Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on February 27, 2007, 07:46:36 PM
-
Or is it more BS propaganda spewed from neo-con to keep the drone's attention from the real issue that Iraq was a BIG f-ing Blunder?
-
It's a fact some on the far Left want us to lose in Iraq; our very own Ribonucleic has even gone as far as to admit it. Others aren't so candid.
-
if the war goes well,, or we succeed -republicans win
if we leave or we dont accomplish whatever we set out to do -democrates win
now if your a democrate would you not be motivated a little to see things go your way?
-
if the war goes well,, or we succeed -republicans win
if we leave or we dont accomplish whatever we set out to do -democrates win
now if your a democrate would you not be motivated a little to see things go your way?
I agree. Some in the left would rather see Bush lose than America succeed. That makes me sick. I don't like Clinton and did not vote for him, but I never wished him to make a mistake that would harm the country to make the republicans look better.
-
I never wished him to make a mistake that would harm the country
The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.
That's my idea of avoiding harm.
-
I agree. Some in the left would rather see Bush lose than America succeed. That makes me sick. I don't like Clinton and did not vote for him, but I never wished him to make a mistake that would harm the country to make the reupblicans look better.
heres the thing i dont understand,, the vast majority of soldier deaths in iraq come from road bombs when your traveling between safer areas. i was in iraq working for a private company.. when we traveled we were provided with a bomb proof vest,, this vest could take a ied. problem was they are very expensive.. some soldiers dont even have the proper equipment, let alone a vest that can stop shrapnel from hitting your vital organs.. cant help but think that those war budjets that never pass might be for a reason
think about it,, soldiers without the proper equipment =more deaths.. if many can suggest that our government was responsible for 911, then i cant be too far off to think these people dont mind seeing a few extra dead soldiers to further their own cause
-
The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.
That's my idea of avoiding harm.
if we leave now,, it would cause even more deaths,, iraq would be devistated and taken over,, oil would be gone too
-
heres the thing i dont understand,, the vast majority of soldier deaths in iraq come from road bombs when your traveling between safer areas. i was in iraq working for a private company.. when we traveled we were provided with a bomb proof vest,, this vest could take a ied. problem was they are very expensive.. some soldiers dont even have the proper equipment, let alone a vest that can stop shrapnel from hitting your vital organs.. cant help but think that those war budjets that never pass might be for a reason
think about it,, soldiers without the proper equipment =more deaths.. if many can suggest that our government was responsible for 911, then i cant be too far off to think these people dont mind seeing a few extra dead soldiers to further their own cause
So you're saying some Liberal Politicians want soldiers to die in order to further their cause?
-
The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.
That's my idea of avoiding harm.
Did you write that post cowering under a table? I'm sure you'll never leave your house again becuase you can 'avoid harm' by doing so.
-
So you're saying some Liberal Politicians want soldiers to die in order to further their cause?
i hope not,, but i wouldnt put it past them,, why else are the soldiers not provided with better equipment? whats the new budjet plan 90 something million that the libs dont want to pass. thats a lot of safety equipment, body armour,bomb proof truck armour, and on and on that may not be provided to the soldiers
-
i hope not,, but i wouldnt put it past them,, why else are the soldiers not provided with better equipment? whats the new budjet plan 90 something million that the libs dont want to pass. thats a lot of safety equipment, body armour,bomb proof truck armour, and on and on that may not be provided to the soldiers
I'm curious what you or any conservative on this board would say if a liberal member posted that conservative politicians wanted Americans to die to further their agenda.
Your post illustrates perfectly what I find so incredible about the chasm between conservatives and liberals. You're actually intimating that politicians want soldiers to die. Do you really despise liberals that much?
At least from my point of view talking about displeasure with this war and with Bush in no way translates to wanting soldiers to die. To make that leap is insane.
-
i hope not,, but i wouldnt put it past them,, why else are the soldiers not provided with better equipment? whats the new budjet plan 90 something million that the libs dont want to pass. thats a lot of safety equipment, body armour,bomb proof truck armour, and on and on that may not be provided to the soldiers
Funding for improved safety for soliders was halfassed well before the dems took office. Now that they're in office people like you are making a big issue of it.
-
I'm sure after 4+ years of losing, we've finally figured it out.
Yeah...
