Who can clearly state the current Democrat position on Iraq?

Cap’n AMatrixca said:
This is how they think.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242007/news/nationalnews/hill__terror_would_be_gop_boos.htm

That was a pre-emptive strike bro.

Ishmael
 
I took it as more of a warning to Al Qaeda.

If you want some more of the US military, strike us. If you want a political solution, help me get elected...
 
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
I took it as more of a warning to Al Qaeda.

If you want some more of the US military, strike us. If you want a political solution, help me get elected...

That message has many levels to it. Primarily what it did was politicize, or at least make the attempt to politicize, the next terrorist even, and there will be one eventually, before it ever occurs.

I think OBL is smart enough to understand that if he can pull off a serious strike that the only thing that will happen is the further political fracturing of the country. I doubt that he sees that statement as some sort of tacit olive branch that if the Democrats get the White House then 'we can talk.' He doesn't want to talk. He knows that in the current political climate no matter who's in the white house the essential effect will be that he'll win.

Oh, we may unite for a month or so. But then the conspiracy theories will be put forth, the 'cut and run' crowd will be clamoring for a negotiated settlement. Nothing will change. Except that certain essential liberties and freedoms will be lost in the interest of 'protecting the people.' And we'll go along with it because God knows, we don't want to offend anyone.

Ishmael
 
I was about to take issue because of one of my main themes, AQ does not want to unite us, but then you brought it back and you are so very correct. In the moment of passion, we will be united, and then the Left will see a political defeat and throw itself into the breech, one more time...
 
Six years.

Bush has had six fucking years to bring in OBL dead or alive as he vowed to do. Six years. And you guys are worried about what Hillary MIGHT do if he strikes again?

Your boy is a fuck-up and you are too blinded by partisan loyalty to see it.

And to hear you guys take anyone to task for politicizing terror attacks after the last six years of "if you vote for a democrat the terrorists win" makes my head explode.

Liars. Hypocrites. Assholes. The lot of you.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
This is how they think.

"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world," Clinton told supporters in Concord.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242007/news/nationalnews/hill__terror_would_be_gop_boos.htm


but nobody denies it..

Keep spinnin
 
You've had six years to collect $50 million dollars and prove your point.

Yeah Plasma, nobody is denying it. The Democrats know their Achilles' Heel is the fact that they are the true fuckups in the face of danger. If it can't be bombed from 15,000 feet, then fuck it. Freedom is no longer a matter worth dying over. The only thing worth dying for is being unwanted by your mother.
 
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
You've had six years to collect $50 million dollars and prove your point.

Yeah Plasma, nobody is denying it. The Democrats know their Achilles' Heel is the fact that they are the true fuckups in the face of danger. If it can't be bombed from 15,000 feet, then fuck it. Freedom is no longer a matter worth dying over. The only thing worth dying for is being unwanted by your mother.

*zing*

Ishmael
 
The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence in Bhagdad in order to provide lawmakers with the opportunity to resolve the many political differences and make progress.

I don't think anyone doubted that the presence of all those additional troops wouldn't yield some benefit. However, the Iraqi politicians are still not making substantial progress and that is what the surge is about.

The prognosis is that they will not make progress by Spring which is when military commanders have said that the crunch on US soldiers will require reducing the numbers there.

That is why the democrats have been asking for measurable benchmarks for years so that we do not destroy our own military policing Iraq.
 
They've made more progress than the Democrats who missed their own fucking benchmarks.

Every single one of them.

When ya'll say no political progress has been made despite the tribal leaders turning on Al Qaeda, you are bordering as much on a lie as when you said there was a civil war going on. Again, outsiders, looking in, dictating to a freely elected government what "they" want "them" to do...



How much advice do you think Nancy is going to take from the Iraqi or Iranian Parlimants?

She'd sooner take advice from Hugo Chavez.
 
zipman said:
The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence in Bhagdad in order to provide lawmakers with the opportunity to resolve the many political differences and make progress.

I don't think anyone doubted that the presence of all those additional troops wouldn't yield some benefit. However, the Iraqi politicians are still not making substantial progress and that is what the surge is about.

The prognosis is that they will not make progress by Spring which is when military commanders have said that the crunch on US soldiers will require reducing the numbers there.

That is why the democrats have been asking for measurable benchmarks for years so that we do not destroy our own military policing Iraq.

What's your point Zip? Is it that they aren't meeting 'our' timetables, or is it that we behave like a nation of two year olds and demand instant gratification?

The West German government was NOT considered to be functional until 1957. But that was back when our nation was a little more mature than it is today.

"What do we want? __________(fill in the blank). When do we want it? NOW!!!!"

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
*zing*

Ishmael


AND

The Truth shall set you free...








... it doesn't matter that she was ridden more times than Seattle Slew! Another famous strong horse. Crazy Horse too...
 
Ishmael said:
What's your point Zip? Is it that they aren't meeting 'our' timetables, or is it that we behave like a nation of two year olds and demand instant gratification?

The West German government was NOT considered to be functional until 1957. But that was back when our nation was a little more mature than it is today.

"What do we want? __________(fill in the blank). When do we want it? NOW!!!!"

Ishmael

Rev'rund Jesse: "What do we want?"

Rev'rund Al: "JUSTICE!"

Rev'rund Jesse: "uh, no, that would put us outta business..."
 
Ishmael said:
What's your point Zip? Is it that they aren't meeting 'our' timetables, or is it that we behave like a nation of two year olds and demand instant gratification?

The West German government was NOT considered to be functional until 1957. But that was back when our nation was a little more mature than it is today.

