Author Topic: Cut your losses - yes or no? (Read 3815 times)

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'?

ribonucleic · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:08:46 AM »

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.

OzmO · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:28:07 AM »

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.

Purge_WTF · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:29:34 AM »

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.

240 is Back · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:30:51 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on March 28, 2007, 07:28:07 AM

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!

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:33:32 AM »

Quote from: 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'?

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

OzmO · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:35:58 AM »

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.

240 is Back · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:39:16 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 07:33:32 AM

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?

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:45:47 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 07:39:16 AM

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

240 is Back · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:50:02 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 07:45:47 AM

We are protecting our home soil

By driving up and down dangerous baghdad highways as targets, and not guarding US borders?

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:55:27 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 07:50:02 AM

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?

240 is Back · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2007, 07:59:57 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 07:55:27 AM

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.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:05:44 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 07:59:57 AM

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 is Back · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:13:18 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 08:05:44 AM

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...

headhuntersix · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:17:19 AM »

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.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:18:50 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 08:13:18 AM

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?

240 is Back · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:22:02 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 08:18:50 AM

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.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:22:34 AM »

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.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:23:34 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 08:13:18 AM

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?

headhuntersix · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:24:02 AM »

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.

240 is Back · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:24:57 AM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on March 28, 2007, 08:22:34 AM

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.

240 is Back · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2007, 08:26:45 AM »

Quote from: militarymuscle69 on March 28, 2007, 08:23:34 AM

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.

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:54:17 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on March 28, 2007, 08:26:45 AM

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

OzmO · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2007, 09:56:16 AM »

how did this become a 9/11 CT thing?

AGAIN!

militarymuscle69 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:12:22 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on March 28, 2007, 09:56:16 AM

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.

Author Topic: Cut your losses - yes or no? (Read 3815 times)

Purge_WTF