-
I'm curious what you or any conservative on this board would say if a liberal member posted that conservative politicians wanted Americans to die to further their agenda.
Your post illustrates perfectly what I find so incredible about the chasm between conservatives and liberals. You're actually intimating that politicians want soldiers to die. Do you really despise liberals that much?
At least from my point of view talking about displeasure with this war and with Bush in no way translates to wanting soldiers to die. To make that leap is insane.
im asking why the budjet keeps getting cut,, why is the new budjet being blocked by the dems today? we have the equipment that would cut the number of american deaths in half at the least- but the stuff isnt getting to them. we have vests that can help stop ied explosions,, we have armour that can be put on the bottom of vehicles to stop ied explosions, but they dont all have it.
i take back if i implied that people are allowing soldiers to be killed, but more could be saved -thats a fact
-
if the war goes well,, or we succeed -republicans win
if we leave or we dont accomplish whatever we set out to do -democrates win
now if your a democrate would you not be motivated a little to see things go your way?
I don't believe it's that simple, ...however you Republicans have never been known for your ability to understand complexities. :P
I honestly don't believe the hatred for Bush runs that deep that people would want to see their own country lose a war. There are plenty of Democrats AND Republicans that don't want to see more lives lost on an assinine strategy predestined to fail.
Bush has already lost ...but his loss is merely figurative and political. It's already a done deal with him.
With military personnel stationed in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians however, what's lost is actual lives.
The current strategy isn't working, and it's not going to work. It will work even less if your Generals quit.
-
I'm sure after 4+ years of losing, we've finally figured it out.
Yeah...
'Losing' is your interpretation of events.
-
I'm against the war because the war was a lie. I was against it on day one for that reason and that is still why i'm against it... I could not fathom being against a war for political gain, that is because the one who taking us to war is not of my party... Never! If I believed the war was legit, last resort, mushroom cloud over Denver tomorrow if we don't act and all that jazz, imminent threat... da da da... I would never be against the war. Noting all that, is should not be forgotten that the only goddamed time I've heard a significant portion of the right stand up waiving a banner of "No War" was when Clinton went into Kosovo... So yea it happens and anyone who thinks that the right doesn't have any dirt on their hands in this sort of behaviour is quite frankly full of shit.
-
'Losing' is your interpretation of events.
What is your interpretation of the situation in Iraq?
Winning, losing, or stalemating? Or something else?
-
I'm against the war because the war was a lie. I was against it on day one for that reason and that is still why i'm against it... I could not fathom being against a war for political gain, that is because the one who taking us to war is not of my party... Never! If I believed the war was legit, last resort, mushroom cloud over Denver tomorrow if we don't act and all that jazz, imminent threat... da da da... I would never be against the war. Noting all that, is should not be forgotten that the only goddamed time I've heard a significant portion of the right stand up waiving a banner of "No War" was when Clinton went into Kosovo... So yea it happens and anyone who thinks that the right doesn't have any dirt on their hands in this sort of behaviour is quite frankly full of shit.
At least with Clinton, ...it was a NATO operation and was over pretty quickly.
This one has been "Mission Accomplished" 4 years ago... and people are still dying over there.
I'd hate to see his idea of a defeat. :-\
-
What is your interpretation of the situation in Iraq?
Winning, losing, or stalemating? Or something else?
Dethroning Saddam Hussein, and so promptly, was a massive and undeniable victory for our combined forces. The ideological war of terror we now face is - I believe - being won, but much more can be done.
The jihad is a strong - and growing - presence, and one I don't feel has been adequately dealt with to date. That being said I have great hope for Iraq and its people, and look forward to its growth as one of the world's newest democracies.
-
I'm against the war because the war was a lie. I was against it on day one for that reason and that is still why i'm against it... I could not fathom being against a war for political gain, that is because the one who taking us to war is not of my party... Never! If I believed the war was legit, last resort, mushroom cloud over Denver tomorrow if we don't act and all that jazz, imminent threat... da da da... I would never be against the war. Noting all that, is should not be forgotten that the only goddamed time I've heard a significant portion of the right stand up waiving a banner of "No War" was when Clinton went into Kosovo... So yea it happens and anyone who thinks that the right doesn't have any dirt on their hands in this sort of behaviour is quite frankly full of shit.