"What do we want? __________(fill in the blank). When do we want it? NOW!!!!"

Ishmael

Reading comprehension issues troubling you?

I remember you and the cap'n saying Iraq wasn't a quagmire while democrats were calling for some level of accountability for the progress of the war.

The main reason Iraq is still fucked up is the Bush administration caring more about image than anything else. There isn't one person involved in the prosecution of this war that has done anything right.

It's been 6 years, not six days, or six weeks or even *gasp* six months like they said at the beginning and there still is no "victory" in sight except the spin that you, the cap'n and your troop of merry excuse makers blindly believe in.

How has bringing democracy to the middle east worked out for us?
1) gains by Hexbollah in Lebannon
2) gains by Hamas in Israel
3) gains by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Meanwhile, Iran is far stronger as is Syria.

Yup, that strategy has paid off in spades if our goal was to legitimize terrrorist groups and promote terror sponsoring countries.

I can see why you defend them (or deflect criticism by attacking democrats).

Really I can.
 
Ishmael said:
*zing*

Ishmael

Yes, the longtime republican position of trying to outlaw abortion while denying assistance to single mothers makes far more sense.
 
zipman said:
Yes, the longtime republican position of trying to outlaw abortion while denying assistance to single mothers makes far more sense.


The CONSERVATIVE position is that it is a State's Rights issue and that a central government powerful enough to give you abortion, can, indeed, take it away. It's only ONE vote away that way...

But again, how do you square our congress' call for political change in Iraq based upon the criteria that they, themselves, are not living up to? Do they not argue for a return of the Republicans to power because they have made zero political progress? In fact, they've achieved political CONgress...
 
zipman said:
Reading comprehension issues troubling you?

I remember you and the cap'n saying Iraq wasn't a quagmire while democrats were calling for some level of accountability for the progress of the war.

The main reason Iraq is still fucked up is the Bush administration caring more about image than anything else. There isn't one person involved in the prosecution of this war that has done anything right.

It's been 6 years, not six days, or six weeks or even *gasp* six months like they said at the beginning and there still is no "victory" in sight except the spin that you, the cap'n and your troop of merry excuse makers blindly believe in.

How has bringing democracy to the middle east worked out for us?
1) gains by Hexbollah in Lebannon
2) gains by Hamas in Israel
3) gains by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Meanwhile, Iran is far stronger as is Syria.

Yup, that strategy has paid off in spades if our goal was to legitimize terrrorist groups and promote terror sponsoring countries.

I can see why you defend them (or deflect criticism by attacking democrats).

Really I can.


You don't remember shit. My writings concerning the problems with the formation of a democratic form of government in any Islamic nation long preceed anything you, the New York Times, or any other Democratic party dweeb has written. It's all here on the board Zip, every last fucking unedited word.

Bevis - "Let's climb that mountain."

Butthead - "Man, that looks hard."

Bevis - "You're right. Fuck it, turn on MTV."

Ishmael

PS and when I wrote all that stuff all the fucking Dems on the board labled me an Islamophobe. Go fucking figure Zip.
 
They do keep gaining in strength. And when they do, as when the recently did in Pakistan at the Red Mosques...

And then they weaken and go away for a while. They still haven't returned to Syria, unless it's as part of Basher's proxy war against the West.

Those countries do not hestitate for one second in going in and killing them. The Branch Davidians got more time than the Militants in the Red Mosque. Hell, they're finally going into the tribal areas and killing them. After 9-11, they weren't even doing that and were on our enemies list.

Libya came in from the cold. The Saudis and the Jordanians are trying to Westerize, hell, the UAE already's done it. Not one of those places, like Turkey, which has an Al Qaeda problem, is ready to fall to the Heretics any more than the Basques are going to take the Spanish, the Heretics will have to do that for them.
 
Ishmael said:
You don't remember shit. My writings concerning the problems with the formation of a democratic form of government in any Islamic nation long preceed anything you, the New York Times, or any other Democratic party dweeb has written. It's all here on the board Zip, every last fucking unedited word.

Bevis - "Let's climb that mountain."

Butthead - "Man, that looks hard."

Bevis - "You're right. Fuck it, turn on MTV."

Ishmael

PS and when I wrote all that stuff all the fucking Dems on the board labled me an Islamophobe. Go fucking figure Zip.

The question isn't whether it is hard, but whether it is having the opposite effect than what was intended, which is what has been happening.

That is the fucking point.
 
Meanwhile, our military has been stretched to the point of breaking as our own military commanders have been saying.

It's not about heart, or hard work, but rather about the strategic implications to our own ability to project military force based on this war.

Iraq is totally fucked up with mass migrations out of Iraq or to sectarian areas, growing sectarian division especially in the political arena, a non-functioning government and no solution in sight.
 
It is not having the opposite effect, for they fade before strength. They're Arabs; they have a go back to the desert and wait for the next caravan to raid mentality built into their religion.

What has the effect of creating a bigger problem is the Left's willingness, in the West, to signal defeat as did the leaders of the US Congress, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. If anybody is adding fuel to the fire, it is the Democrats doing every damned thing they can do to take out Bush, the real enemy to them. He's a fucking Christian.
 
Oh, like the ferocity of the "civil" war that was the equivalent of Katrina. I think the stretched thin claim is as thin as the abuse at Abu Graihb...

It looks like a brick, its got four sides and when you look at it just right, it looks kinda sturdy, but when you look at it like this, it's as thin as dis playing card.

And that's all these charges are. Playing cards designed to break George Bush's will, but damnit!...

He's a fucking Christian.
 
Back
Top