Please explain [Archive] - HVAC-Talk: Heating, Air & Refrigeration Discussion

chillbilly

03-29-2006, 04:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skrewt

I just want to know an honest opinion.
If you were fighting for the insurgents in Iraq, what would be your win scenario. Under what conditions could you declare victory? Think about it honestly.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The world and primarily the millions of Iraqis that want a different form of government in Iraq will be fighting these battles in this war indefinitely. I don't know that anyone will EVER be able to declare victory there given the conditions.
It's no secret that the entire middle east, many of whom are considered allies are importing insurgency in from ALL parts of the region to continue to disrupt and destabilize Iraq and the region.

You wouldn't have enough people or weapons to win an outright victory against the U.S. so what is the end goal of random IED bombings?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, what is the goal of a long term occupation and how does our superiority in weapons help the Iraqis became a sovereign nation? We devesated the Iraqi military to get to this point but now the dynamics of this war are different.
We certainly have to have more support from other countries and I can't or won't deny that.
In fact, if we could get a significant amount of military support, I believe this thing could get turned around.
But that would mean the rest of the world being totally committed, instead of the Americans and Iraqis.
We also have the majority of Iraqis that want this change and we do know that it would change the country for the better.
----------------------------------------------------------

Once you have defined your goal, then think about the method you would use to further that goal.
What political groups would your actions be geared to to get a reaction out of to further your goal?

__________________________________________________ _________

This is an important part of the whole topic because it is goal oriented. The president has not strayed away from his dedication to what his administration is compelled to do in the middle east and I admire him for that.. Sometimes I wish GW had a little of the Reagan charisma needed to silence detractors with gusto. Unfortuantely, he doesn't. But he is committed to seeing progress helping the Iraqis and the rest of the region and yes, it is in our best interests for the president to take the message to the people frequently and fervently. GW just can't do it like ole' Ronny could.

[Edited by chillbilly on 03-29-2006 at 04:35 PM]

skrewt

03-30-2006, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by tonys
how about a leader, from either party that can actually negotiate and get some significant non-American boots on the ground to go in and help fix this MO-FO?

So you take the typical dem approach of "throw more at it or talk to it nice" and it will fix itself.

This doesn't answer my question.

There really is only one answer, but the dems refuse to look at it. It's like a giant turd on the coffee table that they refuse to admit is there.

Let me help......

The only win scenario:

The U.S. pulls out before a stable government has had time to take "real" control of law enforcement and defense responsiblities.

The only route to this goal:

Generate enough bad news to weaken the resolve of the people and instill doubt about the mission.

The vector used to further this goal:

Negative press reporting and political pressure from opposition government groups.

If you look at the Iraq situation with complete clarity you realize that the only chance the Insurgents have of declaring victory is for the American press to keep focusing on the negative and the Democrats to keep applying pressure to pull out.
The triumverate of evil: Insurgents, Mainstream media, democrats.

royc

03-30-2006, 04:09 AM

There is so much i would like to reply to, but as soon as I read "the dems", you turned me off. Let me know when you decide to get away from your dem/lib tunnel vision. I may be inclined to discuss the subject.

Btw I just saw a movie on the movie channel called "Der Untergang". I shows what happens when a population falls for a propaganda machine and elecs leaders that dont want to listen to professionals.

Roy

bootlen

03-30-2006, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by royc
There is so much i would like to reply to, but as soon as I read "the dems", you turned me off. Let me know when you decide to get away from your dem/lib tunnel vision. I may be inclined to discuss the subject.

Btw I just saw a movie on the movie channel called "Der Untergang". I shows what happens when a population falls for a propaganda machine and elecs leaders that dont want to listen to professionals.

Roy

If I read you correctly, roy, you're saying the repubs are guilty of the same thing. I agree. They buckle easily. The repubs of today are weak-kneed at best and don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand behind the President at this critical time. But Skrewt's point is that it is dem driven and mainstream media fueled. If the dems would shut their pie holes by being non-partisan, the press would have to shut up because they'd be seen as the colicky crybaby they are and we would have been done in Iraq a year ago.

Yes, repubs are in the same boat as the dems but the dems are at the wheel.

skrewt

03-30-2006, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by royc
There is so much i would like to reply to, but as soon as I read "the dems", you turned me off. Let me know when you decide to get away from your dem/lib tunnel vision. I may be inclined to discuss the subject.

Btw I just saw a movie on the movie channel called "Der Untergang". I shows what happens when a population falls for a propaganda machine and elecs leaders that dont want to listen to professionals.

Roy

If you were talking about government spending, immigration reform or any social program I would tend to agree with you, however, On the subject of Iraq there are clearly defined lines. One must deal with it on a dem vs. rep level because that is the games rules the democratic party has laid down. I would much prefer to be speaking about the war in terms of US vs. Terrorists. But the dems have made it their goal to be a more visible and vocal opposition group to the war.

Sorry you don't like it, sometimes the truth hurts.

There's the turd....it's right there on the table.

tonys

03-30-2006, 11:25 AM

dude, what is WRONG with you?

roy-c's point was that getting into a debate with the likes of a bush-bot always comes back to labels - like the ones you frequently use: liberal, dems, etc.

You don't know who the person voted for that posts these messages, yet you rush to throw a label at them.

Is it possible, just maybe, that making a statement such as:
"this i-cracki project is a little F'ed Up" doesn't result in a left-wing-nut label by the likes of you?

could the operation be any worst?

should the US be alone in this adventure?

the solutions are not found wihin political lines.
that's what 'the system' wants you to do - be a self-thinker, don't bow-to-the-man with that Fox-News, OReily Factor propaganda.

come on man!

skrewt

03-30-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by tonys
dude, what is WRONG with you?

roy-c's point was that getting into a debate with the likes of a bush-bot always comes back to labels - like the ones you frequently use: liberal, dems, etc.

You don't know who the person voted for that posts these messages, yet you rush to throw a label at them.

Is it possible, just maybe, that making a statement such as:
"this i-cracki project is a little F'ed Up" doesn't result in a left-wing-nut label by the likes of you?

could the operation be any worst?

should the US be alone in this adventure?

the solutions are not found wihin political lines.
that's what 'the system' wants you to do - be a self-thinker, don't bow-to-the-man with that Fox-News, OReily Factor propaganda.

come on man!

The solutions to the Iraq "problem" are already in play.

No we don't need more chefs stirring the pot.

Yes, the operation could be much worse. We could be listening to left-wing nut jobs like you.

I assert that making the statement "the I-cracki project is a little F'ed up" is indeed naive and dishonest.
Name one occupation force in the history of the world that has suffered fewer casualties in the same amount of time and accomplished so much.
One must always form your opinions based on history and fact rather than 10 second news sound bites.
Sorry, you can't see the turd. It's right there, just look.

bootlen

03-30-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
[B Sorry, you can't see the turd. It's right there, just look. [/B]

Tony IS a turd. That's why he doesn't see the one on the table. :D

bootlen

03-30-2006, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by skrewt
Sorry, you can't see the turd. It's right there, just look.

Tony IS a turd. That's why he doesn't see the one on the table. :D

skrewt

03-30-2006, 04:57 PM

it's a fine dance the dems do around the turd, but eventually the turd always gets stepped in.

If you're a member of the democratic leadership, be careful they don't wipe their shoe on you when it happens.

royc

03-30-2006, 07:29 PM

-------------------------------------------------------
The solutions to the Iraq "problem" are already in play.
-------------------------------------------------------

And please tell me what those solutions are. More and more of our young men and woman risking their lifes for two fanatical right wing religious factions? To what end??

--------------------------------------------------------
No we don't need more chefs stirring the pot.
-------------------------------------------------------

What we needed where leaders that listen to the professionals in our armed forces, that gave advice not to go until we had sufficient forces to do what needed to be done. The pot has already boiled over, and there is no way to turn off the heat, and no amount of stirring is going to stop that.
--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the operation could be much worse. We could be listening to right-wing nut jobs like you.

