CLASSIC!! Hahahahahahahahaha

[Mr. Intenseone]

 

[OzmO]

Yeah,  i saw that on drudge.........

Why did you post it twice?

[240 is Back]

Poor guys.  They're worried about something some windbag in DC said about them, when they should be worried about why they're still being parked on street corners in Baghdad instead of pulled to the city limits so that the Iraqi police can learn to do their job.

Monster priorities.

[Dos Equis]

lol!  That's classic.   

[Mr. Intenseone]

Yeah,  i saw that on drudge.........

Why did you post it twice?

I posted it once on the G&O and once on here. I had a feeling they would move it!!

[ieffinhatecardio]

Poor guys.  They're worried about something some windbag in DC said about them, when they should be worried about why they're still being parked on street corners in Baghdad instead of pulled to the city limits so that the Iraqi police can learn to do their job.

Monster priorities.

Stop bringing logic into this.

John Kerry is a douchebag but what's he got to do with this ridiculous war? The last thing the White House needs to be doing is focusing on what that tool said.

Take care of this stupid war and then you can bash Kerry all you want. Of course why deal with the real issues when you can shift the focus to someone else?

By the way, starting two threads based on that picture is pathetic, even for a right wing zealot.

[Mr. Intenseone]

Stop bringing logic into this.

John Kerry is a douchebag but what's he got to do with this ridiculous war?
 

He has nothing to do with it ..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq !!

[ieffinhatecardio]

He has nothing to do with it ..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq !!

When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?

Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.

[Dos Equis]

He has nothing to do with it ..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq !!

Don't try and confuse people with the facts.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Don't try and confuse people with the facts.

Try and think before you post. Not everything is left versus right. I realize that's difficult for you but do try at least for the sake of your kids.

When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?

Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.

[240 is Back]

A lot of people voted for the war before:

1) They found out that Sadaam's monster WMD were pre-1991 bunkers with 15-year old munitions

2) They found out 9/11 reeks to high heaven and Iraq is stop #2 of 5 in US oil domination

3) They saw us declare mission accomplished, then decide NOT to turn things over to the UN to manage when they offered.  The UN would happily be doing the fighting on the streets right now, but that would have removed the no-bid contracts for US firms.



So yes, at that time, given that info, nearly everyone voted for the war.  But WE WON THE FUCKING THING.  Sadaam is gone.  They had elections and have their own new govt.  We did it!  We're done!  

Um, so, if it's not the oil, why are we still there?

[ieffinhatecardio]

A lot of people voted for the war before:

1) They found out that Sadaam's monster WMD were pre-1991 bunkers with 15-year old munitions

2) They found out 9/11 reeks to high heaven and Iraq is stop #2 of 5 in US oil domination

3) They saw us declare mission accomplished, then decide NOT to turn things over to the UN to manage when they offered.  The UN would happily be doing the fighting on the streets right now, but that would have removed the no-bid contracts for US firms.



So yes, at that time, given that info, nearly everyone voted for the war.  But WE WON THE FUCKING THING.  Sadaam is gone.  They had elections and have their own new govt.  We did it!  We're done! 

Um, so, if it's not the oil, why are we still there?

Why bring logic and reason into this? Don't you realize it's left against right? Nothing else matters.

Oh, and I thought the WMD's were 65 year old cans of baked beans from WWII?

[Mr. Intenseone]

When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?

Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.

Gee, If I recall the vote was made right after the last and SEVENTEENTH resolution, and yes, alot has changed and we did underestimate the insurgency which all the more reason stay and finish what we set out to do, get you can get off of the Liberal bandwagon you might be able to see this...we can't leave now and you definatly can't leave just because things have changed......you're sounding like any bandwagon Democrat!

[240 is Back]

Everyone believed what we were told.  but WE WON!


There are 1000 foreign militants in iraq, and a bunch of pissed off ex-military.  Independent polls show the iraqi people resent the US troops more than they resent the insurgents.

The minute we leave, the gloves come off, the iraqi police do their job and they kill for a month and it's all solved.  Period.  

The war is over.  Bush should ask congress for a bill authorizing long-term iraqi occupation.  We achieved our war goals.  Policing civil affairs is the JOB of the govt there, not us. We were their liberators and we helped them build a govt.  That is done.


Thing is, the Crazy CTers believe that we will stay forever.  The minute we're wrong, please let us know.  But the battle is over, we achieved our objectives, yet we're still losing 4 men a day.  Explain, please.

[240 is Back]

YES   We CAN leave now!

We achieved our goals!  WMD are gone.  Sadaam is gone.  iraq has democracy

They elected their own govt.  They have a police force.  The US has achieved our pre-war stated objectives.  At this point, all we are doing is preventing the Iraqi police force from doing their job- civil unrest issues. 

Why are we still there?

[kh300]

they're way to unstable right now. if we left iran would take over.

[Dos Equis]

Try and think before you post. Not everything is left versus right. I realize that's difficult for you but do try at least for the sake of your kids.