after 911 i bet you had your flag out and were saying any threat to the us should be dealt with.. but eventually your flag went down and over time your feelings over 911 went away. now instead of blamming the terrorists for what happend your now blaming the president.. the whole lies crap was created in the 04 election to try to get bush out, because they had nothing else to use against him,,and your still believing in it. we went to war over bad intelligence, not lies
-
after 911 i bet you had your flag out and were saying any threat to the us should be dealt with.. but eventually your flag went down and over time your feelings over 911 went away. now instead of blamming the terrorists for what happend your now blaming the president.. the whole lies crap was created in the 04 election to try to get bush out, because they had nothing else to use against him,,and your still believing in it. we went to war over bad intelligence, not lies
You must like being wrong all the time ;) I was against this war from the time it started. Believe what you want, I don't care. I was NOT one of the false patiots who grabbed up 2 plasitic flags to fly from their family SUV ::) Sorry, didn't do it... My flag is not for propaganda and fear mongering and never has been... ;)
-
It's a fact some on the far Left want us to lose in Iraq; our very own Ribonucleic has even gone as far as to admit it. Others aren't so candid.
Do you believe Rib is indicative of most liberals?
Do you think perhaps people's view of their intentions are being manipulated?
Because to me the message is: Cut your loses, because it's a no win.
I don't agree with it. Nor do i agree with the Idiot's BUSH's plan.
-
if the war goes well,, or we succeed -republicans win
if we leave or we dont accomplish whatever we set out to do -democrates win
now if your a democrate would you not be motivated a little to see things go your way?
Democrats don't win if we lose in Iraq. All of America gets nothing for BUSH's reckless sacrifice of American soldiers and 400+ billion in debt if we lose in Iraq.
How twisted do you have to be to really believe that dems win?
The dems think, and they IMO are incorrect, that we are fighting a lost cause and need to cut our loses and leave.
-
I agree. Some in the left would rather see Bush lose than America succeed. That makes me sick. I don't like Clinton and did not vote for him, but I never wished him to make a mistake that would harm the country to make the reupblicans look better.
There is no win or lose for BUSH. he's 2nd term lol.
The difference between Clinton and BUSH is that BUSH ALREADY MADE A BIG MISTAKE. Clinton didn't. BUSH made his own party look so bad that he they lost both houses in a time of war. how pathetic. he did that all on his own. dems had nothing to do with it.
-
i hope not,, but i wouldnt put it past them,, why else are the soldiers not provided with better equipment? whats the new budjet plan 90 something million that the libs dont want to pass. thats a lot of safety equipment, body armour,bomb proof truck armour, and on and on that may not be provided to the soldiers
maybe the dems won't pass it cause it's a stupid idea. Maybe BUSH needs to follow the ISG instead of throwing too little money at a much bigger problem.
-
'Losing' is your interpretation of events.
We toppled Saddam brilliantly. Uber, use of highly mechanized co-ordinate warfare at lightning speed.
But after 4 years it's still not safe to go to the local market because BUSH and Rumsfield in their brilliance laid an egg.
Now if we leave, we lost for sure. But while we are there, we aren't winning right now.
-
We toppled Saddam brilliantly. Uber, use of highly mechanized co-ordinate warfare at lightning speed.
But after 4 years it's still not safe to go to the local market because BUSH and Rumsfield in their brilliance laid an egg.
Now if we leave, we lost for sure. But while we are there, we aren't winning right now.
Not a bad post, but I think the coalition is making positive ground - although I do concede at times ground has been lost. The true test of America's involvement in Iraq will be an ideological battle to convince young Muslim men worldwide that the jihad is an archaic misinterpretation of the Koran. This may well be the most difficult and important task for the governments to come in America, and particularly Europe, who may already be neck deep in religious hatred.
-
There is no win or lose for BUSH. he's 2nd term lol.
The difference between Clinton and BUSH is that BUSH ALREADY MADE A BIG MISTAKE. Clinton didn't. BUSH made his own party look so bad that he they lost both houses in a time of war. how pathetic. he did that all on his own. dems had nothing to do with it.
Clinton giving defense secrets to the Chinese wasn't a mistake?
-
Clinton giving defense secrets to the Chinese wasn't a mistake?