I see, I guess it much better to listen to the right wing religious nut cases who believe in the “End Times”, and pray that it happens in their life times. I feel so secure now knowing I'm in good hands.
---------------------------------------------------------

I assert that making the statement "the I-cracki project is a little F'ed up" is indeed naive and dishonest.
Name one occupation force in the history of the world that has suffered fewer casualties in the same amount of time and accomplished so much.
---------------------------------------------------------

You need to go back to school, its obvious you where asleep in history class. Try WW2 Germany and Japan. How many losses did we sustain once we occupied??? The reasons for that are obvious....WE HAD ENOUGH FORCES to do the job.
Your second statement “suffered fewer casualties” is an insult to all who have fallen and those at risk. Any casualties are to many unless there is a clear cut reason for the defense of ones country. Anyone that still believes our leaders went to Iraq to free the people from Sadam, and to make it a free democratic country, is delusional at its extreem.
Pray tell me screwt(up), how many family members did you or have at risk right now. Cause if you did you wouldnt make such a casual statement. Let me tell you friend, I have a son in the armed forces who is at risk. Everytime I hear of overseas caualties my heart stops, hoping he isnt one of them. My wife just recently finished 23 years of service, and even though she wasnt in a direct combat area, she was at risk. When the Kobar towers fell, my heart sunk to the bottom of my feet cause I wasnt sure exactly where in the sandbox she was at. All I was told “I'm going over there for a short while, cant tell you where, or what job I'm doing...I'll call you when I can”.
Until you can convince me you have someone at risk, I recommend you STFU about low casualties.

One must always form your opinions based on history and fact rather than 10 second news sound bites.
Sorry, you can't see the turd. It's right there, just look.
----------------------------------------------------------

Re-read my above statement about history, the only thing that stinks is your knowledge of warfare and history. Try reading “The Art Of War”.

Roy

deanmech

03-31-2006, 12:06 AM

What was originally a question in this thread has become a bunch of personal vendettas. To restate the question: What would be victory for the insurgents? This is actually a very good question. Some people are so filled with hatred that they delight in hurting and destroying other people. It is like a passion that consumes them and it only ceases with their death. For them there is no final "victory" for they are on a path of unending destruction. Not all of them are this extreme--every movement has its followers. On the other end of the spectrum are those given to love and faith, who enjoy serving others and helping them to succeed. In every generation of history, there has been an unending "war" between these two sides. I believe it has to do with our freedom of choice while we are in this human frame. We are here to choose our Father, & consciously or subconsciously, we all do just that. Satan is the father of all evil and God is the Father of all that is good.....take your pick...........choose wisely......you live with your choice and you become the sum of your choices......

skrewt

03-31-2006, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by royc
-------------------------------------------------------
The solutions to the Iraq "problem" are already in play.
-------------------------------------------------------

We are now in a police mode, where we simply maintain the peace as best as possible until the Iraqi government and forces are capable of maintaining the peace themselves.
It is really a very simple thing to understand.

--------------------------------------------------------

No we don't need more chefs stirring the pot.
-------------------------------------------------------

Liberal professionals that agree with your point of view.......you need to be specific.
Our leaders listen to professionals, just not yours.

--------------------------------------------------------

Yes, the operation could be much worse. We could be listening to right-wing nut jobs like you.

I see, I guess it much better to listen to the right wing religious nut cases who believe in the “End Times”, and pray that it happens in their life times. I feel so secure now knowing I'm in good hands.

Pointless rhetoric

You need to go back to school, its obvious you where asleep in history class. Try WW2 Germany and Japan. How many losses did we sustain once we occupied??? The reasons for that are obvious....WE HAD ENOUGH FORCES to do the job.
Your second statement “suffered fewer casualties” is an insult to all who have fallen and those at risk. Any casualties are to many unless there is a clear cut reason for the defense of ones country. Anyone that still believes our leaders went to Iraq to free the people from Sadam, and to make it a free democratic country, is delusional at its extreem.
Pray tell me screwt(up), how many family members did you or have at risk right now. Cause if you did you wouldnt make such a casual statement. Let me tell you friend, I have a son in the armed forces who is at risk. Everytime I hear of overseas caualties my heart stops, hoping he isnt one of them. My wife just recently finished 23 years of service, and even though she wasnt in a direct combat area, she was at risk. When the Kobar towers fell, my heart sunk to the bottom of my feet cause I wasnt sure exactly where in the sandbox she was at. All I was told “I'm going over there for a short while, cant tell you where, or what job I'm doing...I'll call you when I can”.
Until you can convince me you have someone at risk, I recommend you STFU about low casualties.

I see how it is, dems can criticize all day long and be patriotic, but with my opinion I have to stfu?

I don't believe you have anyone over there, if you did you would know different then what the news tells you.
But, since you want to go all Cindy Sheehan with your melodrama, go back to your yoga pillow and smoke your bong.
If you truly had ANYONE close to you in the military, you would already know that 2000 troops in 3 years is not uncommon during peacetime let alone war. Training accidents, normal car crashes etc. claim as many non-combat casualties.

BTW, my niece's husband, my wife's cousin, and my nephew are all there right now.
I, unlike you, come from a family that has a great history of service to this nation. A member of my family has fought in every war starting with the civil war. I served 6 years in the army during the Reagan years. Some member of my family has been in the military continuously since 1942, (maybe longer, but that's as far back as I know about)
Unlike you, you whiney little piss bucket. Tuck your tail and run like your little dem friends.

Also, I went to school prior to your little liberal social engineers rewrote the history books to make america look like the bad guys in the world.

Re-read my above statement about history, the only thing that stinks is your knowledge of warfare and history. Try reading “The Art Of War”.

Read it....so what.

The turd is still there, just open your eyes and see it.

skrewt

03-31-2006, 01:49 AM

Dems just won't acknowledge that without their rhetoric and dissent, the terrorist tripod of victory is missing a leg.

royc

03-31-2006, 04:16 AM

I'm probably wasting my time replying, but I will give it a last ditch effort.

First of all I said it before in another post, but it could have been before you signed up here. I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT and definatly not a liberal. I hate socialism and anyone that hates socialism is never going to be a democrat.

Second, I never lie and have no reason to do so here. I dont even know how to respond to your claim you dont believe my wifes 23 years, and my sons continuing service til he retires.

I have no reason to not believe you and your families history of service, unlike you, I take a mans word for it unless I have proof otherwise. The only thing I can tell you is, when you have a wife and son at risk, it doesnt get any close then that. As to the history of my family military service, I can only give you the few details that was passed to me by my mother and grandfather, since most all history of family documents were lost due to bombings.

I lost a father and sister due to WW2. My father fought at the russian front as a Panzerfaust ( bazooka). My grandfather was in the first and second world war in the Rote Kreutz (red cross). Those were the guys that ran across a firing line, unarmed, taking care of the wounded and dying. My grandfather said that the first world war was worst then the second, and considering how bad that war was, the first one must have been unreal, of course he was talking about the battelfield.

I was born in 1944 with bombs falling like rain as my mother describes it, she says at times when the bombers flew over the city, there were so many it blocked out the sun darkening the area. We got bombed out of two houses and after the war when they occupied the area, they came and confiscated the few possesion we had, heirlooms, furniture and silverware, what little we had left from the previous bombings, and shipped it stateside, its called war bootie. You probably wonder why I'm telling this sob story..read on.

And after all that, I considerd Americans as heros, my heros. All I ever wanted to be was an American. To make a long story short, my sister married a GI and came to america with him. I made my brother in law swear before he left, that he was going to sponsor me as soon as I finished school. So soon after the age of 14 I left to be an American. Five years later I took my citizen test, was asked to recide all the presidents in order, had to read and show I can speak english. The guy that tested me said he never met a Kraut that could speak english perfectly, without any accent, it was the proudest moment in my life when I got my citizen papers. I consider myself a real American, I feel like I was born here, even if not.

Now skrewt I hope I dont have you in tears with this sob story..lol. But in a previous post you wanted to know something about me, well here it is. If you still want to call me a liar, so be it. But if you reconsiderd it, you owe me an apology for calling me one.

Have a nice day

Roy

tonys

03-31-2006, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by skrewt
Dems just won't acknowledge that without their rhetoric and dissent, the terrorist tripod of victory is missing a leg.

1) not a 'democrat' (you're obviously not clever enough to figure THAT out)
2) do not blindly follow a leader that f'd up. like some on this board.

hmmmm...can you question some specific actions of a prez but actually support him on a vast number of issues?

now THAT's a little obtuse, hey community college-BOY?

and the "3rd leg" that you refer to is the 'axis of evil'?
(love those simplistic labels - don't CHA)

there are MANY supporters of terrorism out there - open your eyes.

maybe the solution lies in revisiting G'Dub'Ya's other classic simplistic thought
"with us, or against us"
...use this as a pretex to start a really, really big war and settle this Mo-Fo for once and for all...

maybe.

rob10

03-31-2006, 07:56 AM

Is posted in my sig line. The Iraq situation will be taken care of by her administration 30 days after she's running the show.

