Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 07:07:01 AM
-
In real life, we cut our losses. We might be getting our ass kicked in a fight for 30 seconds and we realize it's time to look for the exit. We might be getting passed over at work for promotions, and after 5 years we realize it's time to start shopping the resume. You might have invested in a dog of a stock and you realize it's time to sell after a year of steady decline.
We all make mistakes, and sometimes you realize it's time to realize and admit you blew it, and make a gracious exit.
It appears congress is ready to cut losses in Iraq in 12 months. Some belive it's time to cut our losses and leave. A near equal number don't want to cut our losses. I guess the quesiton is, how many years of stalemating in a war is required before a nation should cut their losses? If we were 12 years into the war instead of 4 - would some people still say 'stay the course'?
-
McCain said if we leave that Al Qaeda will follow us home.
I don't want American children forced to kneel in the direction of Mecca! >:(
So I guess we're stuck. :(
-
Well if we leave now and the "democratic" government of Iraq get over thrown, thousands if not millions of the people who supported us will be executed for sure.
AND we'll lose our rights to 63 undeveloped oil fields.
-
Yeah, it's looking more and more like a stalemate-type deal as time drags on. I think the best thing to do would be to withdraw our troops when it looks like the scales are at least tipped in our favor.
-
AND we'll lose our rights to 63 undeveloped oil fields.
So? It's not like oil has anything to do with why we're there. It's about democracy and freedom. Our leaders could care less about oil - it is the property of the iraqis and it doesn't weigh into any decision making.
Hi Beach Bum!
-
In real life, we cut our losses. We might be getting our ass kicked in a fight for 30 seconds and we realize it's time to look for the exit. We might be getting passed over at work for promotions, and after 5 years we realize it's time to start shopping the resume. You might have invested in a dog of a stock and you realize it's time to sell after a year of steady decline.
We all make mistakes, and sometimes you realize it's time to realize and admit you blew it, and make a gracious exit.
It appears congress is ready to cut losses in Iraq in 12 months. Some belive it's time to cut our losses and leave. A near equal number don't want to cut our losses. I guess the quesiton is, how many years of stalemating in a war is required before a nation should cut their losses? If we were 12 years into the war instead of 4 - would some people still say 'stay the course'?
I'm glad that during the revolutionary war the americans (soon to be) didn't give up after 4 and fought all 8 years. I hate tea
-
Not to mention being able to products and goods with out tarrifs or import taxes. We will no longer be able to do that!
Because that attracts foreign money not to be put into Iraq.....but to be made in Iraq!
Maybe we should do the same in America, no more tarrif and taxes on goods imported from Japan, China, Taiwan etc.... It would be GREAT for our economy! ::)
BTW i think we need to stay. ;D
-
I'm glad that during the revolutionary war the americans (soon to be) didn't give up after 4 and fought all 8 years. I hate tea
Big difference between an elective incursion into a foreign land, and defense of your home soil.
The iraqis will be there with rifles for the bext 30 years defending their turf. Should we stay 30 years in baghdad if need be?
-
Big difference between an elective incursion into a foreign land, and defense of your home soil.
The iraqis will be there with rifles for the bext 30 years defending their turf. Should we stay 30 years in baghdad if need be?
We are protecting our home soil, and you kid yourself if you don't think we will be in baghdad in some way for the next 30 years. The surge has been working, so why not let it work. 4 years isn't that long and 3,000 deaths is more than acceptable over that time frame. That's right I said it acceptable, and I will be 3,001 if need be
-
We are protecting our home soil
By driving up and down dangerous baghdad highways as targets, and not guarding US borders?
-
By driving up and down dangerous baghdad highways as targets, and not guarding US borders?
we must be doing something right, no attacks in 6 years. You think in all the foreign wars through history we helped to be the good guy? We helped because in the long run it kept our soil safe. If you don't look out for #1 who will?
-
we must be doing something right, no attacks in 6 years. You think in all the foreign wars through history we helped to be the good guy? We helped because in the long run it kept our soil safe. If you don't look out for #1 who will?
Gee whiz, if Cheney's fingerprints weren't all over 9/11, I might buy that story.
Google "norman minetta 9/11" and see what our own Secretary of Transportation testified to - under oath on CSPAN and every other channel - which seriously points at Cheney letting the Pentagon be hit on 9/11.
-
Gee whiz, if Cheney's fingerprints weren't all over 9/11, I might buy that story.
Google "norman minetta 9/11" and see what our own Secretary of Transportation testified to - under oath on CSPAN and every other channel - which seriously points at Cheney letting the Pentagon be hit on 9/11.
240, you know I don't buy into 9/11 CTs.
-
240, you know I don't buy into 9/11 CTs.
Minetta is a repub apointee, sect of transportation = credible, accomplished man respected in his field.
Minetta's testimony directly points to Cheney as letting it happen.
This testimony discredits your post.
So either you're wrong, or a repub sec. of transportation is wrong. Hmmm...
-
How do we always end up on at 911 CT's. Its impossible to debate 240 on this because the reasons for war always come back to some ridiculous ct.
-
Minetta is a repub apointee, sect of transportation = credible, accomplished man respected in his field.
