Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?

[StoopTroup]

My favorite answer ever.

Bill O'Rielly and David Letterman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nD_iNPalY&mode=user&search=)

[Rogue]

"It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful." - DL

:pop:

Bait for the extreme on either pole (the "unipolar").

[jk the sooner fan]

letterman was a total *** during that interview.

just my opinion

[olevetonahill]

that clip was all i saw . but it really is a simple question . do you want the UNITED STATES to win ?
After the expenditure of life and material . HELL YES
Nuff said

[KABOOKIE]

I don't know how to answer this without looking like the anti-American P.O.S. that I am or, I don't want the US to win because no good will come of it or, I want the US to win but is there a way we could do it without the bloody side of war?

[yermom]

heh, this one with Rumsfeld came up with that one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnNiW1_bUFE&NR

i'm thinking "cocaine is a heluva drug" should have come out at some point in that interview ;)

[Rogue]

It really is a trick question of sorts.
Without getting all Bill Clinton about it, it depends on the definition of "win".

In 2002, the definition was to
a) oust Saddam
b) decrease or eliminate the threat of WMDs
c) somehow use Iraq as a way to affect the war on terror

a) It turns out that we "won" (careful what you wish for)
b) moot point after all - let's call it "a draw"
c) ummm. this is still up for grabs and the most important part.
Was Iraq really key to the war on terror? Or Afghanistan?
Have we impacted terrorism for the better or for the worse?
What will "winning" here look like? No more bombings? A dead Osama?

Given my view, I'd call "victory" at this point getting our men and women home safely to DEFEND their homes.

[yermom]

the problem with that question is what does "win" mean?

that isn't really a yes or no question without that

[Big Red Ron]

Thoughtful people with little specific knowledge and a nationally viewed show, watched mostly by people with even less access to specific knowledge leads to an increased number of stupid Americans.

It's like the blind leading the blind.

Two points that always draw me to Bush's side on Iraq is one, I have seen no specific details from his opposition and two, better them than us. Keep the fight over there. I certainly don't want this crap headed over here after we leave. That means we're in for the long haul.

[OklahomaTuba]

"It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful." - DL

Wow. What a complete *********. This is about as bad as Ted Turner not being able to pick a side after 9/11.

If DL has another thought, he should just go shoot himself in the head.

[VeeJay]

I think Letterman would be quick to say "Yes, I want America to win" if John Kerry were president.

[Mixer!]

letterman reverted into the *** he became famous for on his NBC run during that interview.
Agreed. ;)

[StoopTroup]

heh.

[Rhino]

War is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy.















-- Bart Simpson

[KaiserSooner]

"It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful." - DL

:pop:



He may be a comedian, but he's exactly right.

[TopDawg]

Do you want your dad to win when he gets in a fight with your neighbor?







---That question is for Bart.

[TopDawg]

heh, this one with Rumsfeld came up with that one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnNiW1_bUFE&NR



PWNED!

That's good stuff.

[Rogue]

Rummy has to go.

[TopDawg]

If only he'd be caught telling a lie about oral sex. Then he'd be gone.

Darn the luck.

[picasso]

He may be a comedian, but he's exactly right.
a guy that tries to argue and then admits he knows nothing of what he's talking about is considered thoughtful? heh.

Letterman got chewed up and spit out yet again.

[Big Red Ron]

If only he'd be caught telling a lie about oral sex. Then he'd be gone.

Darn the luck.Nah, he'd have to be caught committing perjury in another sexual harassment lawsuit, be impeached by the House AND convicted by the Senate silly.:rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

He may be a comedian, but he's exactly right.

Remember when leftists actually cared about helping people?? Yeah, me too.

This would make me laugh, if it wasn't so pathetic and sadly predictable.

[OklahomaTuba]

If only he'd be caught telling a lie about oral sex. Then he'd be gone.

Darn the luck.

Don't worry, once the dims take control of congress, they will spare no expense at bringing down what they consider this nations true enemy, President George W Bush.

[GottaHavePride]

I wouldn't want to answer that question either. Mainly because I would want to lock the person asking the question into a definition of "win" before I answer. Because for MY definition of win, the answer is "hell yes" but I may not be keeping score the same way they are.

[GottaHavePride]

Don't worry, once the dims take control of congress, they will spare no expense at bringing down what they consider this nations true enemy, President George W Bush.

Dude that's already what they do all the freaking time. And on the other side, Republicans are solely concerned with making sure the Democrats aren't winning. I think politics is far less about what people actually believe and what is best for this country than it is about whose "team" is "winning" the "game".

Two-party systems suck.

[OklahomaTuba]

I wouldn't want to answer that question either. Mainly because I would want to lock the person asking the question into a definition of "win" before I answer.

Sorry, but thats just total BS.

If you have to ask the definition of win in this battle, then it must mean you have no clue what is happening there.

[GottaHavePride]

Do you define "win" as "get our troops home with a minimum of casualties as quickly as possible" or "assist the Iraqis in creating a stable, viable government that can stand on its own, regadless of the timeframe that requires" and so on. There are a lot of different ways to look at that that are NOT the same answer.

Of course, I'm a suspicious bastard and realize that if I DIDN'T take the time to lock them into MY definition of "win" they could spin my answer however they wanted.

[OklahomaTuba]

Do you define "win" as "get our troops home with a minimum of casualties as quickly as possible" or "assist the Iraqis in creating a stable, viable government that can stand on its own, regadless of the timeframe that requires" and so on. There are a lot of different ways to look at that that are NOT the same answer.

No, there are not a lot of different ways to look at this.

Either we FINISH the job we started successfully, or we don't.

Not sure how getting our troops home safe and sound while millions are at risk of being slaughtered while letting an elected government fall can be called a win by someone.

[proud gonzo]

Sorry, but thats just total BS.

If you have to ask the definition of win in this battle, then it must mean you have no clue what is happening there.it seems like you use that excuse frequently in retort to people's logical responses.

[OklahomaTuba]

it seems like you use that excuse frequently in retort to people's logical responses.

Well, its better than a ****y nek spek I suppose.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thoughtful people with little specific knowledge and a nationally viewed show, watched mostly by people with even less access to specific knowledge leads to an increased number of stupid Americans.

It's like the blind leading the blind.

Two points that always draw me to Bush's side on Iraq is one, I have seen no specific details from his opposition and two, better them than us. Keep the fight over there. I certainly don't want this crap headed over here after we leave. That means we're in for the long haul.Beautifully put, although you are being way too easy on Letterman.

[GottaHavePride]

No, there are not a lot of different ways to look at this.

Either we FINISH the job we started successfully, or we don't.

Not sure how getting our troops home safe and sound while millions are at risk of being slaughtered while letting an elected government fall can be called a win by someone.
Define "successfully". ;)

I think we actually agree on the issue, I'm just saying that I would be very unwilling to walk into that argument on national tv unless I knew how the other side was defining those words. Just like in a logical argument, if you don't start from a common set of accepted premises the argument is worthless.

[OklahomaTuba]

Just like in a logical argument, if you don't start from a common set of accepted premises the argument is worthless.

And again, if someone has to question what the premise is in the first place, that probably means they don't know what the hell they are arguing about in the first place, at least with regards to Iraq and our fight with AQ, Iran, and the sectarian violence.

That case was proven very correct by DL.