[Edited by rob10 on 03-31-2006 at 10:53 AM]

johnl45

03-31-2006, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by scrogdog
The truth, John? You mean like Clinton balanced the budget? That kind of truth? Clinton did balance the budget left a surplus, which the Republicans have spent ten trillion times over. To get the facts check with someone other than right-wing commentators.

scrogdog

03-31-2006, 09:03 AM

I provide the following definition for the benifit of the intellectual frauds and revisors of history among us.

As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

Now, John, I will make this post for a second time seeing as you deftly tap-danced around it the first time. Are you going to respond to this post with facts, or more weak agenda-laden bullcrap? Up to you.

_____________________

No, Bill Clinton Didn't Balance the Budget
by Stephen Moore

Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution.

Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, "Clinton balances the budget." Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes -- and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George's last year in office.

And 1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.

Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

Now let us contrast this with the Clinton fiscal record. Recall that it was the Clinton White House that fought Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, the White House waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan -- a campaign that the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was Bill Clinton who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP's balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, the Clinton administration admitted that "balancing the budget is not one of our top priorities."

And lest we forget, it was Bill Clinton and his wife who tried to engineer a federal takeover of the health care system -- a plan that would have sent the government's finances into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right: for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run.

The figure shows that the actual cumulative budget deficit from 1994 to 1998 was almost $600 billion below the Clintonomics baseline. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the common sense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Just this year, Bill Clinton's budget proposed more than $100 billion in new social spending -- proposals that were mostly tossed overboard. It's funny, but back in January the White House didn't seem too concerned about saving the surplus for "shoring up Social Security."

Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?

So the budget is balanced, but now comes the harder part: cutting the budget. Bill Clinton has laid down a marker in the political debate with his "save Social Security first," gambit. That theme should be turned against him and his government expansionist agenda. Congress should respond: No new government programs until we have fixed Social Security. This means no IMF bailouts. No new day care subsidies. No extending Medicare coverage to 55-year-olds. (Honestly, if Clinton has his way, it won't be long till teenagers are eligible for Medicare.)

The budget surpluses over the next five years could easily exceed $500 billion. Leaving all of that extra money lying around within the grasp of vote-buying politicians is an invitation to financial mischief. If Congress and the president use the surpluses to fund a new spending spree, we may find that surpluses are more a curse than a blessing.

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

The Original Article (http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html)

skrewt

03-31-2006, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by tonys

Originally posted by skrewt
Dems just won't acknowledge that without their rhetoric and dissent, the terrorist tripod of victory is missing a leg.

1) not a 'democrat' (you're obviously not clever enough to figure THAT out)
2) do not blindly follow a leader that f'd up. like some on this board.

hmmmm...can you question some specific actions of a prez but actually support him on a vast number of issues?

now THAT's a little obtuse, hey community college-BOY?

and the "3rd leg" that you refer to is the 'axis of evil'?
(love those simplistic labels - don't CHA)

there are MANY supporters of terrorism out there - open your eyes.

maybe the solution lies in revisiting G'Dub'Ya's other classic simplistic thought
"with us, or against us"
...use this as a pretex to start a really, really big war and settle this Mo-Fo for once and for all...

maybe.

Have you even read the opening post?

skrewt

03-31-2006, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by royc
I'm probably wasting my time replying, but I will give it a last ditch effort.

First of all I said it before in another post, but it could have been before you signed up here. I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT and definatly not a liberal. I hate socialism and anyone that hates socialism is never going to be a democrat.

Second, I never lie and have no reason to do so here. I dont even know how to respond to your claim you dont believe my wifes 23 years, and my sons continuing service til he retires.

I have no reason to not believe you and your families history of service, unlike you, I take a mans word for it unless I have proof otherwise. The only thing I can tell you is, when you have a wife and son at risk, it doesnt get any close then that. As to the history of my family military service, I can only give you the few details that was passed to me by my mother and grandfather, since most all history of family documents were lost due to bombings.

I lost a father and sister due to WW2. My father fought at the russian front as a Panzerfaust ( bazooka). My grandfather was in the first and second world war in the Rote Kreutz (red cross). Those were the guys that ran across a firing line, unarmed, taking care of the wounded and dying. My grandfather said that the first world war was worst then the second, and considering how bad that war was, the first one must have been unreal, of course he was talking about the battelfield.

I was born in 1944 with bombs falling like rain as my mother describes it, she says at times when the bombers flew over the city, there were so many it blocked out the sun darkening the area. We got bombed out of two houses and after the war when they occupied the area, they came and confiscated the few possesion we had, heirlooms, furniture and silverware, what little we had left from the previous bombings, and shipped it stateside, its called war bootie. You probably wonder why I'm telling this sob story..read on.

And after all that, I considerd Americans as heros, my heros. All I ever wanted to be was an American. To make a long story short, my sister married a GI and came to america with him. I made my brother in law swear before he left, that he was going to sponsor me as soon as I finished school. So soon after the age of 14 I left to be an American. Five years later I took my citizen test, was asked to recide all the presidents in order, had to read and show I can speak english. The guy that tested me said he never met a Kraut that could speak english perfectly, without any accent, it was the proudest moment in my life when I got my citizen papers. I consider myself a real American, I feel like I was born here, even if not.

Now skrewt I hope I dont have you in tears with this sob story..lol. But in a previous post you wanted to know something about me, well here it is. If you still want to call me a liar, so be it. But if you reconsiderd it, you owe me an apology for calling me one.

Have a nice day

Roy

Maybe I'm being a little harsh, however, when I hear someone use the BS of "if you had someone in harms way" as an argument. It reminds me of politicians that argue for some crazy legislation under the argument of "if it saves just one life".
It is an argument that has no intellectual purpose and is meant to shut people up by making them feel bad.

My doubt still stands though my position has softened.
If you had regular correspondence with someone over there they would be giving you (as they are me) a completely different picture of the war than the media is presenting.

As for the deaths, We have progressed from early predicitions of 10's of thousands dead in the first few days to 2000 is too many. I refer to the dems, all the time as it pertains to this war because they are outrageous in their opposition.
These next few years are going to try us as a nation and we had better suck it up and finish this or there will be more 9/11's.

Over 3 years of war in Iraq and we have lost fewer soldiers than civilians died in one day on 9/11.

If we ever start losing 3,000 people a day in Iraq, then you can tell me that things are going bad.

You can talk all you want about quagmires and snafu's, but a war zone that takes an average of around 3 lives per day is comparatively a very good statistic.

scrogdog

03-31-2006, 10:09 AM

US Casualties per day by war as of 11/05 (http://www.alanburkhart.com/WarDeaths_main.swf)

tonys

03-31-2006, 10:50 AM

did a high-schooler like skrewy make-up that table?

I thought the US started to take on casualties when they actually engaged Japan in 1941?

or, 278 casualties per day...

scrogdog

03-31-2006, 11:07 AM

There were American volunteers fighting in China even before Sept 1939. Some historians say the war started on July 7, 1937.

It all depends on how you wish to look at things, I suppose.

tonys

03-31-2006, 11:29 AM

when did airplanes and ships with the stars & stripes painted on their sides actaully start to get roll'n?

scrogdog

03-31-2006, 11:35 AM

Hey, I don't necessarily disagree with your view. I am quite sure that Skrewt does not either, as 278 per day further rienforces the point.

tonys

03-31-2006, 11:37 AM

I'm not sure anyone really knows what the point of it all IS.

scrogdog

03-31-2006, 11:40 AM

The point seems to have been clearly stated as far as I am concerned.

You can talk all you want about quagmires and snafu's, but a war zone that takes an average of around 3 lives per day is comparatively a very good statistic.

geerair

04-02-2006, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
Tell me in your own words what the "win" scenario is for the terrorists in Iraq.Win? They have already won.

Then explain which political party is "helping" the terrorists with that scenario.Repubs.

johnl45

04-02-2006, 11:00 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by scrogdog

Now, John, I will make this post for a second time seeing as you deftly tap-danced around it the first time. Are you going to respond to this post with facts, or more weak agenda-laden bullcrap? Up to you.

"Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute".

You’re still sticking with this right-wing commentator who's under indictment for campaign violations! Can’t you find someone better that this to spew your trash than this BS'er?

geerair

04-02-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
My doubt still stands though my position has softened.
If you had regular correspondence with someone over there they would be giving you (as they are me) a completely different picture of the war than the media is presenting.They are giving you a tiny piece of the picture. As stated before, I'm sure the uninhabited deserts which comprise the bulk of Iraq are in fact quite peaceful.

These next few years are going to try us as a nation and we had better suck it up and finish this or there will be more 9/11's.Odd.....Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

You can talk all you want about quagmires and snafu's, but a war zone that takes an average of around 3 lives per day is comparatively a very good statistic.Not a good stat considering that the majority of deaths can be credited to incompetent planning, insufficient force on the ground, insufficient armor, bungling occupation leadership all in an invasion of a nation that hadn't attacked the U.S. and was no threat to the U.S.

Son, your OP is an attempt to shift blame for the Iraq fiasco to the Dems. and the media. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

Bush was given everything he asked for. He planned it, he executed it, he continues to bungle it. Iraq is a wholly owned Republican, conservative, neocon enterprise.

You continually whine about media coverage. Hell, the media was all for this little enterprise of Shrub's. They were cheerleaders. They talked it up until the evidence that this Bush enterprise was unjustified, was going badly, was leading to chaos, was providing a training base for terrorists, was leading to civil war was so overwhelming that even conservatives and Republicans were questioning the validity and operation of this enterprise of Shrub's.

Son, members of your own party and political leanings are jumpinmg off the Iraq ship.

You are looking for a scapegoat. Look no further than Bush. He is the owner/operator.

skrewt

04-03-2006, 01:34 AM

Odd.....Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Nobody ever said it did....Iraq had ties to Al Queda, not the specific 9/11 event.
So What?

Not a good stat considering that the majority of deaths can be credited to incompetent planning, insufficient force on the ground, insufficient armor, bungling occupation leadership all in an invasion of a nation that hadn't attacked the U.S. and was no threat to the U.S.

Your opinion, I know, I know, you'll quote 5,000 democrats and 12 republicans who agree with you, but I can quote just as many who don't. Don't bother.

Son, your OP is an attempt to shift blame for the Iraq fiasco to the Dems. and the media. Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

My statement of fact is that regardless of why we are there, regardless of how you think it's being handled, regardless of what you think should be done, the OPFOR has only one win scenario and it relies entirely on political opposition and negative media coverage.
Bray all day and deflect from this fact, but it is absolute, undeniable truth.

Plese answer my original question if you think it isn't the truth.
If you were an insurgent, what would be your win scenario?
I have received nothing but denials and deflections on this point because it always comes back to admitting the dems and the media are helping the insurgents.

geerair

04-03-2006, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by skrewt
Nobody ever said it did....Pathetic. The drumbeat of the Iraq excursion was built on that and other equally misleading premises.

Iraq had ties to Al Queda So, the tin foil hat crowd like to believe.

Your opinion, I know, I know, you'll quote 5,000 democrats and 12 republicans who agree with you, but I can quote just as many who don't. Don't bother.The point is there shouldn't be ANY if Bush and company were running their vanity war competently.

I can quote not only Republicans and neocons who agree with me but also Generals, former Republican staffers, Ambassadors, IPC officials, even Bush's own Sec. of State.

My statement of fact is that regardless of why we are there, regardless of how you think it's being handled, regardless of what you think should be done, the OPFOR has only one win scenario and it relies entirely on political opposition and negative media coverage.
Bray all day and deflect from this fact, but it is absolute, undeniable truth.Laughable. Bush created the insurgency and fuels it with inept management. Your party owns the government, they have the power. They can do whatever they want in Iraq and here in the U.S. including spying on U.S. citizens.

No, your party's excursion into Iraq has been a disaster of their own making and you now want to blame others for this administration's incompetence.

You Repubs. and conservative talk a big game about personal responsibility but when the situations of your own devising go south, you whine "It's not my fault, it's the other guys fault." Son, that kind of hypocrisy is transparent and nobody is buying it.

Plese answer my original question if you think it isn't the truth.
If you were an insurgent, what would be your win scenario?
I have received nothing but denials and deflections on this point because it always comes back to admitting the dems and the media are helping the insurgents. You have received any number of pertinent answers. Not our fault if they are not to your liking or don't conform to your pre-conceived views.

Just to humor you, I will reiterate that the insugents win scenario is to play 'em as Bush deals 'em. Bush is handing the insurgency all they could wish for.

scrogdog

04-03-2006, 11:57 AM

"It's not my fault, it's the other guys fault."

Well, not all of us. :)

In any case, the reasons for going to war... and the reasons for staying there now are not connected. In other words, even if we went there for the wrong reasons... that is not the reason that we should leave now. If anything, it is all the more reason to stay.

I tend to think of things along the same lines as Colin Powell who warned the president "if you break it... you own it."

We broke it... we own it. To leave now would be exactly the wrong move, regardless of your position regarding why we went in the first place.

tonys

04-03-2006, 12:15 PM

how about...

stay and get the job done (i.e. smack those crazy camel humpers around until they sit-and-behave),
but do it as a comprehensive mission with ALL of America's allies joining in.

...need a statement for that sort of thing, though.

Q. What ever happened to the EU's role in training police officers in Europe (initiated in late 2004), and then transplanting them back into that crap-hole in the middle east?
Aren't THEY to blame for the lack of action in this area?

skrewt

04-03-2006, 01:02 PM

So to sum up your opinion Geer:

Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush.

Dems refuse to see the turd on the coffee table.
Clouds your memory and inhibits your vision.

Post a link to any statement by GW that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11.

tonys

04-03-2006, 01:07 PM

that would be difficult, since no particular 'country' directly attacked the US on 9/11, only a bunch of nutty-religious fundamentalists that were 'supported' by a variety of countries.

ya'know: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that G'Dub'Ya would like to manage the operations of US ports, such as the UAE
(could HE even find the six Emerates on a map?)

geerair

04-03-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by scrogdog

In any case, the reasons for going to war... and the reasons for staying there now are not connected. In other words, even if we went there for the wrong reasons... that is not the reason that we should leave now. If anything, it is all the more reason to stay.They are connected in that the incompetents who got us into this mess are the same incompetents that are the same incompetents responsible for running it.

I tend to think of things along the same lines as Colin Powell who warned the president "if you break it... you own it."I agree.

We broke it... we own it. To leave now would be exactly the wrong move, regardless of your position regarding why we went in the first place. There comes a time when ownership is not working out for either side. Iraq is in chaos bordering on civil war. Sectarian violence is ongoing. Death squads are roaming the streets. Kidnapping for money or revenge is a growth industry. Terrorists are gaining new converts and invaluable training. Our Army is stuck in a deadly quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam.

At home, we are a nation divided, civil liberties are being eroded, our treasury is being drained of much needed funds and the toll of killed and wounded has impacted thousands of families.

Remember the numerous benchmarks hailed by the Bush administration as turning points? Capturing Saddam, writing a Constitution, holding elections, etc. None of these so-called turning points have produced the desired results and in fact the situation has worsened.

I agree that leaving Iraq precipitously would have a negative impact on Iraq but then our presence has produced little in the way of positive results as the situation in Iraq confirms.

"Staying the Course" has not worked and is not a credible plan either for us or Iraq. It is time to recognize this and prepare to change course. Whether that means withdrawal or change in leadership has yet to be decided. We cannot go on as we are.

[Edited by geerair on 04-03-2006 at 01:21 PM]

tonys

04-03-2006, 01:33 PM

'the enemy' whoever they are can easily recruit their troops because they put an American Face on the source of their problems.

unemployment, poverty, disease, lack of education, etc.
can be easily blamed on America instead of their own lousy governments/dictators.

Put a true international face on the occupation, and it won't be viewed so-much an occupation, as a large reconstruction project.

...but, that wouldn't be the preferred option by Haliburton and Friends.

geerair

04-03-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush.The child emerges in full whiny rant.

Dems refuse to see the turd on the coffee table.
Clouds your memory and inhibits your vision.You are repeating yourself. Perhaps this acts as a comfort blankey for you.

Post a link to any statement by GW that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11.Post a link? Your assertion was that links were not necessary.

