For Those That Support a Troop Surge:
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
Interesting. I recall in 2003 being called a tin-foil hat pinhead when I dared to even mention oil in connection with justification for us being in Iraq. As for enormous ramifications.......like what? A civil war? Terrorist attacks? Are you afraid Al-Sadr may gain control in Iraq? Guess, what, no matter how much you like to delude yourself, we're not stabilizing ANYTHING in that region with our military presence throughout the country. Which is why the Murtha Plan of redeployment is the only sensible answer to the problem. If the infighting gets too bad, we'd be close enough to put an end to it.
Redeployment isn't "nothing" Corky.
Yeah, that's a great plan considering soldiers and money grown on trees.
Bush and brilliant shouldn't be used in the same sentence. But I will say this: fighting a war on terrorism is like no other that we've attempted to fight before. Bush has repeated claimed that Iraq is intrinsic in the WOT, which should never be fought like its traditional warfare. Which he has. In doing so, he's led us back to a quagmire much like Vietnam.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This "destabilization in the region that would occur if we left" is nothing more than a guess from a bunch of neocons who have guessed wrong about everything since day one.
No, it's actually articulated by men smarter than you or I, in the Baker Report. I assumed you had read it, and agreed with it, you claimed you did, you and the other pinheads are on record supporting it, so are you now saying it is full of speculation?
Redeployment isn't "nothing" Corky.
Redeployment is leaving, and we can't do that. Go read the Baker Report again, to understand why we can't have "precipitous withdrawal."
Look, I understand, you really, really, really want us to leave Iraq. I get it! Here's the deal, we are not going to leave Iraq until there is reasonable assurance of peace in Iraq. It's not a matter of pride or stubbornness, it's not because we neocons just like the smell of gunpowder and prefer to be at war, and it's not because Nancy Pelosi is to clueless to challenge the minority party. It's simply because the reality of the world we live in, and the reality of what would happen if we left.
I know that it's asking a lot of you, but if you could stop the daily undermining of the war, it might actually help discourage the enemy a little, and bring the day a little closer, that we can come home from Iraq.
Interesting. I recall in 2003 being called a tin-foil hat pinhead when I dared to even mention oil in connection with justification for us being in Iraq.
Well, that's because oil was not the justification, however, it could have been the catalyst which made 'boots-on-the-ground' military invasion a more serious option than blockades or aerial bombing campaigns. Saddam devastated the oil infrastructure and the environment the last time we confronted him, by setting the oil fields on fire.
I have never argued that Iraq had nothing to do with oil, and I think anyone who is a thinking and rational person, can understand the importance of the oil supply to the US. That doesn't mean the war was "about oil" at all, it means the oil is an important factor to consider here. If you look at it in regards to "what's best for the oil", you will determine, it's best if the oil is controlled by a democratic government allied with the US, rather than a tyrant dictator who is aligned with terrorism. It's better that the revenues from the oil, are going to 'We The People of Iraq' than into the hands of terrorists, or to bribe French and German officials. It's also better that the oil remain in the hands of a democratic Iraq, than whatever might overthrow the government in the vacuum of our withdrawal.
Bush and brilliant shouldn't be used in the same sentence. But I will say this: fighting a war on terrorism is like no other that we've attempted to fight before. Bush has repeated claimed that Iraq is intrinsic in the WOT, which should never be fought like its traditional warfare. Which he has. In doing so, he's led us back to a quagmire much like Vietnam.
To an extent, I have agreed with you. His biggest mistake was trying to fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy, in my opinion. Iraq is intrinsic in the WoT, which is why it should have been fought like no other war... he completely contradicted his own valid and salient point, by attempting to wage a conventional war against these people. The result was catastrophe, and the left exploited it to the fullest, in order to bring back the Ghost of Vietnam. Iraq will never be the 58k-dead-soldier quagmire of Vietnam, it won't even come close. Unlike Vietnam, who's main export was rice, Iraq is much more important to the US, and holds a vital commodity we simply can't walk away from or ignore. If we abandon Iraq, we abandon Iraq's oil supply as well. Even pinheads should be smart enough to understand, why we can't do that.
No, it's actually articulated by men smarter than you or I, in the Baker Report. I assumed you had read it, and agreed with it, you claimed you did, you and the other pinheads are on record supporting it, so are you now saying it is full of speculation?
Redeployment isn't "nothing" Corky.