[OklahomaTuba]

Define "successfully". ;)

I blame the legal profession for this. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Tuba, for the love of everything holy, can you just define what winning in Iraq means so that GHP can say "Yes, I want the US to win" and everyone can go home?

What, to you, is the minimum acceptable result to define victory for the US in Iraq?

[OklahomaTuba]

Speaking of Iraq, hopefully this election gets here soon...


The
Pentagon's chief spokesman has attributed the rising violence in
Iraq to attempts by Al-Qaeda to influence the US elections and stir up opposition to President George W. Bush.


Eric Ruff, the Pentagon press secretary, stopped short of saying that Al-Qaeda wanted a Democratic victory in the November 7 elections and denied emphatically that he was implying that.

He singled out a Washington Post report Friday quoting a local Al-Qaeda leader as saying the group's leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, wanted redoubled attacks "to have a great effect on the American elections."

"It would seem that if they can increase the violence, they can increase opposition to the war and have an influence against the president," Ruff told reporters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061027/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqpolitics

[Ike]

Speaking of Iraq, hopefully this election gets here soon...



http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061027/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqpolitics


aren't fear based politics fun.

[Czar Soonerov]

Thoughtful people with little specific knowledge and a nationally viewed show, watched mostly by people with even less access to specific knowledge leads to an increased number of stupid Americans.

It's like the blind leading the blind.


O'reilly Factor?

[OklahomaTuba]

What, to you, is the minimum acceptable result to define victory for the US in Iraq?

We have done almost everything we have wanted to accomplish in Iraq except two things, and thats getting the country stable from violence and able to protect itself.

Basically, fixing what we broke, or rather doing the right thing.

NOT cutting and running and just letting the place fall into a civil war to become the next Afganistan only this time with a sizeable amount of the worlds oil supply in and around its borders.

[Frozen Sooner]

OK. Those are both things that I think everyone can agree with: Iraq being stable and having a standing military able to protect it from military incursion. I would also add that the establishment of rule of law would be a third condition of true victory. Rule of law and stability aren't the same thing: stability can be established by dictatorship.

Given those conditions for victory, is there ever a point where the cost is no longer worth the prize? Is there a point where the US stops spending lives and treasure to achieve these goals?

I'll state up front that I don't know the answer to these questions. Or to be more exact, the answer to both is "Probably, yes" but I can't put a number to either one.

[OklahomaTuba]

OK. Those are both things that I think everyone can agree with:

One would hope that everyone could agree on this, yet this doesn't seem to be the case.



Given those conditions for victory, is there ever a point where the cost is no longer worth the prize? Is there a point where the US stops spending lives and treasure to achieve these goals?

Sure there is. Not sure what that would look like, but the prospect of handing AQ, Iran, etc an American defeat should NOT be an option. Ever.

[Vaevictis]

Sure there is. Not sure what that would look like, but the prospect of handing AQ, Iran, etc an American defeat should NOT be an option. Ever.

I'm not saying that it's the case here, but sometimes failure to cede the field (ie, hand the other side a victory) can cost you the war.

If it opens the door to victory further down the road, handing them an American defeat should be an option.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not saying that it's the case here, but sometimes failure to cede the field (ie, hand the other side a victory) can cost you the war.

If it opens the door to victory further down the road, handing them an American defeat should be an option.Give us your scenario where we let the islamists beat us and then somehow have that victory down the road.

[Vaevictis]

Give us your scenario where we let the islamists beat us and then somehow have that victory down the road.

Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case here.

What I am saying is that history is littered with battles where the war has been won or lost by one side recognizing or failing to recognize that ceding the field was the appropriate thing to do.

To say that ceding the field is not and should not ever be an option is silly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case here.

What I am saying is that history is littered with battles where the war has been won or lost by one side recognizing or failing to recognize that ceding the field was the appropriate thing to do.

To say that ceding the field is not and should not ever be an option is silly.Quitting the fight(ceding the field) is the winning strategy?

[Rogue]

No, there are not a lot of different ways to look at this.

Either we FINISH the job we started successfully, or we don't.

Not sure how getting our troops home safe and sound while millions are at risk of being slaughtered while letting an elected government fall can be called a win by someone.

Tuba,
There are many ways to look at this as have been brought up in this thread. And sf.com is not exactly an intellectual melting pot of diverse ideas.

To FINISH the job we started is sorta vague since what we started was sort of a cluster-****. We ousted Saddam, didn't find WMD, helped Iraq install (another) gubmint, and there is not much sign of Iraqis being willing to sign up to defend the gubmint right now because the "insurgents" are killing them for siding with the US.

If what we intend to do is to change the culture of Iraq, or more ambitiously the Middle East, we may be kidding ourselves.

As I said before I think the most important part of this is to thwart terror attacks and I'm not sure how we are doing there, especially in Iraq.

[Vaevictis]

Quitting the fight(ceding the field) is the winning strategy?

:rolleyes: Not what I said.

I said sometimes ceding the field can be necessary or helpful in winning a war. Failure to recognize this is a weakness, not a strength.

[85Sooner]

Jeeesh this country needs a good enema

[yermom]

Quitting the fight(ceding the field) is the winning strategy?

ok.

how about a battle in which doesn't give you much in terms of position, but is going to take a lot of time, money and resources to finish. Instead of ceding that position, and bruising your ego you over extend yourself and leave more vital areas open to attack?

[OklahomaTuba]

Tuba,
There are many ways to look at this as have been brought up in this thread. And sf.com is not exactly an intellectual melting pot of diverse ideas.

Obviously, that is the case.

Amazing to think that some believe cutting and running away would somehow equal a victory.

No doubt Iran and AQ would totally agree with those same people.

[OklahomaTuba]

I said sometimes ceding the field can be necessary or helpful in winning a war.

And that wouldn't be the case here at all.

Unless, of course, you don't mind Iran or AQ being in control and near a significant portion of the worlds oil reserves.

[Vaevictis]

And that wouldn't be the case here at all.

I didn't say it would.

I was merely commenting on your sentiment that "the prospect of handing AQ, Iran, etc an American defeat should NOT be an option. Ever."

Obviously, we don't want to ever get defeated, but we must recognize winning particular battles is not necessarily the end game. Sometimes withdrawal is a necessary action -- sometimes it's even an action that is integral to eventual victory. Refusing to acknowledge that not a good thing.

[NormanPride]

You know, if we're afraid of Iran and AQ taking over Iraq after we leave, why don't we take them out? I understand AQ is hard to find, but Iran isn't. Honestly, if people think that we're EVER going to "win" with our current strategy, they're kidding themselves. That region has been in a flux of battles since the dawn of time, and they always will be. If we really want to "stabilize the region" we need to do a hell of a lot more than just remove Saddam and place some silly democracy in Iraq.

[Vaevictis]

You know, if we're afraid of Iran and AQ taking over Iraq after we leave, why don't we take them out?

After screwing the pooch with respect to WMD, selling the American public (or any nation's public) on another "voluntary war" any time soon is going to be next to impossible without an irrefutable, overt action on Iran's part.

(as I've said over and over again, justifying this war based on WMD and not finding them has real costs.)

[NormanPride]

After screwing the pooch with respect to WMD, selling the American public (or any nation's public) on another "voluntary war" any time soon is going to be next to impossible without an irrefutable, overt action on Iran's part.

(as I've said over and over again, justifying this war based on WMD and not finding them has real costs.)

Bush is already pretty hated, and I guarantee if the spin machine worked hard enough, the people in power would agree with whatever came out of that administration, at least until after the elections. But by then it'd be too late.