You're absolutely right.  A bipartisan Congress passed more than one resolution supporting the war.

[Mr. Intenseone]

YES   We CAN leave now!

We achieved our goals!  WMD are gone.  Sadaam is gone.  iraq has democracy

They elected their own govt.  They have a police force.  The US has achieved our pre-war stated objectives.  At this point, all we are doing is preventing the Iraqi police force from doing their job- civil unrest issues. 

Why are we still there?

We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!

[Mr. Intenseone]

You're absolutely right.  A bipartisan Congress passed more than one resolution supporting the war.

If it was bipartisan, then why do Dems shoot down every proposal the President makes??

[Dos Equis]

We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!

No.  Not the facts again. . . . .

[Dos Equis]

If it was bipartisan, then why do Dems shoot down every proposal the President makes??

Because they are attempting to use the war for political gain.  It is hypocritical and just flat out wrong. 

[240 is Back]

We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!

The region will never be stable.  There are always going to be warlords in villages and local militias.  History has shown that is how they live and that is what they want.  It would seriously take 15 years of presence to instill an entire generation of people who don't believe in that system, and that would take many more troops than we have there now.  Their learned religious fundamentals state they are a three-vision nation, and they have been for a thousand years.  We will not change that.  not possible.

The Iraqi military and police force - they are dying to take back some of the old guys who were dismissed when we disbanded their military.  Those guys running around with IEDs are former military men - it's all they know.  Suddenly hungry and jobless, they're going to blow shit up until they die, or until they are rehired to do that for a living.  And they are too far embedded in the population to kill every one- we simply cannot do it, and given the last 3 years of occupation, we're no closer to doing that then when we started.

The moment we leave, they will stabilize out of necessity.  They will clash violently- what they all want - then the winner will absorb the remnants of the loser.  Their sense of nationalism is sitll there.  Once we leave - at least scoot to the borders and give them their cities back - they will re-unite into their individual regions, and find a working relationship.



That's the thing which many are not separating.  We all supported the liberation of Iraq, the ousting of Sadaam, and the clearing of WMD.  that is what we did!  Nowhere in that initial war charge did Bush say "we will also be occupying longterm as we rebuild their social structure over 1 or 2 generations".  Many were shocked when we turned down a heavily-Muslim Euro/UN offering to take over.  The perfect out!  We would hae left after a year and been clear winners and heroes!

The only possible reason for us not accepting UN assistance (troops and money) is that we wanted to reap the windfall of the newly freed resources.  And suddenly, that moves us form liberators, to plunderers.


We accomplished the goals endorsed by the congress.  If Bush wants an Occupation Bill, by all means, put it before Congress and let them vote.  Anyone wanna put money on the outcome?

[Lift Studios]

240 - The troops can't worry about why they are still there. Once you're there you have to do your job and do as you're told. If they're having a little fun with Kerry more power to them.

[SPINZ]

240 - The troops can't worry about why they are still there. Once you're there you have to do your job and do as you're told. If they're having a little fun with Kerry more power to them.

I agree, MONSTER stress relief

[JOHN MATRIX]

The region will never be stable.  There are always going to be warlords in villages and local militias.  History has shown that is how they live and that is what they want.  It would seriously take 15 years of presence to instill an entire generation of people who don't believe in that system, and that would take many more troops than we have there now.  Their learned religious fundamentals state they are a three-vision nation, and they have been for a thousand years.  We will not change that.  not possible.

The Iraqi military and police force - they are dying to take back some of the old guys who were dismissed when we disbanded their military.  Those guys running around with IEDs are former military men - it's all they know.  Suddenly hungry and jobless, they're going to blow shit up until they die, or until they are rehired to do that for a living.  And they are too far embedded in the population to kill every one- we simply cannot do it, and given the last 3 years of occupation, we're no closer to doing that then when we started.

The moment we leave, they will stabilize out of necessity.  They will clash violently- what they all want - then the winner will absorb the remnants of the loser.  Their sense of nationalism is sitll there.  Once we leave - at least scoot to the borders and give them their cities back - they will re-unite into their individual regions, and find a working relationship.



That's the thing which many are not separating.  We all supported the liberation of Iraq, the ousting of Sadaam, and the clearing of WMD.  that is what we did!  Nowhere in that initial war charge did Bush say "we will also be occupying longterm as we rebuild their social structure over 1 or 2 generations".  Many were shocked when we turned down a heavily-Muslim Euro/UN offering to take over.  The perfect out!  We would hae left after a year and been clear winners and heroes!

The only possible reason for us not accepting UN assistance (troops and money) is that we wanted to reap the windfall of the newly freed resources.  And suddenly, that moves us form liberators, to plunderers.


We accomplished the goals endorsed by the congress.  If Bush wants an Occupation Bill, by all means, put it before Congress and let them vote.  Anyone wanna put money on the outcome?

awesome post.