Oh I see, you meant you don't have to post links but everyone else does.

Well, I'll do better than post a link, I'll give you a quote from the horses pen.

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations including those nations or organizations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 9, 2001."

Letter to Congress from George Bush 3/21/03

MadeinUSA

04-03-2006, 01:51 PM

edit

[Edited by madeinusa on 04-03-2006 at 02:14 PM]

MadeinUSA

04-03-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by rob10
Is posted in my sig line. The Iraq situation will be taken care of by her administration 30 days after she's running the show.

[Edited by rob10 on 03-31-2006 at 10:53 AM] Let me guess, you were one of the idiots who believed her husband would bring you a national healthcare program in his first 90 days, and now you are completely dumb enough to believe she can solve the Iraq situation in one-third of the time it took her to round file the healthcare program.

Keep eating those crawfish, and sucking the brains out of the head. Maybe one day a few will remain in your head so you can say you have some.

skrewt

04-03-2006, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush,Hate Bush.The child emerges in full whiny rant.

Dems refuse to see the turd on the coffee table.
Clouds your memory and inhibits your vision.You are repeating yourself. Perhaps this acts as a comfort blankey for you.

Post a link to any statement by GW that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11.Post a link? Your assertion was that links were not necessary.

Oh I see, you meant you don't have to post links but everyone else does.

Well, I'll do better than post a link, I'll give you a quote from the horses pen.

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations including those nations or organizations who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 9, 2001."

Letter to Congress from George Bush 3/21/03

Funny how this quote doesn't mention 9/11 or Iraq.
Misdirection and smoke, same as all your other posts

skrewt

04-03-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by tonys
'the enemy' whoever they are can easily recruit their troops because they put an American Face on the source of their problems.

unemployment, poverty, disease, lack of education, etc.
can be easily blamed on America instead of their own lousy governments/dictators.

Put a true international face on the occupation, and it won't be viewed so-much an occupation, as a large reconstruction project.

...but, that wouldn't be the preferred option by Haliburton and Friends.

Spain would say different.

tonys

04-03-2006, 03:45 PM

...how about that Hans Blix?

I like saying 'Hans Blix'...

geerair

04-03-2006, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by skrewt Originally posted by
Funny how this quote doesn't mention 9/11 or Iraq.
Typo.

Should read September 11, 2001.

But then you knew that didn't you?

[Edited by geerair on 04-03-2006 at 05:37 PM]

skrewt

04-03-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt Originally posted by
Funny how this quote doesn't mention 9/11 or Iraq.
Typo.

Should read September 11, 2001.

But then you knew that didn't you?

[Edited by geerair on 04-03-2006 at 05:37 PM]

Typo or no, the quote doesn't say Iraq participated in 9/11.

geerair

04-03-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by skrewt

Typo or no, the quote doesn't say Iraq participated in 9/11. Gee, what a shocker you would say that.

You just missed the rationality boat.

[Edited by geerair on 04-03-2006 at 06:46 PM]

chillbilly

04-03-2006, 08:42 PM

Hey geer, are you stupid enough to believe that the majority of the middle east does not harbor and breed terrorists, including present and postwar Iraq??
Maybe you believe these imported terrorists are all Iraqi civilians too?
There is no limit to the denial here.
It's a "war over oil" yet Americans are not utilizing the supposed seized Iraqi refineries. They are being managed by Iraqis and protected almost solely by Americans while America is paying more per barrel than ever before with no end in sight.

If we could get some damned help over there from others, we could help the Iraqis more effectively than we are able to help them at present.
GW cannot deny any longer that we DO NOT have a coalition there. Everyone knows it.
He's starting to piss me off.
We have strategic reserves that cannot be used because "we would be using the reserves in a situation for which they were not intended".
Well, grow a hair and change the rules so we CAN use the damned oil for domestic use and stability, bring our troops home in a reasonable time frame so that they can fortify OUR borders, and if and when we are threatened or attacked again, use catastrophic force to squelch these bastards! Hows that for simple, crude and effective? Rant over.

geerair

04-03-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
Hey geer, are you stupid enough to believe that the majority of the middle east does not harbor and breed terrorists, including present and postwar Iraq??At present Bush has provided a training base and a terrorist recruiting bonanza which were not present before Bush's excursion.

Maybe you believe these imported terrorists are all Iraqi civilians too? If they are imported why would anybody think they are Iraqi civilians? Duh!!!

ikey

04-03-2006, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
It's a "war over oil"

This isn't a war. A war involves armys in battle. this is an enforcement of an opinion on a society.

Problem is we are imposing our will on their society. Fine, for most, but not for all.

If this was about oil, it would of been over a long time ago. Our pres. knows we can do whatever we want, when we want, and how we want. that doesn't make it right, but it's the truth. He is showing restraint.

Yeah, we really shouldn't be there until 2015. But should we leave it like this? We may have started this chaos, but we now need to finish it.

We're there now, get over it. Nothing you, your mom, your neighbor or you dogs nuts will change it. Stop whining, pay your taxes and live your life. Support our men and women over there, here and everywhere.

skrewt

04-04-2006, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by chillbilly
Hey geer, are you stupid enough to believe that the majority of the middle east does not harbor and breed terrorists, including present and postwar Iraq??At present Bush has provided a training base and a terrorist recruiting bonanza which were not present before Bush's excursion.

Maybe you believe these imported terrorists are all Iraqi civilians too? If they are imported why would anybody think they are Iraqi civilians? Duh!!!

No surprise here.
Once again you post info that doesn't support your previous statements and pretend like it does.
Here's the part where I beat my brains out trying to make you see that and you, in typical Clintonian style, pretend that what you posted was so profound that mere mortals can't comprehend it.

Once more around the park James.

geerair

04-04-2006, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by skrewt
No surprise here.
Once again you post info that doesn't support your previous statements and pretend like it does.Surely not. Why, I do extensive research on these issues. I can assure you that only the most rigorously scrutinized, deeply researched, objective statements make it to this forum under my byline. You have my word on that and as one conservative commentator who posts here wrote: "Links? I don't need no stinking links.....I don't have to show you no links."

Here's the part where I beat my brains out trying to make you see that and you, in typical Clintonian style, pretend that what you posted was so profound that mere mortals can't comprehend it.Beat your brains out? Surely that was accomplished long, long ago?

scrogdog

04-04-2006, 09:03 AM

There comes a time when ownership is not working out for either side. Iraq is in chaos bordering on civil war. Sectarian violence is ongoing. Death squads are roaming the streets. Kidnapping for money or revenge is a growth industry. Terrorists are gaining new converts and invaluable training. Our Army is stuck in a deadly quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam.

At home, we are a nation divided, civil liberties are being eroded, our treasury is being drained of much needed funds and the toll of killed and wounded has impacted thousands of families.

Remember the numerous benchmarks hailed by the Bush administration as turning points? Capturing Saddam, writing a Constitution, holding elections, etc. None of these so-called turning points have produced the desired results and in fact the situation has worsened.

I agree that leaving Iraq precipitously would have a negative impact on Iraq but then our presence has produced little in the way of positive results as the situation in Iraq confirms.

"Staying the Course" has not worked and is not a credible plan either for us or Iraq. It is time to recognize this and prepare to change course. Whether that means withdrawal or change in leadership has yet to be decided. We cannot go on as we are.

Well, I won’t say that your point of view is wrong, exactly. I do somewhat disagree, however.

Deadly quagmire? I acknowledge things are going a bit slowly. Things tend to go slowly when you need to rebuild a nation. The Allies wondered, after WWII had ended, if the German people even had it in them to become civil members of society. Did they have it in them? Yes. Staying the course has not worked?… yes it has… we just have not accomplished everything that we want to do. The Iraqis are dragging their feet right now… no question. I’m willing to give them a mulligan for a while… yes… even with all the other stuff going on. You can’t just stir up a hornet’s nest and then leave.

I think one of the mistakes that we made was not handling things just as we did in Germany with massive arrests and warcrime trials. The dismemberment of the Baath party… more or less. I don’t give a crap about “world opinion” and Bush and Rummy are essentially being punished (with the way things are) for being too soft. Unfortunately, that mistake is way past correction.