[KaiserSooner]

a guy that tries to argue and then admits he knows nothing of what he's talking about is considered thoughtful? heh.

Letterman got chewed up and spit out yet again.

Yeah, that's what he got for trying to argue with someone who sees everything in black and white. Life's a little more complicated than that.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Case in point

Sauron controls one of the greatest armies to ever be in the Middle-Earth. Not quite Last Alliance or Battle for Valinor good but pretty damm awesome!

Sauron hears that these rogue nations of grey hooded former kings and princes has come into position of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Not to mention the nation in control of it is a bunch of beer drinking, furry feeted, Pipe smoking simpletons. Not exactly they most secure keepers of such a weapon.

Now Sauron has two courses of action, he can either fortify his great fortress of Morder and make sure that none shall enter. Or he can make treaties with obviously shady indivuals (Saruman) and attempt to attack the biggest bully to his empire...that of course being Gondor and have Saruman attack Rohan(The bad teeth and horse masters)

Sauron is a dumb *** and attempts to reclaim the weapon of mass destruction by force. However, in the end Sauron is shocked that two of the wool footed ninnies have snuck into his rogue nation and used his own WMD against him!!!

[crawfish]

Yeah, that's what he got for trying to argue with someone who sees everything in black and white. Life's a little more complicated than that.

You're falling for O'Reilly's act. He is being a jerk for ratings...his actual beliefs seem to be a bit more moderate. He's actually a quite intelligent guy.

Letterman is the simpleton here. I love him - he's hilarious and I've watched him forever - but he's totally out of his element when he talks politics. His "thoughtfulness" has remarkably little depth to it.

For the record, I hate all the scream politics shows, be they conservative, liberal or moderate.

[picasso]

Yeah, that's what he got for trying to argue with someone who sees everything in black and white. Life's a little more complicated than that.
have you ever read one of his books? his biggest mantra is the fact the he lives in the real world and not a theoretical one.
you stated Letterman was being thoughtful when he himself admitted he doesn't know that much about what he was saying.
I don't mind dissent if it makes any sense at all.
he would have gotten chewed up in a real debate and you know it dude.

[Vaevictis]

Coulda just been that Dave's a comedian and he knew exactly what responses his audience would find humorous.

Based on the audience's reactions, I'd say he did a pretty good job of it. ;)

(I mean, he did try to tell you not to take him seriously, remember?)

[JohnnyMack]

Case in point

Sauron controls one of the greatest armies to ever be in the Middle-Earth. Not quite Last Alliance or Battle for Valinor good but pretty damm awesome!

Sauron hears that these rogue nations of grey hooded former kings and princes has come into position of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. Not to mention the nation in control of it is a bunch of beer drinking, furry feeted, Pipe smoking simpletons. Not exactly they most secure keepers of such a weapon.

Now Sauron has two courses of action, he can either fortify his great fortress of Morder and make sure that none shall enter. Or he can make treaties with obviously shady indivuals (Saruman) and attempt to attack the biggest bully to his empire...that of course being Gondor and have Saruman attack Rohan(The bad teeth and horse masters)

Sauron is a dumb *** and attempts to reclaim the weapon of mass destruction by force. However, in the end Sauron is shocked that two of the wool footed ninnies have snuck into his rogue nation and used his own WMD against him!!!

This thread just got better.

[JohnnyMack]

The politics of fear that the right is scrambling to project as we head into these elections carcks me up.

[OklahomaTuba]

Obviously, we don't want to ever get defeated, but we must recognize winning particular battles is not necessarily the end game. Sometimes withdrawal is a necessary action -- sometimes it's even an action that is integral to eventual victory. Refusing to acknowledge that not a good thing.

First off, Iraq is a theater of war, not a single battle.

You can't retreat from an entire theater of a war and call it a victory.

Not when we are fighting the very group that attacked us on 9-11 and considers defeating us in Iraq its #1 goal, and when we are also fighting a proxy war against Iran at the same time trying to cause a civil war.

[OklahomaTuba]

The politics of fear that the right is scrambling to project as we head into these elections carcks me up.

Exactly. All this talk about reality needs to stop.

Lets not talk about this silly war on terror stuff. It just makes people angry and gets republicans elected.

Lets focus on other things, like global warming, health care and how bad the economy is doing.

[JohnnyMack]

Exactly. All this talk about reality needs to stop.

Lets not talk about this silly war on terror stuff. It just makes people angry and gets republicans elected.

Lets focus on other things, like global warming, health care and how bad the economy is doing.

:les:SPIN IT!!!!!!!

[OklahomaTuba]

No spin, just the truth.

And I wonder how people can think running away from problems will solve them.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

letterman was a total *** during that interview.

just my opinion

Totally agree. He is an a$$ on this one...

[JohnnyMack]

No spin, just the truth.

And I wonder how people can think running away from problems will solve them.

Newsflash: I don't condone running away from this "problem" rather I have long since said we shouldn't go in there in the first place. So there's a difference.

[Rhino]

http://www.robotcombat.com/video_oldglory_hi.html

[Vaevictis]

You can't retreat from an entire theater of a war and call it a victory.

... I never claimed that it would be a victory. I said sometimes it's necessary, and sometimes it's a necessary component of a later victory.

Take Dunkirk as an example. If Lord Gort takes your attitude -- the prospect of handing the Germans a defeat should not be an option. EVAR! -- well, that's 330k Allied troops down the drain.

(And I suspect that it would be reasonable to consider that a retreat from a theater of war, given that the evacuation essentially ended the British ground presence on the continent for just short of four years.)


Not when we are fighting the very group that attacked us on 9-11 and considers defeating us in Iraq its #1 goal, and when we are also fighting a proxy war against Iran at the same time trying to cause a civil war.

I hate to break it to you, but Al Qaeda already has what it wants in Iraq. The country teeters on the edge of civil war, and it's bleeding us. Whether we "win" in Iraq is not particularly relevant to Al Qaeda (irrespective of what they say or think). What matters to them is how long it takes for us to "win", and how many resources get tied down or expended in the process.

The fact is, Al Qaeda wins simply by surviving, and every man and every dollar we throw at the Iraqi insurgents is one we're not throwing at Al Qaeda. Iraq is acting as a massive force multiplier for Al Qaeda, and they barely have to lift a finger at this point to keep it going.

As far as Iran is concerned, if Iraq ever ends up as a client state for them, they'll be happy as a pig in ****, that's for sure, but they're quite content with us being tied down next door while they build the bomb. Of the two, I know which one I think is the worse scenario.

[Veritas]

**** yeah, this board needs more Iraq threads.

[RFH Shakes]

Tuba,
We ousted Saddam, didn't find WMD, helped Iraq install (another) gubmint, and there is not much sign of Iraqis being willing to sign up to defend the gubmint right now because the "insurgents" are killing them for siding with the US.

I would take this as a sign that there are plenty of Iraqis willing to sign up to defend their country.

"Over the past three years, it has been rebuilt from the ground up as a modern, effective, fighting force consisting of ten divisions with approximately 131,000 soldiers.

Today, approximately 89 Iraqi Army combat battalions, 30 brigade headquarters and six division headquarters control their own battle space."

taken from here... (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6911&Itemid=109)

[JohnnyMack]

**** yeah, this board needs more Iraq threads.

I think people who lose to Aggie Lite should stfu.