Please elaborate :)
-
Not a bad post, but I think the coalition is making positive ground - although I do concede at times ground has been lost. The true test of America's involvement in Iraq will be an ideological battle to convince young Muslim men worldwide that the jihad is an archaic misinterpretation of the Koran. This may well be the most difficult and important task for the governments to come in America, and particularly Europe, who may already be neck deep in religious hatred.
Good luck trying to convince these people. It's the poor rural areas that breed most of these radical combined with people who's relatives were victimized in the cities.
So you think the present approach of "convincing" will ever work over plain ruthless brutality that Saddam was so good at?
-
Do you believe Rib is indicative of most liberals?
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
-
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
And how would you so succinctly describe the other extreme, the hateful neoconservative?
-
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
LOL, the poetry quip was pretty funny.
Although the "can't concede a well-made point" statement was interesting because I've thought the same exact thing about some far right conservatives.
-
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
Ok, so answer the question: IS Rib indicative of most liberals?
Because i love how many conservatives and liberals point out an extremist view and in turn stereo type a political ideology just to make a point when in reality it's unrealistic.
So answer the questioin.
-
And how would you so succinctly describe the other extreme, the hateful neoconservative?
I describe that type as a "Tightass"
I see myself as a South Park Conservative: Somewhat socially liberal but wants nothing to do with the left.
That said, I've checked out both right-wing and left-wing blogs. I've seen way more hatred on left-wing blogs.
-
Ok, so answer the question: IS Rib indicative of most liberals?
To be honest, I can't say for sure. I don't really talk politics very much at work or in real life social situations as doing so tends to create bad feelings without solving anything.
-
The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.
That's my idea of avoiding harm.
We haven't been defeated.
-
I'm curious what you or any conservative on this board would say if a liberal member posted that conservative politicians wanted Americans to die to further their agenda.
Your post illustrates perfectly what I find so incredible about the chasm between conservatives and liberals. You're actually intimating that politicians want soldiers to die. Do you really despise liberals that much?
At least from my point of view talking about displeasure with this war and with Bush in no way translates to wanting soldiers to die. To make that leap is insane.
Every liberal post in here implies that bush wants soldiers to die to better support his greed for oil. If the Dems defund the war (and they won't) that would be actual proof driven that the money they didn't give led to a shortage in saftey equipment, leading to more deaths.
-
To be honest, I can't say for sure. I don't really talk politics very much at work or in real life social situations as doing so tends to create bad feelings without solving anything.
Perhaps you should then research it a bit. Perhaps before you stereotype entire political ideologies as many do, talking to ordinary dems and liberals, reading articles, listening to the news stations etc. you might have a more balance and realistic view of whats really going on.
Because as true as Rib is to his beliefs, which i can respect and not agree with , he is not indicative of most liberals.
You see, Lizzy, what i see most people do, is mis-read the message and make complaints/points based on these extreme propaganda laced views.
FOR example: The liberals desire for the USA to lose in Iraq.
-
Every liberal post in here implies that bush wants soldiers to die to better support his greed for oil. If the Dems defund the war (and they won't) that would be actual proof driven that the money they didn't give led to a shortage in saftey equipment, leading to more deaths.
Yes and no. I don't think it's about the money, or the sending of troops.
It's about "sending only 21,000 and 93 billion" as a stupid plan.
Why not listen tot he ISG?
Why not listen to Powell?
Since we've already made a huge mistake (iraq war) why try to patch it up with scotch tape?
-
We haven't been defeated.
3,419 coalition fatalities - not counting post-tour PTSD suicides.
Tens of thousands maimed for life.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead.
Hundreds of thousands more refugees.
Half a trillion dollars squandered.
The country in a civil war.
And Iran poised to dominate the region.
This is your idea of "victory"?
-
Every liberal post in here implies that bush wants soldiers to die to better support his greed for oil. If the Dems defund the war (and they won't) that would be actual proof driven that the money they didn't give led to a shortage in saftey equipment, leading to more deaths.
I don't think they imply that Bush wants soldiers to die, I think they imply that soldiers dying is the outcome of his actions. I don't ever remember reading a post stating that Bush wanted soldiers to die.
Yet, I've read two recent posts from conservatives that stated liberals "want" soldiers to die. There is a HUGE difference.
-
I don't think they imply that Bush wants soldiers to die, I think they imply that soldiers dying is the outcome of his actions. I don't ever remember reading a post stating that Bush wanted soldiers to die.