We have been a nation divided and have been having civil liberties reduced over the course of many administrations. These events are not products of the Iraq war. Perhaps you read this post (http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=93903) that I made a while back. Very few of these items have anything to do with war in Iraq. These things were just as much a problem through the Clinton administration as they are now… and go even further back in time than Clinton.

As far as treasure is concerned, no offense, but I find this a little bit selfish. If we can both acknowledge that mistakes were made… well… you don’t just run away from that. We have a moral responsibility to correct the situation. Money is not even a factor as far as I am concerned.

It is not a useful thing to speculate on what would have happened had we not gone in the first place. It is done. You are correct that this move has probably swelled the ranks of the enemy a bit. Even if you consider that a mistake, I think you should consider how potential recruits are affected by America cutting and running in Iraq. We would be unwise to show the enemy that their tactics can "get things done" as Spain has done.

[Edited by scrogdog on 04-04-2006 at 09:11 AM]

geerair

04-04-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by scrogdog
Deadly quagmire? I acknowledge things are going a bit slowly. Things tend to go slowly when you need to rebuild a nation.They go even slower when the rebuilders have no workable plan, are inept and continue to make critical blunders and policy is rigid with little flexibility to meet evolving situations. The Bush administration plan consists of little more than giving speeches and continuing on a path that so far has proven to be disastrous.

The Allies wondered, after WWII had ended, if the German people even had it in them to become civil members of society. Did they have it in them? Yes.The Allies weren't faced with a religiously and tribally divided population and an ever increasing insurgency.

Staying the course has not worked?… yes it has… we just have not accomplished everything that we want to do.Yes it has worked only if you define worked as chaos if not a strictly defined civil war, sectarian violence, people subject to being blown up, kidnapped or shot every time they set foot out of their houses, a government unable to meet anywhere outside of the green zone, infrastructure still below pre-invasion standards, corruption rampant and a troubling inability of the Iraqis to defend themselves or their country even after years of training and massive amounts of money spent.

I’m willing to give them a mulligan for a while… yes… even with all the other stuff going on. You can’t just stir up a hornet’s nest and then leave.The price of your generous mulligan is American lives.

I think one of the mistakes that we made was not handling things just as we did in Germany with massive arrests and warcrime trials. The dismemberment of the Baath party… more or less. I don’t give a crap about “world opinion” and Bush and Rummy are essentially being punished (with the way things are) for being too soft. Unfortunately, that mistake is way past correction.Bremer has stated that disbanding the Army and automatically kicking Baathist party members out of office was a mistake.

Rummy and Bush are being punished for a series of disastous blunders and decisions which have led to the chaos and violence we now see in Iraq.

We have been a nation divided and have been having civil liberties reduced over the course of many administrations. These events are not products of the Iraq war. Perhaps you read this post (http://hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=93903) that I made a while back. Very few of these items have anything to do with war in Iraq. These things were just as much a problem through the Clinton administration as they are now… and go even further back in time than Clinton.Spying on American citizens is certainly a reduction in Civil liberties and is a direct result of Bush's war. Dissent is imvestigated, phones are tapped contrary to the guarantees enumerated in the Constitution. Bush abhors dissent, particularly dissent that is directed at his Iraq adventure. his administration wiretapped the Quakers for Zeus' sake.

BTW- Tu Quoque arguments sway me very little.

As far as treasure is concerned, no offense, but I find this a little bit selfish. If we can both acknowledge that mistakes were made… well… you don’t just run away from that. We have a moral responsibility to correct the situation. Money is not even a factor as far as I am concerned.It is a huge factor when you consider that money is being pissed away in a failed effort. I had always heard the conservative mantra was "throwing money at it won't solve the problem." Seems conservatives have conveniently ignored this in regards to Bush's excursion in Iraq.

I think you should consider how potential recruits are affected by America cutting and running in Iraq. I can't imagine the effects of a planned, staged withdrawal with an emergency situation force positioned to respond as the need arises could possibly be any worse than staying the Bush course.

skrewt

04-04-2006, 04:40 PM

Beat your brains out? Surely that was accomplished long, long ago?

[/B]

LOL!, quite so, that happens when you live in the real world.

BTW your response to scrogdog was real nice and well put, it's a shame "OPINIONS" about what was and was not a mistake and "OPINIONS" about what should or shouldn't be done are purely that, opinions. You have no more clue to the outcome of your suggestions than a spin on a roulette wheel. We can see the results of what "IS" being done and debate whether or not it could be better, but you don't know until it's tried. Maybe when you get to be president you can do it your way.

geerair

04-04-2006, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
LOL!, quite so, that happens when you live in the real world.That would certainly explain a lot.

BTW your response to scrogdog was real nice and well put,Thank you, I'm pleased with it as well.

it's a shame "OPINIONS" about what was and was not a mistake and "OPINIONS" about what should or shouldn't be done are purely that, opinions. You have no more clue to the outcome of your suggestions than a spin on a roulette wheel. We can see the results of what "IS" being done and debate whether or not it could be better, but you don't know until it's tried. Maybe when you get to be president you can do it your way.The outcome is already decided. It takes no special powers to see that. All that is needed is merely an average sense of rationality to detect the reality of the situation.

skrewt

04-04-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
LOL!, quite so, that happens when you live in the real world.That would certainly explain a lot.

BTW your response to scrogdog was real nice and well put,Thank you, I'm pleased with it as well.

it's a shame "OPINIONS" about what was and was not a mistake and "OPINIONS" about what should or shouldn't be done are purely that, opinions. You have no more clue to the outcome of your suggestions than a spin on a roulette wheel. We can see the results of what "IS" being done and debate whether or not it could be better, but you don't know until it's tried. Maybe when you get to be president you can do it your way.The outcome is already decided. It takes no special powers to see that. All that is needed is merely an average sense of rationality to detect the reality of the situation.

The reality is only inevitable if we stay the course. We will succeed unless the next pres is spinless enough to listen to leftwing nut jobs and retreat.
Any kind of pull out before the job is done will be touted as defeat for the U.S., that is an absolute.

chillbilly

04-04-2006, 06:03 PM

You guys are funny. Ikey posts that we are NOT in a war. LOL! Maybe you could explain the differences to the 3000+ families that have lost loved ones in what you describe as mere "battle". The war against terrorism and the Muslim idealogy is undoubtedly a war. If you think otherwise, you're foolish. And while our leaders will not acknowledge that the Muslim faith is incompatible with a free society, most of us know that to be the case.
Have you ever thought -- Can a devout Muslim be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?
Is Muslim American really an oxymoron?
Consider this:
Theologically, no.
Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.
Religiously, no.
Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran,
2:256)
Scripturally, no.
Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran
Geographically, no.
Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially, no.
Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.
Politically, no.
Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.
Domestically, no, because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).
Intellectually, no, because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.
Philosophically, no,because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion
and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co - exist.
Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.
Spiritually, no, because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is
loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be very
suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both
"good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish...it's still the truth.

Geer charachterizes the war in Iraq as a Bush excursion. LOL! Last time I looked at the congressional voting record, every single person cursing the president for using force in Iraq voted to use force in Iraq!
So, on that premise, we can blame the entire legislative body as well as the executive branch for ridding the world of dozens of tyrants and freeing millions of people.

geerair

04-05-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by chillbilly

Geer charachterizes the war in Iraq as a Bush excursion. LOL! Last time I looked at the congressional voting record, every single person cursing the president for using force in Iraq voted to use force in Iraq!
So, on that premise, we can blame the entire legislative body as well as the executive branch for ridding the world of dozens of tyrants and freeing millions of people.You might have a point except that Bush owned and controlled the intel. He doled out only that intel that supported his case and none of the caveats. He lied through his teeth in order to gain congressional approval for his excursion.

Bush owns the Iraq mess lock,stock and barrel.

Dozens of tyrants? Perhaps you could list these tyrants deposed by Bush.

Seems to me to be just a bit of hyperbole there.

geerair

04-05-2006, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by skrewt
The reality is only inevitable if we stay the course. We will succeed unless the next pres is spinless enough to listen to leftwing nut jobs and retreat. I never realized that the Repub. party, neocons and conservatives had so mant left-wing nutjobs in their ranks.

Any kind of pull out before the job is done will be touted as defeat for the U.S., that is an absolute. What job is that? Ensuring a civil war?

skrewt

04-05-2006, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by geerair

Originally posted by skrewt
The reality is only inevitable if we stay the course. We will succeed unless the next pres is spinless enough to listen to leftwing nut jobs and retreat. I never realized that the Repub. party, neocons and conservatives had so mant left-wing nutjobs in their ranks.