:D

<runs away>

[KABOOKIE]

I can't wait until this election is over with. Saw a poll on ABC today. 51% of people plan on voting democrat vs. 39% republican. Must have been a Gallup/Moore observation.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

No spin, just the truth.

And I wonder how people can think running away from problems will solve them.

So you are saying Sauron was right for invading Gondor!!! Get Real!! Everyone knows Gandalf is always wearing white and riding around with little furry feeted ninnies. Does that sound like the type of guy who is going to use force...hell no, Gandalf has a long beard and wears a robe...i bet Gandalf's full name was Gandalf Barak Hassim Azr-Hakim Bin Laden...**** I wouldn't want his Maier *** messing with me, I would build a big wall around Morder and keep out all those illegally trespassing Ithlians

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I can't wait until this election is over with. Saw a poll on ABC today. 51% of people plan on voting democrat vs. 39% republican. Must have been a Gallup/Moore observation.

To be fair, I got called twice and both times I said I was voting all democrat and Boren is the only Dim I plan on voting for :P

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Look, if you don't think our govt. is doing enough right to keep them in office, then get out there and vote them out on November 9. It will be all over in just 10 more days.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Apathy is a mutha ****a

[Ike]

Look, if you don't think our govt. is doing enough right to keep them in office, then get out there and vote them out on November 9. It will be all over in just 10 more days.


you could at least come up with a better fake election day, since November 8 is the last possible day that election day can ever be held on.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

you could at least come up with a better fake election day, since November 8 is the last possible day that election day can ever be held on.whadda you care? You're gonna be a Frenchy.

[dolemitesooner]

whadda you care? You're gonna be a Frenchy.
What do you know your a nazi

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is Nazi some Brazillian word?

[dolemitesooner]

Is Nazi some Brazillian word?
Yes and its definition is .....Dumbass, a person in the same cast as William Favor......Ex... Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Moore, and Rhett Bomar

[william_brasky]

Rhett Bomar being called a Nazi = SO Classic

[dolemitesooner]

Rhett Bomar being called a Nazi = SO Classic
I BRING THE CLASSICES EVERYDAY

[Ike]

whadda you care? You're gonna be a Frenchy.


I go where the physics goes...and its moving to geneva. It'd be nice if it were here. But after 2009, its not here.

[dolemitesooner]

Shakes had the old english ...I bring to you the The ****tz ERGIRSH

[dolemitesooner]

I go where the physics goes...and its moving to geneva. It'd be nice if it were here. But its not.
No need even explaining yourself...He doesn't know what Physics are or where Geneva is

[NormanPride]

No need even explaining yourself...He doesn't know what Physics are or where Geneva is

That's near Sacramento, right?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What do you know your a naziWhy, you MIGHT be a lib, with brilliantspeak like that.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Dolemite is apolitical...he is the political equivalent of a castrated kitty cat!!

[NormanPride]

Doleo is not a thing. Doleo is a force of nature.

[Stoop Dawg]

Quitting the fight(ceding the field) is the winning strategy?

If George Washington had been as stupid as you, you would be a Brit today.

[KaiserSooner]

have you ever read one of his books? his biggest mantra is the fact the he lives in the real world and not a theoretical one.
you stated Letterman was being thoughtful when he himself admitted he doesn't know that much about what he was saying.
I don't mind dissent if it makes any sense at all.
he would have gotten chewed up in a real debate and you know it dude.

I never said Letterman was being thoughtful. I don't care about Letterman or whether or not he really is thoughtful.

What I care about is the general point that Letterman made, whether he made it intentionally or unintentionally.....that a blockhead black and white question like, "Do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq?" over-simplifies the geo-political issue at hand.

[OklahomaTuba]

that a blockhead black and white question like, "Do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq?" over-simplifies the geo-political issue at hand.

Man, you sound just like Ted Turner.

Sorry, but that is hardly a black and white question.

If you have to actually think about whether or not you want the US to be successful in defeating terrorists killing thousands of innocent people and our soldiers, than that pretty much shows what little brain matter you have.

But I like your answer. Its the typical kind of weak in the knees spineless "answer" that one would typically hear from liberals.

[Howzit]

If you have to actually think about whether or not you want the US to be successful in defeating terrorists killing thousands of innocent people and our soldiers, than that pretty much shows what little brain matter you have.



That was not the original question.

[JohnnyMack]

Man, you sound just like Ted Turner.

Sorry, but that is hardly a black and white question.

If you have to actually think about whether or not you want the US to be successful in defeating terrorists killing thousands of innocent people and our soldiers, than that pretty much shows what little brain matter you have.

But I like your answer. Its the typical kind of weak in the knees spineless "answer" that one would typically hear from liberals.

That you associate the former Iraqi regime with the the terrorists who struck on 09/11 shows that your head is still firmly planted up your ***.

But I like your answer. Its the typical kind of knee-jerk scare tactic "answer" that one would typically hear from one of W's brownshirts.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If George Washington had been as STUPID as you, you would be a Brit today.You guys just HAVE to do that name-calling thing of yours, don't you?

[william_brasky]

I think victory would be placing a Starbuck's in every Iraqi city.

USA, USA, USA

[dolemitesooner]

You guys just HAVE to do that name-calling thing of yours, don't you?
Well you know in most cases its uncalled for but you deserve it

[Ike]

I think victory would be placing a Starbuck's in every Iraqi city.

USA, USA, USA

then the trick is to find some suckers willing to pay 20,000 Dinars for a Hazlenut crunch jamocha frappuccino.

[william_brasky]

just unleash Gort on the place.

[Rogue]

I would take this as a sign that there are plenty of Iraqis willing to sign up to defend their country.

"Over the past three years, it has been rebuilt from the ground up as a modern, effective, fighting force consisting of ten divisions with approximately 131,000 soldiers.

Today, approximately 89 Iraqi Army combat battalions, 30 brigade headquarters and six division headquarters control their own battle space."

taken from here... (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6911&Itemid=109)

If this were actually the case, they would be ready to take over. Another thread on the SO front page
( http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81751 )
mentioned that they can't even find the repair manuals we sent 'em without a GPS and a box of ground guides.;)

I want the US to thwart terror, bring some hellacious justice to Osama and AQ, and get the **** home. Unfortunately, I think we started in the wrong damn country for that.

[TopDawg]

To pull a thread from the football board...

It's 1999. Michael Thornton goes down with an injury. Our only other viable option at RB is Quentin Griffin. O'Reilly asks Tuba "Do you want OU to win?"

Tuba says "Yes" because, dammit, he's a good Sooner fan. So Griffin's redshirt comes off. We are able to make it to 7-5 that year, but Griffin isn't available to us in 2003, when his presence would've likely helped us win a national championship.

Perhaps Letterman should've actually said something more along the lines of "win at what cost?" I think that's what he was getting at, but why think about what he was getting at if you can spin his response into evidence backing your claim that liberals are weak-kneed and spineless?

[usmc-sooner]

as a Marine I'd like to say FU David Lettermen, if someone has to define win for you then you are a retard. If wanting us to win is a hard question because you are thoughtful then you are a retard.

Here's an idea why doesn't DL take his show to the Muslim world and show them some stupid human tricks, top ten lists, and sling some cards and pencils (how any thoughtful American thinks that is funny is beyond me) and see how well it goes over.

Isn't David Letterman the same little bitch who cried forever because he got beat out for the Tonight Show? wah wah DL you retard.