Redeployment is leaving, and we can't do that. Go read the Baker Report again, to understand why we can't have "precipitous withdrawal."
Look, I understand, you really, really, really want us to leave Iraq. I get it! Here's the deal, we are not going to leave Iraq until there is reasonable assurance of peace in Iraq. It's not a matter of pride or stubbornness, it's not because we neocons just like the smell of gunpowder and prefer to be at war, and it's not because Nancy Pelosi is to clueless to challenge the minority party. It's simply because the reality of the world we live in, and the reality of what would happen if we left.
I know that it's asking a lot of you, but if you could stop the daily undermining of the war, it might actually help discourage the enemy a little, and bring the day a little closer, that we can come home from Iraq.
Interesting. I recall in 2003 being called a tin-foil hat pinhead when I dared to even mention oil in connection with justification for us being in Iraq.
Well, that's because oil was not the justification, however, it could have been the catalyst which made 'boots-on-the-ground' military invasion a more serious option than blockades or aerial bombing campaigns. Saddam devastated the oil infrastructure and the environment the last time we confronted him, by setting the oil fields on fire.
I have never argued that Iraq had nothing to do with oil, and I think anyone who is a thinking and rational person, can understand the importance of the oil supply to the US. That doesn't mean the war was "about oil" at all, it means the oil is an important factor to consider here. If you look at it in regards to "what's best for the oil", you will determine, it's best if the oil is controlled by a democratic government allied with the US, rather than a tyrant dictator who is aligned with terrorism. It's better that the revenues from the oil, are going to 'We The People of Iraq' than into the hands of terrorists, or to bribe French and German officials. It's also better that the oil remain in the hands of a democratic Iraq, than whatever might overthrow the government in the vacuum of our withdrawal.
Bush and brilliant shouldn't be used in the same sentence. But I will say this: fighting a war on terrorism is like no other that we've attempted to fight before. Bush has repeated claimed that Iraq is intrinsic in the WOT, which should never be fought like its traditional warfare. Which he has. In doing so, he's led us back to a quagmire much like Vietnam.
To an extent, I have agreed with you. His biggest mistake was trying to fight a conventional war against an unconventional enemy, in my opinion. Iraq is intrinsic in the WoT, which is why it should have been fought like no other war... he completely contradicted his own valid and salient point, by attempting to wage a conventional war against these people. The result was catastrophe, and the left exploited it to the fullest, in order to bring back the Ghost of Vietnam. Iraq will never be the 58k-dead-soldier quagmire of Vietnam, it won't even come close. Unlike Vietnam, who's main export was rice, Iraq is much more important to the US, and holds a vital commodity we simply can't walk away from or ignore. If we abandon Iraq, we abandon Iraq's oil supply as well. Even pinheads should be smart enough to understand, why we can't do that.
maineman
Banned
This "destabilization in the region that would occur if we left" is nothing more than a guess from a bunch of neocons who have guessed wrong about everything since day one.
"No, it's actually articulated by men smarter than you or I, in the Baker Report. I assumed you had read it, and agreed with it, you claimed you did, you and the other pinheads are on record supporting it, so are you now saying it is full of speculation?"
I won't expound on the hilarious and blatant hypocrisy of you coming to the defense of the Baker Report....but I will note it. This thread is about a troop surge to put combat troops in Baghdad and Anbar Provinces where they will, undoubtedly, be slaughtered in numbers even greater than we have seen recently. The Baker Report says we should be getting out of Iraq....certainly not in the dead of night tonight...but sending 20K combat troops - which YOU support - is NOT what the Baker Commission recommends. And if, when we leave Iraq, and the country continues to devolve into civil war, I will say "I TOLD you so" and note that had we allowed them to get on with the business of settling their sectarian issues amongst themselves a YEAR ago, we would have not lost close to 1000 more men and flushed untold billions down the shitter.
And if Iraq decides to withhold its oil from us, do you really think that the rest of OPEC will go along?
"No, it's actually articulated by men smarter than you or I, in the Baker Report. I assumed you had read it, and agreed with it, you claimed you did, you and the other pinheads are on record supporting it, so are you now saying it is full of speculation?"
