Author Topic: I wonder if any troops died (Read 2164 times)

Old_Rooster · « **on:** May 02, 2007, 06:18:18 AM »

Wonder if any troops died while the democrats played politics with their lifes.
Ya know, if I was a democratic senator, i'd have said, 'look we can't beat bush on this,
he is just gonna veto this, so lets give the troops the money now and then keep trying to
work with bush, we can't not give the troops what they need. And fellas, maybe telling the
enemy what day they win is a piss poor idea after all'.

My 2 cents, now piss on me.

The Squadfather · « **Reply #1 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:31:25 AM »

Quote from: Old_Rooster on May 02, 2007, 06:18:18 AM

Wonder if any troops died while the democrats played politics with their lifes.
Ya know, if I was a democratic senator, i'd have said, 'look we can't beat bush on this,
he is just gonna veto this, so lets give the troops the money now and then keep trying to
work with bush, we can't not give the troops what they need. And fellas, maybe telling the
enemy what day they win is a piss poor idea after all'.

My 2 cents, now piss on me.

fucck the troops, fucck Bush, i'm glad we're getting our asses kicked Terry Bowerman.

AE · « **Reply #2 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:36:24 AM »

Quote from: Old_Rooster on May 02, 2007, 06:18:18 AM

...
My 2 cents, now piss on me.

Not worth the effort.

What the troops need most is a withdraw order and a new President. Think I'll go piss on a bush.

240 is Back · « **Reply #3 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:56:11 AM »

no offense rooster, but

1) dems are trying to bring troops home
2) dems tried to give troops money yesterday

Bush said no to both options. you can parrot the party line all week if you want. But Bush said it himself - he is vetoing the money for the men because he doesn't like a suggested withdrawl date.

yes, he is taking money away from our troops because he doesn't want any wording of a SUGGESTION in the bill.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #4 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:25:49 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 06:56:11 AM

no offense rooster, but

1) dems are trying to bring troops home
2) dems tried to give troops money yesterday

Bush said no to both options. you can parrot the party line all week if you want. But Bush said it himself - he is vetoing the money for the men because he doesn't like a suggested withdrawl date.

yes, he is taking money away from our troops because he doesn't want any wording of a SUGGESTION in the bill.

We disagree, dems knew their bill would be veto'd so why play politics, get a democrat elected president and then let him or her bring the troops home but don't fuck with the troops safety while playing politics.
You would bitch if there was a democratic president but a republican senate that would vote what your president wanted but tied a huge tax cut for the rich into it.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #5 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:38:09 AM »

Bringing the troops home is a cop-out..we all know we can't withdraw unilaterally.....somebod y needs to draw up a plan.... besides the dems could care less about the "troops". Hey Squad die in a fire.

240 is Back · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:39:45 AM »

no, i don't bitch based upon party lines.

i bitch based upon what's right and wrong.

If president hilary was hodling back money from our troops because she wanted no mention of a withdrawl date, I'd be calling her out just the same.

IT ISNT ABOUT PARTY OR POLITICS. Don't ya get it? It's not Bush against the world. It's right against wrong. Sometimes Bush is right, sometimes he isn't. Invading iraq for their oil was economically the RIGHT MOVE. To reject money because of asuggestion in there is WRONG MOVE.

240 is Back · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:42:00 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on May 02, 2007, 07:38:09 AM

besides the dems could care less about the "troops"

this is a worthless statement, bro.

They just wrote a line into a bill to BRING THE TROOPS HOME soon.

Bush rejected the bill because of this.

PLEASE tell us how trying to being men home from a place where they're being shot at, is NOT caring about them. And, tell us why the repubs - who want them to be standing in that shithole - care MORE about them.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:44:31 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 07:39:45 AM

no, i don't bitch based upon party lines.

i bitch based upon what's right and wrong.

If president hilary was hodling back money from our troops because she wanted no mention of a withdrawl date, I'd be calling her out just the same.

IT ISNT ABOUT PARTY OR POLITICS. Don't ya get it? It's not Bush against the world. It's right against wrong. Sometimes Bush is right, sometimes he isn't. Invading iraq for their oil was economically the RIGHT MOVE. To reject money because of asuggestion in there is WRONG MOVE.

lmao, your argument is totally based on party lines.
Sorry but we do not have a democratic president because the dems can't get one elected. so instead they
fuck with troop lifes. Sorry we disagree, the dem's act is just shameful
and how the hell you think its a good idea to tell the enemy a date they win the war is unbelieveable , anyone that feels that we
should do that is an idiot in my opinion.

Maybe in the super bowl each team should tell the other team what play they are going to run.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:46:49 AM »

It's not about caring about the troops..thats all political BS...If we come home now we'll just be shipping out again someplace else, perhaps even closer to home to stop these guys..and since I'm one of those guys I think i'm free to say that unless we have a withdrawal plan..we have to continue doing what we're doing until one is developed. Believe me if it were the dems that got us in this mess the repubs woulkd be doing the same thing.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:48:44 AM »

This argument is tiresome..we both agree that we should pull out of the cities and secure the pipelines and then roll out after that.

240 is Back · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:49:02 AM »

ok - now you're talking war strategy - this is GOOD. let's debate this.

But the moment you throw "democrat this, liberal that" into the mix, it goes from discussing an issue, to attacking 70% of the people in this nation.

Debate is only successful when we debate the FACTS - not throw labels and insults around.