[Mongo]

as a Marine I'd like to say FU David Lettermen, if someone has to define win for you then you are a retard. If wanting us to win is a hard question because you are thoughtful then you are a retard.

Here's an idea why doesn't DL take his show to the Muslim world and show them some stupid human tricks, top ten lists, and sling some cards and pencils (how any thoughtful American thinks that is funny is beyond me) and see how well it goes over.

Isn't David Letterman the same little bitch who cried forever because he got beat out for the Tonight Show? wah wah DL you retard.

I vote this the best thread ender/killer of all time

[Stoop Dawg]

You guys just HAVE to do that name-calling thing of yours, don't you?

Stupid is an adjective, not a name.

I rest my case.

[Stoop Dawg]

And Tuba, let me ask you this: Do you want to win in France?

Yes or no.

[TopDawg]

as a Marine I'd like to say FU David Lettermen, if someone has to define win for you then you are a retard. If wanting us to win is a hard question because you are thoughtful then you are a retard.

Here's an idea why doesn't DL take his show to the Muslim world and show them some stupid human tricks, top ten lists, and sling some cards and pencils (how any thoughtful American thinks that is funny is beyond me) and see how well it goes over.

Isn't David Letterman the same little bitch who cried forever because he got beat out for the Tonight Show? wah wah DL you retard.

heh usmc, go to www.thesaurus.com and type "retard" in the search field...mix it up a little

;)

[Rhino]

Man. People get upset when someone goes after Papa Bear.

[Stoop Dawg]

as a Marine I'd like to say FU David Lettermen, if someone has to define win for you then you are a retard. If wanting us to win is a hard question because you are thoughtful then you are a retard.

Here's an idea why doesn't DL take his show to the Muslim world and show them some stupid human tricks, top ten lists, and sling some cards and pencils (how any thoughtful American thinks that is funny is beyond me) and see how well it goes over.

Isn't David Letterman the same little bitch who cried forever because he got beat out for the Tonight Show? wah wah DL you retard.

What kind of a jackass uses mental disability as a slur?

[olevetonahill]

ok here i come :eek:
As a disabled vet of the nam . I want us to win in iraq :D
by win i mean lets help the majority of those folks there that want and desire a free elected government . Its is a ****ed up place much like nam . but this is winnable .
I would hate to see US (us) pull out to soon and waste all those that have served and sacrificed :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: **** ill finish in a min . :O
Ok Im back :O Have we had any terrorist attacks on OUR country since we went in ? Was it right that we went in, hell if i know . but we are there and im gonna be more ****ed if we pull out to soon than i was when bc got elected
jmho

[william_brasky]

I have a solution.

Hold a nationwide Iraqi vote: Should the US stay or go?

If the actual vote can be pulled off, then we've gotten somewhere.

If majority vote says stay, we stay. If go, then go.

Genius. Pure Genius. :twinkies:

Brasky for Presidente.

[Mongo]

Stupid is an adjective, not a name.

I rest my case.

You call someone stupid, then harp on someone for using an adjective?

hy‧poc‧ri‧sy  /hɪˈpɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hi-pok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I have a solution.

Hold a nationwide Iraqi vote: Should the US stay or go?

If the actual vote can be pulled off, then we've gotten somewhere.

If majority vote says stay, we stay. If go, then go.

Genius. Pure Genius. :twinkies:

Brasky for Presidente.

Horse ****!!!! You think Sauron is going to ask his orcs what they think!!

[1stTimeCaller]

hot carl

[Mongo]

chili dog?

[william_brasky]

alabama nose warmer

[SicEmBaylor]

Man. People get upset when someone goes after Papa Bear.

Why do you hate Grant Teaff?

[Stoop Dawg]

You call someone stupid, then harp on someone for using an adjective?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Mongo]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Calling someone stupid and calling someone a retard are in the same ballpark. So go ahead and laugh at your own hypocrisy.

[usmc-sooner]

ok here i come :eek:
As a disabled vet of the nam . I want us to win in iraq :D
by win i mean lets help the majority of those folks there that want and desire a free elected government . Its is a ****ed up place much like nam . but this is winnable .
I would hate to see US (us) pull out to soon and waste all those that have served and sacrificed :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: **** ill finish in a min . :O
Ok Im back :O Have we had any terrorist attacks on OUR country since we went in ? Was it right that we went in, hell if i know . but we are there and im gonna be more ****ed if we pull out to soon than i was when bc got elected
jmho

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to olevetonahill again.

[Vaevictis]

I would hate to see US (us) pull out to soon and waste all those that have served and sacrificed

I understand that sentiment -- it's my first reaction to the notion of withdrawal.

The question I have is: is there a point at which we say, "You know what? We're not making nearly enough progress, we've been pushing this for a long time now -- is it time to stop asking the next set of men to sacrifice?"

I would prefer to give another administration another crack at this. I don't think that the Bush administration can see this through for various reasons. But given the current situation, I think that withdrawal prior to the end of the first 18 months of the next presidential administration would be premature.

After that, I think all options need to be considered after a full and frank evaluation of the then-current situation.


Have we had any terrorist attacks on OUR country since we went in ?

A totally different question from the Iraq one. But a poorly developed one, IMO. When was the last time prior to September 11 the Islamic terrorists hit us in our country? 1993? So it took what, 8 years between attacks? By that rate, we're due another in what, 2009? ;)

If you want to say terrorist attacks against American interests anywhere, well then that's pretty easy -- almost every day, multiple times a day.

Really, if the administration is correct in its characterization that Al Qaeda is growing ever more desperate, why haven't they stopped trying the massive coordinated attacks that are relatively easy to catch on to and gone to the small, 1-3 man cell working on its own initiative type that's almost impossible to catch?

The conclusion that I draw is that the situation is acceptable to Al Qaeda. I think that they've got exactly what they want in Iraq -- we've had troops tied down there for 3 years now, basically on Al Qaeda's turf where it's easy to strike at them. They've successfully developed a healthy insurgency over there, which is acting as a force multiplier for their activities. There's been almost 3k American troops killed over there, and almost 21k wounded. For Al Qaeda, what's not to be happy about?

[JohnnyMack]

There are lots of bad rulers in this world. If you people are naive enough to think that we went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and give the people of Iraq "democracy" or whatever **** the current administration is shoveling I feel bad for you.

[OklahomaTuba]

A totally different question from the Iraq one. But a poorly developed one, IMO. When was the last time prior to September 11 the Islamic terrorists hit us in our country? 1993? So it took what, 8 years between attacks?

Yet again, you show your knowledge of history is somewhat suspect as best.

1998 is when Osama declared war on the US.

After that, we had several American embassies attacked in 1998 & 1999, and one US war ship nearly sunk in 2000.

Those were attacks on the US.

Since Sept. 11th, the US has thwarted 11 major terrorist attacks.

[OklahomaTuba]

There are lots of bad rulers in this world. If you people are naive enough to think that we went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power and give the people of Iraq "democracy" or whatever **** the current administration is shoveling I feel bad for you.

BTW, today is the 8th year anniversary of the Iraq Liberation Act.

It was signed in 1998.

By Bill Clinton.


“The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home,” Clinton said. “I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life….

[Vaevictis]

1998 is when Osama declared war on the US.

Osama Bin Laden isn't the only Islamic terrorist out there.


After that, we had several American embassies attacked in 1998 & 1999, and one US war ship nearly sunk in 2000.

Those were attacks on the US.

