Who can clearly state the current Democrat position on Iraq?

[The Mutt]

Bush said dead or alive. He said we would hunt him wherever he hid. He told the world you are either with us or with the terrorists. Then Osama stepped over the border into Pakistan and Bush said, "I don't give him that much thought."

Terrorists all over the world said, "What a dick. He barks like a poodle."

Bush had made America a laughing stock and emboldened our enemies.

Do you think that the Dems are going to "not catch Osama" twice as much?

 

[Ishmael]

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.

Neither you nor any of the assholes you read and listen have any clue as to the answer to that question. They merely spout conjecture as fact and back it up with little vignettes of anecdotal evidence. And all I see is a nation of purple fingers.

But historically it's always been true that the elites have never had a clue as to the desires of the commoner. Or they dismiss those desires. And you wonder why the first thing nations in revolution do is kill the intellectuals and other elites. It's hard not to have some sympathy for their instincts.

The United States first efforts at the formation of a country fell flat on it's ass too.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Neither you nor any of the assholes you read and listen have any clue as to the answer to that question. They merely spout conjecture as fact and back it up with little vignettes of anecdotal evidence. And all I see is a nation of purple fingers.

But historically it's always been true that the elites have never had a clue as to the desires of the commoner. Or they dismiss those desires. And you wonder why the first thing nations in revolution do is kill the intellectuals and other elites. It's hard not to have some sympathy for their instincts.

The United States first efforts at the formation of a country fell flat on it's ass too.

Ishmael

You refuted that Iraq was a quagmire and that there was any parallels to vietnam. I guess that makes you one of the assholes without a clue.

Let me know when you want to come out of spin and attack mode and discuss the issues I raised.

 

[zipman]

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.

It is having the opposite effect and you are just too damn dim-witted to realize it. They are fighting successfully against our tactics which we have been too slow to adjust due to the "stay the course" mentality of Bush.

You and your bros are the ones more interested in attacking democrats than the enemy. Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for us and he has done less to support the troops than all the democrats put together.

His decisions have caused the deaths of far more troops than necessary, have destabilized the region, have emobldened our enemies and weakened our military overall. That's not even mentioning the impact to Iraqi civilians many of whom have fled, the women that have been forced to embrace prostitution to feed their families and increased sectarian divide in the country.

But keep blaming the democrats, that seems to be the only argument you have in the absence of facts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[jhuson]

It is having the opposite effect and you are just too damn dim-witted to realize it. They are fighting successfully against our tactics which we have been too slow to adjust due to the "stay the course" mentality of Bush.

You and your bros are the ones more interested in attacking democrats than the enemy. Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for us and he has done less to support the troops than all the democrats put together.

His decisions have caused the deaths of far more troops than necessary, have destabilized the region, have emobldened our enemies and weakened our military overall. That's not even mentioning the impact to Iraqi civilians many of whom have fled, the women that have been forced to embrace prostitution to feed their families and increased sectarian divide in the country.

But keep blaming the democrats, that seems to be the only argument you have in the absence of facts.

Why do you waste your time?

You're not going to change their minds no matter how much factual evidence and logic you use.

To a Bush apologist, this is personal. This grand scheme of Republican control of all three branches and the "way things oughta be" has been the goal for years. Everyday Rush has been drumming into their heads that if the conservative way was just given a chance, all the day-to-frustrations with life and all the things that are "wrong" with America and the world would go away.

But something happened on the way to Valhalla.

The Neocon philosophy and way of life have proven to be an "unmitigated disaster."

And deep down they know they had been duped and were wrong.

Think about it. They wrapped all this personal energy into this "dream" and it has imploded before their eyes.

Their not going to let go of that heartache too easily. They've got a personal stake in this "experiment."

 

[Redneck_Cowboy]

I'm calling for an all out nuclear strike.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Pookie]

It is having the opposite effect and you are just too damn dim-witted to realize it. They are fighting successfully against our tactics which we have been too slow to adjust due to the "stay the course" mentality of Bush.

You and your bros are the ones more interested in attacking democrats than the enemy. Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for us and he has done less to support the troops than all the democrats put together.

His decisions have caused the deaths of far more troops than necessary, have destabilized the region, have emobldened our enemies and weakened our military overall. That's not even mentioning the impact to Iraqi civilians many of whom have fled, the women that have been forced to embrace prostitution to feed their families and increased sectarian divide in the country.