I won't expound on the hilarious and blatant hypocrisy of you coming to the defense of the Baker Report....but I will note it. This thread is about a troop surge to put combat troops in Baghdad and Anbar Provinces where they will, undoubtedly, be slaughtered in numbers even greater than we have seen recently. The Baker Report says we should be getting out of Iraq....certainly not in the dead of night tonight...but sending 20K combat troops - which YOU support - is NOT what the Baker Commission recommends. And if, when we leave Iraq, and the country continues to devolve into civil war, I will say "I TOLD you so" and note that had we allowed them to get on with the business of settling their sectarian issues amongst themselves a YEAR ago, we would have not lost close to 1000 more men and flushed untold billions down the shitter.
And if Iraq decides to withhold its oil from us, do you really think that the rest of OPEC will go along?
-DIXIE, August 2005: "Well Rev, you and Desh are morons, that's all I can say. You've completely lost touch with reality and you seek to drag the rest of us down the shit hole with you. If we are out by the '06 mid-terms, I will be very surprised, as I don't see it happening that fast, and if it's rushed or done prematurely, Iraq will be in serious trouble. This is too important to fuck up..."
"This has NOTHING to do with oil! For Christ's sake, do you think we are paying record prices for gas in this country because we invaded Iraq to steal their oil? Is that how moronic you are, or can you possibly fathom a rational explanation?"
http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=5412#pid124338
maineman
Banned
you'd think that Dixie would get tired of having his own stupidity crammed back down his throat with such incredible regularity.
But Cypress.... I know you would agree that for those of us doing the cramming, it IS frightfully entertaining!
I wonder if he gets private messages from other neocons and republicans asking him to shut up because of the bad name he gives their cause?
But Cypress.... I know you would agree that for those of us doing the cramming, it IS frightfully entertaining!
I wonder if he gets private messages from other neocons and republicans asking him to shut up because of the bad name he gives their cause?
M
Muqtada_AlSadr
Guest
Yes LadyT. Dixie is right. Everyday me and my mujadeen brothers log on to this site and are inspired by your posts to fight on. Just the other day we were going to surrender and lay down our arms and stop our attacks, when you said "Pull out Now", that gave us comfort and aid an it was something that made us stand up and fight. Nonetheless you are an infidel and will burn in hel|.
Praise al lah!
M
Muqtada_AlSadr
Guest
BTW Dixie, you just got your butt handed to you.
Die infidel die.
Die infidel die.
But of course, since you're doing it at MY direction. Good liberal. Sit. Stay.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nonetheless you are an infidel and will burn in hel|.
I take it Allah doesn't like you typing the actual word "hell"?
I take it Allah doesn't like you typing the actual word "hell"?
uscitizen
Villified User
hey lucifer, glad to see your little horney pointed head back. Those Powerball numbers you gave me were garbage. I guess you need some viagra to boost your power or something ?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
How many tickets you buy?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well, not yours, specifically, but yours along with your pinhead brethren. Also, your friends in the media, and assorted political opportunists like JimmuhCahtah. I didn't figure you had much pull with them, so I limited my request to just you.
Now, there are a lot of great things you could do for our boys in Iraq, some people make care packages and some send cards and letters, but the best thing you could do right now, is stop trying to undermine the war at your keyboard, and understand they have a difficult job to do, and the sooner they can get it done, the sooner they can come home to their families.
I know this sounds impossible, it just seems to difficult to even think about trying to do... I understand! It's hard to let go of something you've gotten your teeth so sunk into. What you must realize now is, this war is not going to be over sooner by your undermining it, if anything, it's going to make it longer. So, for the sake of the troops, we need to stop undermining the war, and let go of this notion that we are going to precipitously withdraw, contrary to the Baker Report... that ain't happening.
uscitizen
Villified User
Just one
I buy 2 or 3 a month, you never know it might happen
But if lucifer drops by here , I have a nice pair of rusty old dehorners I would use on him
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Well, if he only got you to buy one then I'd say he must be slipping. I hope you didn't sell your soul or anything like that.Just one
I buy 2 or 3 a month, you never know it might happen
But if lucifer drops by here , I have a nice pair of rusty old dehorners I would use on him
Care packages? Been there done that.
I'm sure the soldiers would much rather come home in one piece than have me send them calling cards and skittles while they are in the middle of a killing zone dodging bullets roadway bombs. You are truly delusional if you think our military presence is helping the situation. All we are at this point is scape goats for various factions and all we are doing is wasting money and lives left and right. Spare me your disingeniune diatribes about how much you "support our troops". If you really gave two $hits about them, you'd be supporting their return, and not the bombastic talking points of the chief chimp in charge.