As I said, if you want to count attacks on American interests everywhere, then the correct answer to the question of, "How many attacks have we had since we got into Iraq?", then the correct answer is ALMOST EVERY ****ING DAY.

So pick your poison. Attacks on the American homeland? 0 since Sept 11, but not due for another until 2009. Attacks on American interests everywhere? Every day. Just ask our guys in Iraq.

It's amazing how you wave that flag and say it's for the troops, but as soon as it's convenient for your purposes, "Oh, the troops in Iraq? They don't count, obviously."

[OklahomaTuba]

The conclusion that I draw is that the situation is acceptable to Al Qaeda. I think that they've got exactly what they want in Iraq

Yes, they want us there to defeat us.

Which is why running away like cowards is STUPID.


The letter, intercepted before it reached Zarqawi, listed incremental jihadist goals. The first is to "expel the Americans from Iraq."



But the step toward the al Qaeda's version of a perfect world starts with expelling the Americans from Iraq. He asked Zarqawi to begin preparations for that day immediately.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," he wrote. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam - and how they ran and left their agents - is noteworthy."



http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2005/20051017_3074.html

[JohnnyMack]

BTW, today is the 8th year anniversary of the Iraq Liberation Act.

It was signed in 1998.

By Bill Clinton.

Look you obviously have me mistaken for some leftist tree-hugging friend of Clinton. Again, if you think we're in Iraq for a free and stable democracy and that it's an attainable goal I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[OklahomaTuba]

Attacks on the American homeland? 0 since Sept 11, but not due for another until 2009. Attacks on American interests everywhere? Every day. Just ask our guys in Iraq.


You proved my point, once again.

Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.

Thanks.

[KABOOKIE]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


Is that because you're "thoughtful"?

[Vaevictis]

Yes, they want us there to defeat us.

... AND they want us there to kill our guys and drain our coffers. It's a win-win either way for them.

If we stay, they get to keep bombing our guys. They're happy. If we leave, they get to say they beat us. They're happy.

In other words, once we put the first boot on the ground in Iraq, Al Qaeda had exactly what they wanted.

The question then isn't whether or not we are handing Al Qaeda a victory in Iraq if we leave -- they've got one whether we leave or stay -- the question is, if we stay OR leave Iraq, when we do either one, is there a way to leverage that act into something that can harm Al Qaeda and/or advance our own interests?

[OklahomaTuba]

Look you obviously have me mistaken for some leftist tree-hugging friend of Clinton. Again, if you think we're in Iraq for a free and stable democracy and that it's an attainable goal I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

No, just showing you, for probably the 150th time, that your theory is wrong.

This weeks lesson is over JM, you can put your head back in the sand now.

[Vaevictis]

Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.

Wait, we aren't fighting them here?



Since Sept. 11th, the US has thwarted 11 major terrorist attacks.

[OklahomaTuba]

The question then isn't whether or not we are handing Al Qaeda a victory in Iraq if we leave -- they've got one whether we leave or stay

Your right, we have no chance. We should run away. Retreat to Victory!

Someone go tell the thousands of our "idiotic" troops over there that they have no prayer against the all mighty AQ.

:rolleyes:

[OklahomaTuba]

Wait, we aren't fighting them here?

There I go, using big words like Thwarted again.

Sorry, I guess I will water things down for you from now on.

[Scott D]

Your right, we have no chance. We should run away. Retreat to Victory!

Someone go tell the throusands of our "idiotic" troops over there that they have now prayer against the all mighty AQ.

:rolleyes:

I've already sent them the thread where you supported terrorist snipers. The 101st should be knocking on your door next rotation. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

I've already sent them the thread where you supported terrorist snipers. The 101st should be knocking on your door next rotation. :D

Did you give them directions or just the address?

Oh well no biggie, either way, it should take them awhile to read the words and figure out what they mean, according to John F. Kerry at least.

[Vaevictis]

There I go, using big words like Thwarted again.

Sorry, I guess I will water things down for you from now on.

shrug, if our troops thwarted an IED attack over there in Iraq, you think they wouldn't call that part of the fight?

[OklahomaTuba]

shrug, if our troops thwarted an IED attack over there in Iraq, you think they wouldn't call that part of the fight?

Well, considering its a war zone with daily attacks, yes, they would.

But as you said, 0 attacks on the homeland, and many attacks in Iraq and Afganistan where the battle rages on.

Yet, you advocate retreat, even when AQ says defeating us in Iraq is their #1 goal.

Amazing.

[JohnnyMack]

No, just showing you, for probably the 150th time, that your theory is wrong.

This weeks lesson is over JM, you can put your head back in the sand now.

How is my theory wrong exactly? My theory that W didn't have the geopolitcal clout necessary to go into Pakistan or Iran after 09/11 and take care of the REAL backbone of Al Qaida? How am I wrong in my assertion that W offered up Iraq to the alter of the American populace as an attempt to satiate their collective need for blood? And that Iraq (a crippled, inept shell of its former self) was to serve as a message to the rest of the punks in the schoolyard (Iran, Syria, Al Qaida, et al) that we were not to be ****ed with? I'm sure I'm way off base in thinking that W's mini-crusade into Babylon was a horrific error in judgment and that we needed to keep our focus on Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran so we could end Al Qaida's reign as the world's top terror organization. Much better to take out Hussein instead (this is where you show me the link where Zarqawi received treatment in Iraq once), a leader with virtually no link to the terrorists who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans.

Wave your flag, support W and shake your head at me Tuba. Call me a liberal, a leftist or whatever. Don't however call me a coward, a traitor or paint me as some cut-n-run wussy. I said from day one this was a mistake. A diversion by W's administration at mollifying the lowest common denominator.

[OklahomaTuba]

My theory that W didn't have the geopolitcal clout necessary to go into Pakistan or Iran after 09/11 and take care of the REAL backbone of Al Qaida?



Much better to take out Hussein instead (this is where you show me the link where Zarqawi received treatment in Iraq once), a leader with virtually no link to the terrorists who slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans.


I always found this interesting, that going into war in Iran and Pakistan is OK, yet going into war with Iraq is somehow a mistake.

I guess you need to explain that part of your flawed "theory".

[Vaevictis]

Well, considering its a war zone with daily attacks, yes, they would.

Look, either thwarting an attack is a part of the fight against whomever we're fighting against, or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

Well, those of in the real world can't have it both ways, anyway.


Yet, you advocate retreat, even when AQ says defeating us in Iraq is their #1 goal.

Amazing.

What I'm advocating is that we stop thinking with our dicks and start thinking with our heads.

Continuing the fight just for the sake of continuing the fight is pointless, and results in the pointless deaths and injuring of our guys. They deserve better than that.

If being in Iraq isn't providing us with any real advances against Al Qaeda, we don't need to be there. If our guys in Iraq could be more effectively deployed elsewhere in the world (for the purposes of fighting Al Qaeda), then maybe we should deploy them elsewhere.

Conversely, if staying in Iraq provides us with real advances against Al Qaeda, by all means, fight on.

But I'm not seeing any real advances against Al Qaeda. Everything I'm seeing tells me that Al Qaeda is quite satisfied with the situation in Iraq and elsewhere. If they weren't, as I've said many times, I believe they would stop with the massive coordinated attacks that are easy to disrupt and move to the small 1-3 man cell working on its own initiative format which is almost impossible to disrupt (just ask the Israelis or the Brits!)