But keep blaming the democrats, that seems to be the only argument you have in the absence of facts.

Spot on.

*flashes liberal terrorist gang signs*

 

[unregistered]

 

[sufisaint]

Clinton:

Terrorist attack would help GOP


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls.


"But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again..."


Translation:

Orders to Al-Qaeda:

Do not attack the Unites States until after we win the election or we won't be able to let you win. If you can just hold off until after the election we will surrender in due time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/24/clinton.terrorism/? iref=mpstoryview

i think these statements show her devious political intentions...she does not give a damn about the people of this country...she only cares about her political careeer and how events effect it...and thats goes across the board...thats why her and Bill are still together..just souless egomaniacs.

 

[Ishmael]

It is having the opposite effect and you are just too damn dim-witted to realize it. They are fighting successfully against our tactics which we have been too slow to adjust due to the "stay the course" mentality of Bush.

You and your bros are the ones more interested in attacking democrats than the enemy. Bush's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for us and he has done less to support the troops than all the democrats put together.

His decisions have caused the deaths of far more troops than necessary, have destabilized the region, have emobldened our enemies and weakened our military overall. That's not even mentioning the impact to Iraqi civilians many of whom have fled, the women that have been forced to embrace prostitution to feed their families and increased sectarian divide in the country.

But keep blaming the democrats, that seems to be the only argument you have in the absence of facts.

Bush does not dictate or direct tactics. And they, the insurgents, don't look so successful now. The fact of the matter is they never were. Which is one of the reasons they started going after soft targets. Which, of course, started the 'civil war' mantra. Which in due course morphed inot 'sectarian violence.'

Of course now the tune is changing once more. The surge is working so now the focus changes to the 'political failure' of the Iraqi parliment.

It's what you get from a nation of two year olds intent on finding a reason to throw a tantrum.

Ishmael

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Bush does not dictate or direct tactics. And they, the insurgents, don't look so successful now. The fact of the matter is they never were. Which is one of the reasons they started going after soft targets. Which, of course, started the 'civil war' mantra. Which in due course morphed inot 'sectarian violence.'

Of course now the tune is changing once more. The surge is working so now the focus changes to the 'political failure' of the Iraqi parliment.

It's what you get from a nation of two year olds intent on finding a reason to throw a tantrum.

Ishmael

Yeah, the surge is "working", as long as you ignore things like the newest NIE and the fact that th e Iraqi parliament is rapidly falling to pieces.

LINK

The Bush administration released an update to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), entitled, “Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: Some Security Progress but Political Reconciliation Elusive.” The NIE — which offers the coordinated judgments of the Intelligence Community — observed some “measurable but uneven improvements” in Iraq’s security situation, but cautioned that there remains a lack of political progress in Iraq and a failure of the escalation to successfully provide sufficient security for Iraqis.

Some important findings:

Decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing:

The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves.

Violence to remain high over next six to 12 months:

Levels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high [over next six to 12 months] and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance.

National government to become more “precarious” over next six to 12 months:

The Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. … The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decisionmaking, and increased Maliki’s vulnerability to alternative coalitions

Refugee crisis will continue to spill over during “next six to 12 months”:

Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq’s borders over the next six to 12 months.

On another note, the surge has had one unintended effect in Iraq. Iraqis are being driven from their homes at unprecedented levels by the escalating violence brought about by the "surge". Sectarian violence is causing religiously diverse areas in central Iraq to be vacated with Shiite refugees moving toward the overwhelmingly Shiite areas to the south and Sunnis toward majority Sunni regions to the west and north for safety. LINK

 

[unregistered]

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

It's not the casualties that are breaking the military.

And it's not just the liberals saying that it's breaking. There's a fierce debate within the military itself over what should be done. The Pentagon wants a draw-down post-haste and the generals in the theater want more time.

 

[Ishmael]

Leave it to the liberals to take a 507,000 man active duty army, 180,000 active duty Marine Corps, 380,600 man active duty Navy with a 80,000 man ready reserve, 346,000 National Guard Reserves, and 196,000 Army Reserves, and declare it's broke with 3000 dead in four years of warfare.

Some jerk here, I don't know who it was, posted about the 'overwhelming' US casualties in Iraq.