Yet, I've read two recent posts from conservatives that stated liberals "want" soldiers to die. There is a HUGE difference.
Classic example of:
mis-reading the message and making complaints/points based on extreme propaganda laced views.
-
3,419 coalition fatalities - not counting post-tour PTSD suicides.
Tens of thousands maimed for life.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead.
Hundreds of thousands more refugees.
Half a trillion dollars squandered.
The country in a civil war.
And Iran poised to dominate the region.
This is your idea of "victory"?
It is neither a victory or defeat yet.
-
I don't think they imply that Bush wants soldiers to die, I think they imply that soldiers dying is the outcome of his actions. I don't ever remember reading a post stating that Bush wanted soldiers to die.
Yet, I've read two recent posts from conservatives that stated liberals "want" soldiers to die. There is a HUGE difference.
I didn't say they said that, I said they implied that he doesn't care because he is getting oil.....
-
It is neither a victory or defeat yet.
true.
-
I describe that type as a "Tightass"
I see myself as a South Park Conservative: Somewhat socially liberal but wants nothing to do with the left.
So you go around accusing the left of stereotyping soliders, but yo have no problem stereotyping an entire political movement? You don't even know ribo but you say he's this and he's that. Umm, you know just because he is critic of the war doesn't mean he hates america or soliders. Find me a post of his where he badmouths soliders or says something about the american people. If you can't, then maybe you should shut the fuck up.
That said, I've checked out both right-wing and left-wing blogs. I've seen way more hatred on left-wing blogs.
More bullshit. If anything liberals argue to the point.
btw Matt Stone and Trey Parker are funny but they don't know shit about complex political issues.
-
You don't even know ribo but you say he's this and he's that. Umm, you know just because he is critic of the war doesn't mean he hates america or soliders. Find me a post of his where he badmouths soliders or says something about the american people.
I have in fact gone on record as saying that we are the bad guys in world affairs.
And I do in fact condemn the role that the American military continues to play in spreading suffering throughout the world. Although, in my righteous indignation, I have probably let my antipathy slop over onto the servicemen more than they deserve.
-
I have in fact gone on record as saying that we are the bad guys in world affairs.
And I do in fact condemn the role that the American military continues to play in spreading suffering throughout the world. Although, in my righteous indignation, I have probably let my antipathy slop over onto the servicemen more than they deserve.
I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!
-
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
Haha, bravo! Although, to clarify, I don't think Ribonucleic is a 'kook'.
-
I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!
WHoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
RE-read it. He admits his mistake.
And who's defending him?
-
From what I've seen, he is stereotypical of left-wing kook bloggers: overeducated/underemployed, intellectual elitist, can't concede a well-made point, looks to downgrade and blame America at opportunity, Marxist/Socialist (loves Chavez & Castro), obsessive hatred of George Bush, spend days in Starbucks writing bad poetry on a napkin.
4 out of 7.
Not bad. :)
-
4 out of 7.
Not bad. :)
See - I said you're not a 'kook'.
-
The sooner we acknowledge our defeat and leave, the fewer people will die.
That's my idea of avoiding harm.
so what do we do then go slunking back home? then in 2 years when aqieda has had plenty of time to train and gather resources we fight this battle all over agian, but not there....HERE. in our own countries, millions will be lost... hope this helps
-
so what do we do then go slunking back home? then in 2 years when aqieda has had plenty of time to train and gather resources we fight this battle all over agian, but not there....HERE. in our own countries, millions will be lost... hope this helps
Hyperbole, it's your friend.
-
is it not true?
-
Yes, in my opinion it's not true. I don't believe "millions will be lost". I doubt you believe millions will be killed either.
-
I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!
::) Oh brother..
-
Yes, in my opinion it's not true. I don't believe "millions will be lost". I doubt you believe millions will be killed either.
so if terrorists got a hold of WMD and used them on us, don't you think they would pick a highly populated area? thus leading to millions of deaths. hope this helps!
-
so if terrorists got a hold of WMD and used them on us, don't you think they would pick a highly populated area? thus leading to millions of deaths. hope this helps!
I'll say it again, hyperbole is your friend.
Hope this helps.
-
It is neither a victory or defeat yet.
How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?
Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years. It's time to leave"?
-
How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?
Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years. It's time to leave"?