If there are real credible advances in Iraq against Al Qaeda, I sure wish the administration would get out the news, because all I've seen so far is either stalemate or bull****.

[JohnnyMack]

I always found this interesting, that going into war in Iran and Pakistan is OK, yet going into war with Iraq is somehow a mistake.

I guess you need to explain that part of your flawed "theory".

Why? I have no issue with rooting out the real supporters of Al Qaida. By whatever means necessary. What part of that theory doesn't make sense?

[Rogue]

Afghanistan, anyone?

[Big Red Ron]

[shudders]And to think you people have the right to vote!


:D

[TopDawg]

What I'm advocating is that we stop thinking with our dicks and start thinking with our heads.

Exactly. Some people would have us think that leaving Iraq right now is ONLY an act of cowardice. Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor.

But no, dammit, real American's aren't cowards! These spineless liberals want us to back down. Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say that these stubborn conservatives want our troops to keep dying for no reason other than pride.

But both of those views are misguided and overly simplistic. And I guess that's why they appeal to simple people like O'Reilly.

[william_brasky]

http://www.bartcop.com/women-hate-oreilly.jpg

[49r]

Exactly. Some people would have us think that leaving Iraq right now is ONLY an act of cowardice. Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor.

But no, dammit, real American's aren't cowards! These spineless liberals want us to back down. Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way is to say that these stubborn conservatives want our troops to keep dying for no reason other than pride.

But both of those views are misguided and overly simplistic. And I guess that's why they appeal to simple people like O'Reilly.

....and why, in turn, Bill O'Reilly appeals to simple people.

[Big Red Ron]

Some of you people need to watch this. At least the first two minutes wait until he starts talking.

Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDecLiA_Qbw

[Big Red Ron]

Lotta **** being shoveled in louisiana 'round here.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Jesse Ventura 08

http://www.voters4ventura.com/images/bumper_sticker.gif

[Pricetag]

Lotta **** being shoveled in louisiana 'round here.
There are plenty of chicken hawks crowing and thumping their chests on the other side of the argument, too.

[Vaevictis]

Whatever "good" is happening in Iraq, isn't happening here. The bright side is there is no sectarian violence here like in Baghdad. In other words, the insurgents around town don't target civilians. And there are even established warning signals so civilians know not to be around.
My 3 month informed opinion (based entirely on what I see in the Hit region) is that this war is futile. Even the Iraqi soldiers tell us that when America leaves, they'll quit. They trust us because they know Americans can take care of them, but they don't trust their government, or the Ministry of Defense, and they especially don't trust their officers.


The biggest lesson I have learned over 6 months here is that the Iraqi culture is incapable of maintaining a western style military. The Arabic-style military (...) is distasteful to western soldiers: officers who hit their men; officers and senior enlisted men who regularly steal from their men; using leadership to openly grant yourself more food and 'standard of living' items while your men go without.
(...)
new food supplies came in yesterday from Ramadi but were grossly insufficient; new soldiers arrived but their initial military training is substandard and you can tell they are really just here for a paycheck


This is such a long process. (...) The war in Iraq itself, yeah, it was the right thing to do, but the way it was carried out, man, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney have nothing to be proud of.

A reporter's view from the field.

[OCUDad]

[shudders]And to think you people have the right to vote!


:DShameful, ain't it? Because when idiots vote, we wind up with useless assistant political hacks like you. :D

[jdsooner]

Gee, I thought we had already won. Didn't they pull down that statue of Saddam? Didn't the president land on the carrier and stand in front of the sign that said: Mission Accomplished? You mean that we haven't accomplished the mission, yet?

[Mongo]

Gee, I thought we had already won. Didn't they pull down that statue of Saddam? Didn't the president land on the carrier and stand in front of the sign that said: Mission Accomplished? You mean that we haven't accomplished the mission, yet?

Do you have anything to add, or are you just posting for the hell of it? See, that is why pubs/conservatives cant take people serious, is because they have nothing but sarcastic posts and nothing for a solution.

Continue posting if you have something worthwhile to add:rolleyes:

[usmc-sooner]

Gee, I thought we had already won. Didn't they pull down that statue of Saddam? Didn't the president land on the carrier and stand in front of the sign that said: Mission Accomplished? You mean that we haven't accomplished the mission, yet?

so are you pulling for us? yes or no?

It'd be real nice for you to tour the country in 03 and now but I'm sure you'd find something to bitch about.

[jdsooner]

Now, to be serious. I didn't want us to go to Iraq in the first place.

1. I think that this was an unnecessary war. We did not have to go in and it is STUPID to start an unnecessary war.

2. I believed and still believe, that winning the war over the Iraqi army would be easy. We beat the Iraqi army; we won the war. However, I did not believe that we would or could win the peace. By pulling down Saddam, we removed the evil glue that was holding things together. Our victory brought chaos and we are not going to be able to put things back together.

3. I did not see how we could ever get out of there once we got in. Iraq is costing us more lives and more money than Iraq is worth. Our efforts in Iraq are only creating more terrorists and increasing the ill will that the Arab world feels towards us.

4. The problem is not that we might cut and run. The problem is that we have stayed too long. We should allow the Iraqis to take back their country. We will not be able to solve the divisions that existed before we went in.

[Mongo]

:D
Now, to be serious. I didn't want us to go to Iraq in the first place. NO SH!T

1. I think that this was an unnecessary war. We did not have to go in and it is STUPID to start an unnecessary war. NO SH!T

2. I believed and still believe, that winning the war over the Iraqi army would be easy. We beat the Iraqi army; we won the war. However, I did not believe that we would or could win the peace. By pulling down Saddam, we removed the evil glue that was holding things together. Our victory brought chaos and we are not going to be able to put things back together. NO SH!T

3. I did not see how we could ever get out of there once we got in. Iraq is costing us more lives and more money than Iraq is worth. Our efforts in Iraq are only creating more terrorists (Bullsh!t, prove it or STFU) and increasing the ill will that the Arab world feels towards us.NO SH!T, they hated us anyway!

4. The problem is not that we might cut and run. The problem is that we have stayed too long. We should allow the Iraqis to take back their country. We will not be able to solve the divisions that existed before we went in.

[jdsooner]

If we arent' creating more terrorists, they would all be dead by now and we wouldn't have lost over 100 men in the month of October. From what I see, the resistance to our presence there is only increasing. We are no closer to winning now than we were 3 years ago.

If you think we can win, tell me this. How long do you think it will take to win? How many more Americans will die? How much money will it take?

[SoonerBorn68]

Now, to be serious. I didn't want us to go to Iraq in the first place.

1. I think that this was an unnecessary war. We did not have to go in and it is STUPID to start an unnecessary war.

2. I believed and still believe, that winning the war over the Iraqi army would be easy. We beat the Iraqi army; we won the war. However, I did not believe that we would or could win the peace. By pulling down Saddam, we removed the evil glue that was holding things together. Our victory brought chaos and we are not going to be able to put things back together.

3. I did not see how we could ever get out of there once we got in. Iraq is costing us more lives and more money than Iraq is worth. Our efforts in Iraq are only creating more terrorists and increasing the ill will that the Arab world feels towards us.

4. The problem is not that we might cut and run. The problem is that we have stayed too long. We should allow the Iraqis to take back their country. We will not be able to solve the divisions that existed before we went in.