But as soon as you bring that up they jump on their pontifical ponies and ride about town crying about what an unfeeling bastard you are and how just one american death is one to many. Unless your mother don't want you, then it's OK.

Ishmael

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Hey Ish, what's with the administration comparing Iraq to VN now after they've been denying the comparison for years?

 

[Lasher]

Hey Ish, what's with the administration comparing Iraq to VN now after they've been denying the comparison for years?

To their credit, Bush did manage to get practically everything factual he said about Vietnam wrong in his speech.

 

[Sean]

To their credit, Bush did manage to get practically everything factual he said about Vietnam wrong in his speech.

Did you see the Daily Show?
"Oh my God we're going to reinvade Viet Nam!"

 

[Ishmael]

It's not the casualties that are breaking the military.

And it's not just the liberals saying that it's breaking. There's a fierce debate within the military itself over what should be done. The Pentagon wants a draw-down post-haste and the generals in the theater want more time.

*chuckle* (Just for you Ollie.)

I remember when Clinton cashed in the 'peace dividend' with massive drawdowns. Within his establishment there were those that said, "We can sustain actions in two major theaters simultaneously." While the critics were saying, "Bullshit, you can't even sustain action in one major theater." Of course both parties were operating under the assumption that we already had troops in place for at least one of those major actions. Turned out they were all wrong.

There is ALWAYS a fierce debate going on within the military, ALWAYS. Intraservice and interservice. Over issues big and small. Mitchell was shitcanned for being right, Kimmel was shitcanned for following orders. LeMay and Doolittle were promoted for being right.

My point is that the debate within the military never ends. It can't. The very nature of the task they've been chartered to perform insures that the debate will continue.

The generals on the ground always want more troops and supplies. Read the dispatches from Washington or Grant, or even those of Lee to Richmond. The high level command and the political leadership have to balance the demands of those generals with the demands of all the other generals who also have responsibilities and logistic needs, but don't have the spotlight of the press on them. For the most part the answer is somewhere in the middle and neither side is entirely right, or wrong. Strategic bombing wasn't the end all be all Mitchell thought it was. The formation of 'light infantry' divisions wasn't the magic bullet for mobile warfare. "Too light to fight, too heavy to run." The whole point of these debates are to come up with solutions to problems that can only be concieved in many cases. Some solutions work, some don't. It's a harsh laboratory environment to conduct experiments in, but armed conflict has always been like that. For the most part the US military has been pretty responsive and adaptive.

For UD:

I was writing about the problems associated with Mookie al Sadr and his rabble in sadr city in the fall of 2003. His name appears in military dispatches of the time. It's noce to know all those arm chair generals/diplomats have finally figured out what the military has known since June of 2003. Our civilian leadership made the decision not to kill him at that time. A decision I seriously disagree with. And maybe they've changed their minds about Mookie and that's the reason he's spending so much time in Iran. Mookies untimely death in 2003 would have saved us a lot of trouble.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Hey Ish, what's with the administration comparing Iraq to VN now after they've been denying the comparison for years?

Haven't read that Ollie. In what context?

Ishmael

 

[Plasmaball]

Leave it to the liberals to take a 507,000 man active duty army, 180,000 active duty Marine Corps, 380,600 man active duty Navy with a 80,000 man ready reserve, 346,000 National Guard Reserves, and 196,000 Army Reserves, and declare it's broke with 3000 dead in four years of warfare.

Wow. Seriously what is wrong with people in this country. Nobody, NOBODY, but you who is claiming that a group is saying its broken. nobody has said the military is broken.

They have said stretched thin, Not supplied correctly, Has a few bad eggs in there.

If you want to lie about things, then go someplace else. I am quite tired of seeing you acting like this. Its sad. You have turned into a huge joke.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Plasmaball]

They say it the most Oliver, they say it (while soul searchingly wringing their hands) to punctuate their doomsday notions about how the war it lost anyway, and how we should just call it a day and come on home so they can get back to stacking up face time on more important issues like revenue sharing, free lunch, diversity, dependency on big government solutions...things that get Democrats elected.

wow Lie somemore. You just can't stop yourself huh.
Thats not what they say at all.

 

[drown]

Who can clearly state the current Democrat position on Iraq?...

yeah.

it's the
frontrunner's.




did you miss the focus group?