Any kind of pull out before the job is done will be touted as defeat for the U.S., that is an absolute. What job is that? Ensuring a civil war?

Your stupid is showing.

I really can't believe I'm going to say this again.
We stay there until the Iraqi government stabilizes and the Iraqi police/military are capable of maintaining it's authority.

It is a very simple concept that your crowd just can't seem to grasp.

geerair

04-05-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by skrewt

I really can't believe I'm going to say this again.
We stay there until the Iraqi government stabilizes and the Iraqi police/military are capable of maintaining it's authority.And after three years of training and money pissed away there is still not even one Iraqi battalion with the capability of doing this.

The results say "staying the course" is not working.

Rationality says it is time to change the course.

It is a very simple concept that your crowd just can't seem to grasp. It is a very simple concept at which your crowd has failed.

Good job on foementing a civil war and swelling the terrorist ranks though.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 10:49 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair
[B][QUOTE] Originally posted by chillbilly

You might have a point except that Bush owned and controlled the intel. He doled out only that intel that supported his case and none of the caveats. He lied through his teeth in order to gain congressional approval for his excursion.
Bush owns the Iraq mess lock,stock and barrel.

Now THAT IS hyperbole and is nothing more than jaded opinion through the eyes of a Bush hater.
Prove your assertion that Bush manipulated intelligence!
Prove that he lied to support the invasion of Iraq!
Oh and BTW, is it your claim that congress, the same congress that holds an investigation every time someone on capitol hill farts, would just blindly accept the president's campaign to use force against Iraq without verification that it was needed??
Come now geer, maybe you should start investigating the rest of the powers that be in our government and maybe you should broaden your understanding of governmental powers.

Keep in mind that the Iraqi government was still under sanction from the WORLD COMMUNITY for it's non-compliance and disregard pertaining to WMD.
Oh yeah, they didn't find any! LOL!
So, one can assume because the Iraqis were able to avoid detection of WMD that they weren't producing any?
And we can assume that there are none in N.Korea and Iran as well? Yeah, right.

Dozens of tyrants? Perhaps you could list these tyrants deposed by Bush.

That would depend on your definition of tyrant.
Yours, obviously must be a noteworthy "leader".
Mine, on the other hand, would be terrorists plotting to kill Americans, multinational forces and civilians.
There are multitudes of sites like http://www.newsmax.com that will support the claim that terrorists are being killed and captured, not to mention the ones currently being held at GITMO.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 10:58 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair

Good job on foementing a civil war and swelling the terrorist ranks though.

More political rhetoric.
Terrorists are born into the Muslim culture and are not "hatched" due to action against their own.
Your constant rendition of your favorite politicians' sing-song and CNN are boring.

geerair

04-05-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
Prove your assertion that Bush manipulated intelligence!Ahmed Chalabi, Iraq defectors, mobile bioweaps labs, curveball, the Office of Special Plans, aluminum tubes, yellowcake, Atta in Prague, mushroom clouds, Iraq involved in 9/11, killer drones, stockpiles of WMD and on and on.

Prove that he lied to support the invasion of Iraq!Same answer as above.

Oh and BTW, is it your claim that congress, the same congress that holds an investigation every time someone on capitol hill farts, would just blindly accept the president's campaign to use force against Iraq without verification that it was needed?? History says they did.

Come now geer, maybe you should start investigating the rest of the powers that be in our government and maybe you should broaden your understanding of governmental powersBawhahahaha. This from a guy who doesn't even know what he FEC reports are.

Doctor heal thyself.

Keep in mind that the Iraqi government was still under sanction from the WORLD COMMUNITY for it's non-compliance and disregard pertaining to WMD.The U.N. security Council found Iraq in material compliance with 1441.

Oh yeah, they didn't find any! LOL!You are wrong. They found a few 18 year old corroded artillery shells and a rubber band powered, balsa wood drone.

So, one can assume because the Iraqis were able to avoid detection of WMD that they weren't producing any?No need to assume, the ISG spent 3 years looking.

And we can assume that there are none in N.Korea and Iran as well? Yeah, right.Why would you assume that?

That would depend on your definition of tyrant.
Yours, obviously must be a noteworthy "leader".
Mine, on the other hand, would be terrorists plotting to kill Americans, multinational forces and civilians.How about Webster's definition of tyrant? An absolute monarch. This is the accepted definition.

Making up definitions is the mark of a hyperbolist.

If you meant terrorists, say terrorists.

There are multitudes of sites like http://www.newsmax.com that will support the claim that terrorists are being killed and captured, not to mention the ones currently being held at GITMO.Who has ever denied that terrorists are being killed or captured? Certainly not me.

One editorial comment.....Newsmax? That explains a lot.

geerair

04-05-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
More political rhetoric.
Terrorists are born into the Muslim culture and are not "hatched" due to action against their own.
Your constant rendition of your favorite politicians' sing-song and CNN are boring.Hmmm.......I have no favorite politician and I don't have CNN.

Funny thing though, I have heard conservative pundits call it a Civil War.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 01:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair

One editorial comment.....Newsmax? That explains a lot.

I see. Well, how many do you need? Reviewing the content of your posts, they regularly refer to a single editorial and thus, speculation.
Alos note that an FEC report would be like the average civilian reporting earnings to the IRS.
Skewed, inaccurate and incomplete. LOL!

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 01:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair

Funny thing though, I have heard conservative pundits call it a Civil War.

Equally as funny is the fact that the military people currently serving in Iraq have a markedly different view of the conditions there as opposed to your armchair straddlers.
Well, why don't you list those "pundits", and show their comments??

geerair

04-05-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
I see. Well, how many do you need? Reviewing the content of your posts, they regularly refer to a single editorialand thus, speculation.Perhaps you would be kind enough to list these editorials I allegedly use. If you don't then we are forced to conclude that you are bieng less than truthful about your claim that my evidence consists of editorials.

Alos note that an FEC report would be like the average civilian reporting earnings to the IRS.
Skewed, inaccurate and incomplete. LOL! In the absence of any contradictory evidence the FEC reports are the most credibile evidence.

Perhaps you can post evidence refuting the FEC report?

No? Too bad. The FEC report stands

geerair

04-05-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly

Equally as funny is the fact that the military people currently serving in Iraq have a markedly different view of the conditions there as opposed to your armchair straddlers.Yes billy, is that the 70 odd percent who think we should pull out within a year or less?

Well, why don't you list those "pundits", and show their comments?? George Will: "This is a Civil War", referring to Iraq.

geerair

04-05-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
Alos note that an FEC report would be like the average civilian reporting earnings to the IRS.
Skewed, inaccurate and incomplete. LOL! BTW-You posted this in the wrong thread, time to put down that bottle of Rebel Yell.

skrewt

04-05-2006, 03:28 PM

Surely not. Why, I do extensive research on these issues. I can assure you that only the most rigorously scrutinized, deeply researched, objective statements make it to this forum under my byline. You have my word on that and as one conservative commentator who posts here wrote: "Links? I don't need no stinking links.....I don't have to show you no links."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAH
Damn geer that hurt.....whew! almost spewed.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 03:34 PM

Yeah, I figured it would be George Will. I respect George Will and if that's the way he sees it, fine. That doesn't necessarily make it fact though, and since you are such a stickler for categorizing everyone, I would point out that George Will is more moderate than conservative.
Is that all you have? A one sentence statement from a middle of the road moderate. Very good. You've done your homework.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 03:36 PM

[i]Originally posted by geerair
Equally as funny is the fact that the military people currently serving in Iraq have a markedly different view of the conditions there as opposed to your armchair straddlers.Yes billy, is that the 70 odd percent who think we should pull out within a year or less?

Oh, it's 70% now, huh? Is this more hyperbole or will you bring forth a single sentence from a pollster to add some credence to another erroneous post? LOL!

geerair

04-05-2006, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
since you are such a stickler for categorizing everyone, I would point out that George Will is more moderate than conservative.I'm sure you see it that way, nobody else does.

Is that all you have? A one sentence statement from a middle of the road moderate. Very good. You've done your homework. [/B]You wanted a conservative pundit, I gave you a conservative pundit.

geerair

04-05-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
Oh, it's 70% now, huh? Is this more hyperbole or will you bring forth a single sentence from a pollster to add some credence to another erroneous post? LOL!Yes, billy, 70% say pull out within a year.