Minetta's testimony directly points to Cheney as letting it happen.
This testimony discredits your post.
So either you're wrong, or a repub sec. of transportation is wrong. Hmmm...
what evidence did he present that linked Cheney to letting the pentagon get hit?
-
what evidence did he present that linked Cheney to letting the pentagon get hit?
I was hoping you'd google or youtube the CSPAN testimony and see it for yourself.
You see, if I write it out, you'll dismiss it based upon your bias, without looking at it. My hope was that you'd punch it in, watch it, scratchyour head and say "Holy shit... did I hear that right? Why would he... "
If I post, it's just another CT nut on a forum. If you hear the words directly from a loyal Bushite in a major cabinet position, might open your eyes.
And hh6- I only brought it up because mm69 FIRST dropped the 'no attack in 6 years' quote. When you let the first one happen, you don't deserve credit.
-
STOP..lets answer his question.......for me..no we have to stay..3000 is a small number >:( I guess.....I mean the Brits lost 45,000 in one afternoon during the battle of the Somme so..in any event u can't talk about this in terms of casulties otherwise emotion takes over. The ends will justify the means..peace and no terror attacks..secure oil resourses and a hedge against Iran.
-
Minetta is a repub apointee, sect of transportation = credible, accomplished man respected in his field.
Minetta's testimony directly points to Cheney as letting it happen.
This testimony discredits your post.
So either you're wrong, or a repub sec. of transportation is wrong. Hmmm...
"Mineta explains that while he had not known it at the time, he had surmised that the standing order the young man asked about must have been a shoot down order. Hamilton, looking a bit confused, seeks clarification about which flight the conversation was regarding, and Mineta once again clarifies that it is the flight that hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11."
you make it seem like mineta said "yeah man, Cheney wanted the pentagon to get hit"
So Cheney didn't order the plane shot down? What id thid supposed to prove?
-
6 months or so on the job didn't really allow them to stop anything. Also wild bill had plenty of chances to get Bin laden.
-
STOP..lets answer his question.......for me..no we have to stay..3000 is a small number >:( I guess.....I mean the Brits lost 45,000 in one afternoon during the battle of the Somme so..in any event u can't talk about this in terms of casulties otherwise emotion takes over. The ends will justify the means..peace and no terror attacks..secure oil resourses and a hedge against Iran.
Thank you. So many military and repub folks here haev a hard time admitting that lives are being traded to secure oil resources. When I hear Beach Bum and others say "It's not abuot the oil", I jsut want to waterboard the ignorant bastards.
-
So Cheney didn't order the plane shot down? What id thid supposed to prove?
Cheney was aware that two planes had been used to hit the towers.
Cheney was aware a plane was beelining for DC for 48 minutes.
Cheney (and Bush) were the only men in America with power to shoot down planes, thanks to legislation they formed that summer which took away the power from the generals.
Cheney let the plane hit its target.
-
Cheney was aware that two planes had been used to hit the towers.
Cheney was aware a plane was beelining for DC for 48 minutes.
Cheney (and Bush) were the only men in America with power to shoot down planes, thanks to legislation they formed that summer which took away the power from the generals.
Cheney let the plane hit its target.
LMAO, just another opinion
-
how did this become a 9/11 CT thing?
AGAIN!
>:(
-
how did this become a 9/11 CT thing?
AGAIN!
>:(
because that is 240s safety blanket. Anytime he runs into a dead end argument he brings up 9/11. I honestly have to admire his passion on it.
-
because that is 240s safety blanket. Anytime he runs into a dead end argument he brings up 9/11. I honestly have to admire his passion on it.
This was a good thread that brought up some good issue that don't have easy answers.
this will be so much worse if we pull out and the government falls.
You know Iran, Syria, China and Russia will be doing everything they can to help bring it down and take advantage of 17 oil fields, and 63 undeveloped ones. When that happens Iraq is really going to get a fucked end of the deal.
-
because that is 240s safety blanket. Anytime he runs into a dead end argument he brings up 9/11. I honestly have to admire his passion on it.
No, 'another terror attack' is YOUR security blanket.
-
This was a good thread that brought up some good issue that don't have easy answers.
this will be so much worse if we pull out and the government falls.
You know Iran, Syria, China and Russia will be doing everything they can to help bring it down and take advantage of 17 oil fields, and 63 undeveloped ones. When that happens Iraq is really going to get a fucked end of the deal.
that and everyone ignores the fact that Bin Laden has called Baghdad the capitol city of the talifaith (I think that is what they call it) the place from which to launch their world takeover
-
that and everyone ignores the fact that Bin Laden has called Baghdad the capitol city of the talifaith (I think that is what they call it) the place from which to launch their world takeover
Yeah, as much as am i strongly against this war, pulling out now would be tragic in all areas.
-
Pull out of the CITIES so our men stop dying. You could control the border, bases, pipeline, and oil facilities with a TENTH of the men. Shoot anything that comes within ten miles of the US property or the border. We can stay there 50 years and control the place. As long as our troops stay alive and it's just about 'security', Americans would probably support the war!
