dixie was on...
http://www.civilwarhome.com/
reco...onstruction.htm
http://www.magicalcat.com/
H_reco...onstruction.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec.../
Reconstruction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_...ki/
Ku_Klux_Klan
http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/kkk.htm
MA, I will expect you to hold a civil "tongue" when you are here, and conduct yourself respectfully and as a gentleman.
Commenting by HaloScan