I'm surprised you missed that since you claim to have extensive knowledge of military matters.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 03:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair
I'm sure you see it that way, nobody else does.

Same ole' dysfunctional shtick huh geery?
Do you formulate your opinions based on how the majority sees things??

You didn't eat your pudding queery!
It tastes like sh-t ma'.
Everyone else thinks it tastes good, now eat it!

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 03:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by geerair
Yes, billy, 70% say pull out within a year.

Well, the proof is in the puddin' there geer.
Where's the beef? Another poll?
I know you respect the pollsters and that you'll be happy to provide more credible proof than your own word. LOL!

skrewt

04-05-2006, 03:53 PM

Ahmed Chalabi

So Ahmed Chalabi provided fake intelligence...this makes the intelligence mistaken, not a lie.

Iraq defectors

Same as above.

mobile bioweaps labs

Same damn thing, mistaken intelligence.

yellowcake

Saddam was pursuing yellow cake.

Atta in Prague

The Czech government claims it has evidence that on April 8, 2001,
Mohammed Atta, the ring-leader of the 9/11 hijackers, met in Prague with
Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi government official.
Mr. Al-Ani worked in the Iraqi embassy in Prague. This meeting is
controversial because the Czech and U.S. governments now disagree
if this meeting ever occured or not.

Seems that everything you claim is lies, are merely
mistaken intelligence or Unconfirmed reports.

mushroom clouds

Not a lie, an inevitable outcome of inaction.
Suppose you would rather wait to see one.

Iraq involved in 9/11

He never said it. I know you tried to post some pathetic quote,
but despite your delusion the quote never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

killer drones

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001209.html

stockpiles of WMD

Saddam listed all of his WMD's at the end of the gulf war.
He never provided proof of their destruction.
Every western intelligence agency believed he still had many of them.
No lie here either.

In general it would seem that your deep research and well thought out commentary
is merely hate bush speech based on your emotional response to the war.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 04:04 PM

Not emotionality? Not geery boy! Say it ain't so!
And we thought he was such an intuitive thinker!
Pure emotion driven by disdain.

skrewt

04-05-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
Not emotionality? Not geery boy! Say it ain't so!
And we thought he was such an intuitive thinker!
Pure emotion driven by disdain.

I actually give him more credit than he deserves.
His posts more closely reflect the 10 second soundbites you would see on news commercials, but that would be just too pathetic.

geerair

04-05-2006, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by skrewt
Ahmed Chalabi

So Ahmed Chalabi provided fake intelligence...this makes the intelligence mistaken, not a lie.Bush was told by his own State Dept. and the CIA that Chalabi was not credible yet Bush based a large part of his justification on Chalabi. In other words he knew there was reason to dicount Chalabi but continued to tout Chalabi as a prophet and his intel as gospel

Iraq defectors

Same as above.Same as above.

mobile bioweaps labs

Same damn thing, mistaken intelligence.Several experts warned that the mobile labs were false, yet Bush continued using it.

yellowcake

Saddam was pursuing yellow cake.No credible evidence of that.

Atta in Prague
The Czech government claims it has evidence that on April 8, 2001,
Mohammed Atta, the ring-leader of the 9/11 hijackers, met in Prague with
Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an Iraqi government official.
Mr. Al-Ani worked in the Iraqi embassy in Prague. This meeting is
controversial because the Czech and U.S. governments now disagree
if this meeting ever occured or not.The Czechs have never divulged the evidence they claim to support this. The FBI has receipts from Atta from a Florida motel on the dates in question.

Get real, not even Cheney uses this anymore.

mushroom clouds

Not a lie, an inevitable outcome of inaction.
Suppose you would rather wait to see one.Condi said Iraq was close to having a nuclear bomb, "maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. she then went on to make the mushroom cloud statement. Of course this was complete B.S. as the experts had said and the ISG confirmed.

Iraq involved in 9/11

He never said it. I know you tried to post some pathetic quote,
but despite your delusion the quote never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.You are right he never said it, he wrote it. In a letter to Congress as a matter of fact.

killer drones

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001209.htmlBawhahahahahahahah. Your link talks about the U.S. Army getting drones. Pathetic, not to mention enormouly desperate.

stockpiles of WMD

Saddam listed all of his WMD's at the end of the gulf war.
He never provided proof of their destruction.
Every western intelligence agency believed he still had many of them.
No lie here either.Laughable. The stockpiles were a figment of Chalabi's imagination. He even told Rummy exactly where they were. Hell, the U.N. inspectors and American inspectors knew the WMD were desrtoyed because they supervised the destruction. What was left was either lost, never exsisted or was so degraded it was useless as the ISG confirmed.

Get real, nobody except wingnuts are buying that fantasy anymore.

In general, your responses make for wonderful comedy but very little in the way of credibility.

chillbilly

04-05-2006, 07:54 PM

And so, are there any "credible" witnesses that prove that Saddam was a mass murderer as they testify daily against him behind curtains with disguised voices?
That he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and other dissenting factions inside his own country?
How many UN resolutions did Saddam defy? You claim that whatever weaponry was left was lost??!! Yeah, right.
Lost into the hands of neighboring countries.
Our intelligence is acutely aware that neighboring countries had adequate time to assume full control of WMD's and any other intangibles before Iraq was decimated by American forces.
Is it also not "credible" that our intelligence has concluded that Syria is an enemy combatant and cannot be trusted, even though we have normalized relations with them??
How many countries in the middle east would YOU conclude can be trusted?

You keep pointing out that intelligence was incorrect and that somehow the president arbitrarily decided to use force without credible evidence.
In order for you to prove that type of slanderous garbage, you would have to be privvy to information you have never or will never see. Get real. You don't know what you are talking about.
Rent a DVD and watch a good movie and leave CNN alone for a while.

acmanko

04-05-2006, 08:03 PM

We'll be in Iraq for the next 60 years and they will be kicking our butt on quality made goods just like Japan and Germany.

geerair

04-05-2006, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by chillbilly
And so, are there any "credible" witnesses that prove that Saddam was a mass murderer as they testify daily against him behind curtains with disguised voices? Yes.

Are there credible witnesses that prove Iraq attacked U.S. or even posed a threat to the U.S.?

That he used chemical weapons on the Kurds and other dissenting factions inside his own country?That is a matter of some controversy.

How many UN resolutions did Saddam defy?How many UN resolutions did Israel defy?

You claim that whatever weaponry was left was lost??!! Yeah, right. No, I claim that UN inspectors, the people who would know, stated that the small amount of remaining weapons that were not destroyed were either lost, exsisted only on paper or were so degraded as to be useless.

Lost into the hands of neighboring countries.
Our intelligence is acutely aware that neighboring countries had adequate time to assume full control of WMD's and any other intangibles before Iraq was decimated by American forces.
Is it also not "credible" that our intelligence has concluded that Syria is an enemy combatant and cannot be trusted, even though we have normalized relations with them?? Our intelligence is also acutely aware that there is no evidence supporting the claim that WMD were shipped out of Iraq.

How many countries in the middle east would YOU conclude can be trusted?I would not bet the ranch on any of them.

That being said, what middle east nation can be sure that Bush wont make up bogus reasons to invade them as he did Iraq?

You keep pointing out that intelligence was incorrect and that somehow the president arbitrarily decided to use force without credible evidence.No, I keep pointing out that Bush cherry picked intelligence and ignored any contrary evidence to bolster his justification for invasion. The OSP was set up for that very reason.

In order for you to prove that type of slanderous garbage, you would have to be privvy to information you have never or will never see.Not at all. We know what intel was provided to Congress, we know who provided it, we know how the OSP worked, we know from the Plame affair that Bush was desperate to protect the credibility of his cherry-picked intel, we know all of the players involved in this mess, we know what was actually found on the ground in Iraq, we know how the Bush cherry-picked intel matched up with reality and as time go on, we are learning more about the Bush mania to invade Iraq no matter what. look for more revelations that will add to the slimy legacy that attaches to Bush.

Get real. You don't know what you are talking about. If it helps you sleep at night be my guest. If it assuages your guilt for voting for Bush twice, go with my blessing.

Leave CNN alone for a while. I don't get CNN on my TV.

[Edited by geerair on 04-05-2006 at 09:09 PM]