-
See u can be whole heartedly against the war and still say a pullout is a bad thing..Hell I don't want to go back..but I would prefer all u nice getbiggers to stay a nice shade of pink instead of dayglow yellow.
-
See u can be whole heartedly against the war and still say a pullout is a bad thing..Hell I don't want to go back..but I would prefer all u nice getbiggers to stay a nice shade of pink instead of dayglow yellow.
Well, it's about being practical in this instant. I didn't want the milk to spill, but now that it's spilled we must take responsibility for it. Because if we don't do something about will stain and stink the carpet.
-
Very well put...
-
how did this become a 9/11 CT thing?
AGAIN!
>:(
Rob, this is a completely valid point. Please stop with the 9/11 CT's. The whole thread is derailed now even though the initial point of it was a good one.
-
Rob, this is a completely valid point. Please stop with the 9/11 CT's. The whole thread is derailed now even though the initial point of it was a good one.
Re-read it. The member used the 'we haven't been hit in 6 years' card.
That is an invalid belief, and I used the testimony of a republican transportation secretaey to disprove it.
I did not invoke any mention of the 9/11 attacks - he did.
He drew first blood!
-
Re-read it. The member used the 'we haven't been hit in 6 years' card.
That is an invalid belief, and I used the testimony of a republican transportation secretaey to disprove it.
I did not invoke any mention of the 9/11 attacks - he did.
He drew first blood!
so if I had said 5 years and 6 months this thread would have stayed on track and you wouldn't have brought up 9/11? Sorry guys
-
In real life, we cut our losses. We might be getting our ass kicked in a fight for 30 seconds and we realize it's time to look for the exit. We might be getting passed over at work for promotions, and after 5 years we realize it's time to start shopping the resume. You might have invested in a dog of a stock and you realize it's time to sell after a year of steady decline.
We all make mistakes, and sometimes you realize it's time to realize and admit you blew it, and make a gracious exit.
It appears congress is ready to cut losses in Iraq in 12 months. Some belive it's time to cut our losses and leave. A near equal number don't want to cut our losses. I guess the quesiton is, how many years of stalemating in a war is required before a nation should cut their losses? If we were 12 years into the war instead of 4 - would some people still say 'stay the course'?
End the madness now. >:(
-
so if I had said 5 years and 6 months this thread would have stayed on track and you wouldn't have brought up 9/11? Sorry guys
you said we haven't been attacked in 6 years, didn't ya?
-
LMAO, just another opinion
Well, if you see a kid walking into the middle of the street and no one else sees it but you, and you don't do anything to stop it... Whose fault is it?
As far as the original point to the thread... No, I don't think we should cut our losses... I do think we should see how the troop surge goes and I think that when it's shown to be relatively stable, we do what we did at other times, guard our bases and bring as many people home as possible.
While I don't like the troops there in the first place, I do think that now that they are there, cutting and running is just not a real option.
-
this isnt a fistfight outside a bar....there are a lot more real life consequences. so far the surge/new strategy has produced results
we shouldnt let this turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy
-
so far the surge/new strategy has produced results
What are you smoking? :o
-
Gee whiz, if Cheney's fingerprints weren't all over 9/11, I might buy that story.
Google "norman minetta 9/11" and see what our own Secretary of Transportation testified to - under oath on CSPAN and every other channel - which seriously points at Cheney letting the Pentagon be hit on 9/11.
http://dabble.com/node/9136472
-
In real life, we cut our losses. We might be getting our ass kicked in a fight for 30 seconds and we realize it's time to look for the exit. We might be getting passed over at work for promotions, and after 5 years we realize it's time to start shopping the resume. You might have invested in a dog of a stock and you realize it's time to sell after a year of steady decline.
We all make mistakes, and sometimes you realize it's time to realize and admit you blew it, and make a gracious exit.
It appears congress is ready to cut losses in Iraq in 12 months. Some belive it's time to cut our losses and leave. A near equal number don't want to cut our losses. I guess the quesiton is, how many years of stalemating in a war is required before a nation should cut their losses? If we were 12 years into the war instead of 4 - would some people still say 'stay the course'?
Here's the deal 240.
I believe that the Iraq war is about the oil.
But do I believe the 9-11 was a self-attack?
No.
What I do believe however, is that the Bush Administration chose that event to launch an offensive military and foreign agenda.
Which after awhile lead to the invasion and war in Iraq.
To secure oil resources.
The Bush Administration saw that they could get away with it, with the history of 9-11 still recent.
But no way I believe in a conspiracy to actually attack and kill US citizens like that.
Besides, I watched it live on TV that day. I saw the second airplane hit. It's not a missile. It's an airplane. I posted that clip from Swedish TV recently, you haven't commented on that yet.
I am no fan of the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.
I think it's dangerous for both the US and the rest of the world. But I don't think the Bush Administration launched an attack on its own country, or that they knew about a US administred attack beforehand.
-Hedge
-
But do I believe the 9-11 was a self-attack?
No.
Do you believe that World trade center 7 fell from fire alone?
(recall its 6.5 second collapse, complete powderization of anything not called steel, and molten steel remnants)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7+new&hl=en