Have you ever considered that making it blatantly apparent to the enemy exactly how much fighting we deem to be too much might actually give them purpose to continue fighting? For this reason, such questions are best left unanswered.
-
Have you ever considered that making it blatantly apparent to the enemy exactly how much fighting we deem to be too much might actually give them purpose to continue fighting? For this reason, such questions are best left unanswered.
Would you say that at the end of year 20?
-
Would you say that at the end of year 20?
Look, obviously there are limits to how much you can lose in a war before it becomes unacceptable. If Iraq was no better than today in 20 years than today then you would have good grounds to justify a withdrawal. However, to present such a limit to your enemys is to encourage them that victory is within their sites. The coalition needs to behave like a force that will never retreat, or surrender, even if this is a distinct possibility.
-
Look, obviously there are limits to how much you can lose in a war before it becomes unacceptable. If Iraq was no better than today in 20 years than today then you would have good grounds to justify a withdrawal. However, to present such a limit to your enemys is to encourage them that victory is within their sites. The coalition needs to behave like a force that will never retreat, or surrender, even if this is a distinct possibility.
Okay. So you feel that 4 years of war to a draw is fine. But after 20 we'd leave.
1) Why 20 and not 40? Why 20 and not 10? What is YOUR number when we'd leave, and why.
2) How many americna lives do you think would be lost in those 20 years?
-
Okay. So you feel that 4 years of war to a draw is fine. But after 20 we'd leave.
1) Why 20 and not 40? Why 20 and not 10? What is YOUR number when we'd leave, and why.
2) How many americna lives do you think would be lost in those 20 years?
1) I don't have one; if we were a day from victory, but had said 5,000 deaths is too many and 4,999 had died, retreat would be foolish. Wars aren't as simple as a timeframe, unfortunately, and to indulge in such prediction is to give your enemy an advantage.
2) I have no idea and I don't expect America to be militarily involved in Iraq for that long.
-
I love it, you fucking idiot libs jump on the band wagon of defending RIBO without realizing he readily admits he hates the US and the military!!!!
He never said he hates the US. He said he feels the US are the bad guys in world affairs and he condemns the role the American military continues to play. That's NOT saying he hates the US. There is a distinction you'd be best to figure out.
-
How many years would you support the war, if this "neither" status continues?
Does there come a time when you say, "we have been here X years. It's time to leave"?
My answer is we will probably always be there in some role. I, like you, want Iraq to take over for itself. And alot of reports say Maliki and his government are getting better. I don't have a set date I want or anything but yeah I would guess that 100% of the americans have a breaking point. I agree with bruce that setting a date empowers the insurgents. But then again so does our bickering constantly in Washington.
-
My answer is we will probably always be there in some role. I, like you, want Iraq to take over for itself. And alot of reports say Maliki and his government are getting better. I don't have a set date I want or anything but yeah I would guess that 100% of the americans have a breaking point. I agree with bruce that setting a date empowers the insurgents. But then again so does our bickering constantly in Washington.
IMO a "date" should only be for when we let the iraqi army start doing their job. and since they know the people, language, and the turf and won't have a CNN embed everywhere they go, they might be more effective than we are.
We're gonna be guarding the 14 to 19 permanent US bases forever. We're guarding OUR oil pipeline forever. I accept that, it's how it has to be to keep the oil we arrived for.
THe fact Bush will put no timeline, and no defineable goals on a war that's 4 years old- that's dangerous. Suddenly it's 8 and 12 years into the war- 10k US soldiers dead - and the line is still "we can't tell them when we're leaving".
There comes a point you have to get out of the cities and let them fix their own shit.
-
IMO a "date" should only be for when we let the iraqi army start doing their job. and since they know the people, language, and the turf and won't have a CNN embed everywhere they go, they might be more effective than we are.
We're gonna be guarding the 14 to 19 permanent US bases forever. We're guarding OUR oil pipeline forever. I accept that, it's how it has to be to keep the oil we arrived for.
THe fact Bush will put no timeline, and no defineable goals on a war that's 4 years old- that's dangerous. Suddenly it's 8 and 12 years into the war- 10k US soldiers dead - and the line is still "we can't tell them when we're leaving".
There comes a point you have to get out of the cities and let them fix their own shit.
I owuld be fine for a date that iraqi army needs to take over, but if they aren't ready for it and Americans are still there at our bases, we will lose more life than today.