That being said, I respect your argument about giving the enemy a timeline. However, there are only 2500 of them - shouldn't 5 years be long enough to weed out those guys?

And doesn't the enemy have eyes to SEE when we leave? THey don't need a calendar - they'll know when we're not on their corner anymore.

And if we don't put a timeline on it, I think everyone agrees Bush will continue to just keep the war going forever. I mean really, we aren't winning, we're stalling.

240 is Back · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:50:25 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on May 02, 2007, 07:48:44 AM

This argument is tiresome..we both agree that we should pull out of the cities and secure the pipelines and then roll out after that.

This cannot happen now, HH6.

last week, the white house ended the training of iraqi police and military.

Why? You tell me.

That option is gone now. At this point, it's either 1) We stay indefinitely, or 2) We leave and they all murder each other.

That's right - they're gonna stop all training and give up on the training programs. IMO it should have been the story of the year.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:59:24 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 07:49:02 AM

ok - now you're talking war strategy - this is GOOD. let's debate this.

But the moment you throw "democrat this, liberal that" into the mix, it goes from discussing an issue, to attacking 70% of the people in this nation.

Debate is only successful when we debate the FACTS - not throw labels and insults around.

That being said, I respect your argument about giving the enemy a timeline. However, there are only 2500 of them - shouldn't 5 years be long enough to weed out those guys?

And doesn't the enemy have eyes to SEE when we leave? THey don't need a calendar - they'll know when we're not on their corner anymore.

And if we don't put a timeline on it, I think everyone agrees Bush will continue to just keep the war going forever. I mean really, we aren't winning, we're stalling.

well get a democrat elected president and then he/she can make this country a laughing stock among the world, appears to me thats the democrats goal. Never known this country to basically say FUCK A COUNTRY but that appears to be the dem's goal.

240 is Back · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:08:37 AM »

1) It doesn't matter if the world loves or hates us. Really. They hate us right now. They could love us, or hate us, but that changes nothing in you or I's daily life.

2) When you say: "Never known this country to basically say FUCK A COUNTRY but that appears to be the dem's goal.", I have to ask - Did you know that we invaded Iraq pre-emptively, destroyed their infrastructure, turned their leader over for execution, then took over their oil at prices we set. That's a pretty good FUCKING we laid on them, eh?

The Squadfather · « **Reply #15 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:10:33 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on May 02, 2007, 07:38:09 AM

Bringing the troops home is a cop-out..we all know we can't withdraw unilaterally.....somebod y needs to draw up a plan.... besides the dems could care less about the "troops". Hey Squad die in a fire.

hahahaha, stay away from those carbombs, meathead.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #16 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:11:03 AM »

They didn't get along with others and didn't derserve the natural resources provided for them...therefore they had to go..inorder to secure our long term stategic goals in the region.

egj13 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:13:18 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 06:56:11 AM

no offense rooster, but

1) dems are trying to bring troops home
2) dems tried to give troops money yesterday

Bush said no to both options. you can parrot the party line all week if you want. But Bush said it himself - he is vetoing the money for the men because he doesn't like a suggested withdrawl date.

yes, he is taking money away from our troops because he doesn't want any wording of a SUGGESTION in the bill.

The democrats only put the deadline in the bill for one reason, so that Bush would veto it and they could begin the new talking point that Bush doesn't want to fund the troops. We all know the Democrats don't really want to pull out the troops.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #18 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:20:40 AM »

The dems want to be president..so anything they can to make that happen they will do...either loving or hating the troops will work for them.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #19 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:29:22 AM »

Quote from: egj13 on May 02, 2007, 08:13:18 AM

The democrats only put the deadline in the bill for one reason, so that Bush would veto it and they could begin the new talking point that Bush doesn't want to fund the troops. We all know the Democrats don't really want to pull out the troops.

will really piss the dems off when McCain is elected prez and continues on with the war on terror.

Pity.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #20 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:30:09 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on May 02, 2007, 08:20:40 AM

The dems want to be president..so anything they can to make that happen they will do...either loving or hating the troops will work for them.

agreed and they will fuck that up by running obama or hillary, what a joke the dems are, maybe in 2012 they can run Pelosi! lmao!!!

240 is Back · « **Reply #21 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:34:35 AM »

2) When you say: "Never known this country to basically say FUCK A COUNTRY but that appears to be the dem's goal.", I have to ask - Did you know that we invaded Iraq pre-emptively, destroyed their infrastructure, turned their leader over for execution, then took over their oil at prices we set. That's a pretty good FUCKING we laid on them, eh?

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #22 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:40:54 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 08:34:35 AM

2) When you say: "Never known this country to basically say FUCK A COUNTRY but that appears to be the dem's goal.", I have to ask - Did you know that we invaded Iraq pre-emptively, destroyed their infrastructure, turned their leader over for execution, then took over their oil at prices we set. That's a pretty good FUCKING we laid on them, eh?

we blew the fuck out of things in WWII also, lucky for them. And in the long run , lucky for Iraq.

240 is Back · « **Reply #23 on:** May 02, 2007, 08:46:03 AM »

ok - but you do agree that we did FVCK Iraq, right?

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #24 on:** May 02, 2007, 09:10:02 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on May 02, 2007, 08:46:03 AM

ok - but you do agree that we did FVCK Iraq, right?

If fuck means liberate, sure.