Dude, you are completely clueless. Stayed too long. :rolleyes: Crack open a history book sometime & read it if you can. It's called us/them. If you can't figure out this is a war for our very existence then I hope you are one of the ones who are left that have to point to the east and pray five times a day. People like you are the reason this war is not being fought to it's fullest.

Is Neville Chamberlin your hero?

[Mongo]

If we arent' creating more terrorists, they would all be dead by now and we wouldn't have lost over 100 men in the month of October. From what I see, the resistance to our presence there is only increasing. We are no closer to winning now than we were 3 years ago.

If you think we can win, tell me this. How long do you think it will take to win? How many more Americans will die? How much money will it take?

See the bold?? Your opinion is like a butthole, it stinks. If we lost a hundred men in any war, that was considered a great day.

Timetables are for those who are weak. No one knows the specifics you ask, except your Lord and butt buddy Sen. Kerry. You and him should spend a weekend in the Vermount mountains and hash this problem out.

Until you pass on some new ideas and quit using unanswerable questions as a talking point(both sides cant answer them), put on your bib and continue eating until your political thought process hits puberty

[SoonerBorn68]

If we arent' creating more terrorists, they would all be dead by now and we wouldn't have lost over 100 men in the month of October. From what I see, the resistance to our presence there is only increasing. We are no closer to winning now than we were 3 years ago.

If you think we can win, tell me this. How long do you think it will take to win? How many more Americans will die? How much money will it take?

It's a brave sacrifice our soldiers are making today, but apparently you don't realize history at all. In WWI the Allies landed at Gallipoli and amassed over 250,000 casuaties and D-day over 10,000. Are the lives of our past warriors any less important? This war is a guerilla action & the enemy is entreched in the populace. It would be easy to take the German or Japanese approach and kill everyone, but the US is interested in sparing innocent lives.

[jdsooner]

I've read enough history to know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. I've read enough history to know the difference between the Third Reich and a third rate dictator like Saddam. Of course, Saddam was supported by Reagan, right?

And I know enough about current events to know that Saddam was not the mastermind behind 9/11 and was not supportive of al-Qaeda. Even if we win in Iraq, which is impossible given the incompetence of the current administration, we will not defeat "them". The problem is that the Iraqis are not "them" and winning in Iraq does not defeat al-Qadea or bring Osama to justice!

[SoonerBorn68]

Hell, The Marines had 25,000 casulaties at Iwo Jima in a 36 day operation that was slated for 5. Thee soldiers are making the supereme sacrifice to protect YOUR *** and all you do is **** on them.

[jdsooner]

And you didn't answer my questions:

How long? How many? How much?

[SoonerBorn68]

I've read enough history to know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. I've read enough history to know the difference between the Third Reich and a third rate dictator like Saddam. Of course, Saddam was supported by Reagan, right?

And I know enough about current events to know that Saddam was not the mastermind behind 9/11 and was not supportive of al-Qaeda. Even if we win in Iraq, which is impossible given the incompetence of the current administration, we will not defeat "them". The problem is that the Iraqis are not "them" and winning in Iraq does not defeat al-Qadea or bring Osama to justice!

Geez dude, again clueless. This isn't about Iraq. It is about the islamofascism that wants to rule the world & will do what it takes to get it there.

FYI, Saddam was only short by about 4 million people killed, does that make him less evil?

[jdsooner]

Hell, The Marines had 25,000 casulaties at Iwo Jima in a 36 day operation that was slated for 5. Thee soldiers are making the supereme sacrifice to protect YOUR *** and all you do is **** on them.

My father served in the United States Navy in WW II and Korea. He returned home an emotional wreck and committed suicide when I was 9 years old. The American flag that was placed on his coffin is proudly displayed in my home.

War is hell and we should only engage in war when it is absolutely necessary. Iraq was not necessary and it is not my fault that we are in trouble there. If you are mad because things aren't going well, then address your anger to Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. They are responsible for the mess we are in, not me!

[Mongo]

I've read enough history to know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler. I've read enough history to know the difference between the Third Reich and a third rate dictator like Saddam. Of course, Saddam was supported by Reagan, right?

And I know enough about current events to know that Saddam was not the mastermind behind 9/11 No Sh!t and was not supportive of al-Qaeda Bullsh!t, there was enough money and intel from other countries to prove this. Even if we win in Iraq, which is impossible Negative Nancy given the incompetence of the current administration, we will not defeat "them". The problem is that the Iraqis are not "them" and winning in Iraq does not defeat al-Qadea or bring Osama to justice!

Keep bitching, yet have no other solutions

[SoonerBorn68]

And you didn't answer my questions:

How long? How many? How much?

Until they quit fighting or we kill them all

You have a quota?

Until we win.

Again, crack open a history book get back to us.

[olevetonahill]

And you didn't answer my questions:

How long? How many? How much?
Let me answer that for chrissy :P
AS long as it takes , as many as it takes and as much as it takes
Its pussies that think we can put a limit on any combat . In other words by running your mouth you are giving aid to the eneimy :eek:
Thank hanoi jane beatch :mad:

[jdsooner]

If it had been up to me, we would not be in Iraq.

If it were up to me, we would leave ASAP.

Again, how long do you want to stay there!

[SoonerBorn68]

My father served in the United States Navy in WW II and Korea. He returned home an emotional wreck and committed suicide when I was 9 years old. The American flag that was placed on his coffin is proudly displayed in my home.

War is hell and we should only engage in war when it is absolutely necessary. Iraq was not necessary and it is not my fault that we are in trouble there. If you are mad because things aren't going well, then address your anger to Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. They are responsible for the mess we are in, not me!

Your father has my utmost respect. War is hell and should always be the last alternative. Unfortunately you are misguided in your blame. The president didn't run those planes into the WTC and didn't embolden the Islamic world into global war. If you want to cut and run or ignore the ramifications of the current state of the world, fine. Google Earth has some really cool maps.

[jdsooner]

Let me answer that for chrissy :P
AS long as it takes , as many as it takes and as much as it takes
Its pussies that think we can put a limit on any combat . In other words by running your mouth you are giving aid to the eneimy :eek:
Thank hanoi jane beatch :mad:

Then you should walk the walk and volunteer to fight over there as long as it takes. And as for Kerry, I believe that he served his country in war time. Where were Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld at that time?

[olevetonahill]

My father served in the United States Navy in WW II and Korea. He returned home an emotional wreck and committed suicide when I was 9 years old. The American flag that was placed on his coffin is proudly displayed in my home.

War is hell and we should only engage in war when it is absolutely necessary. Iraq was not necessary and it is not my fault that we are in trouble there. If you are mad because things aren't going well, then address your anger to Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. They are responsible for the mess we are in, not me!
JD i feel your pain , I to am a son of a ww2 vet , im also a nam vet . also my son went into bosnia in 94 , YES 94 then did i a tour in iraq ( invasion )
I know NO iraq vets that say we shouldnt be there
I know a lot that say they would go back.
Not saying there arnt kerries out there but just sayin

[Mongo]

If it had been up to me, we would not be in Iraq.

If it were up to me, we would leave ASAP.

Again, how long do you want to stay there!

If it were up to you, we would be getting fingerbanged by any arab nation.

We will stay there as long as it take Biizaro Willaim Favor

[jdsooner]

Stupid war for stupid people started by a stupid politician named George Bush! Peace, Out!

[Scott D]

would you like my solution?

either blow up all the mosques in the world, or develop a sterility drug and cropdust the entire middle east with it. We're more at risk via worldwide immigration than we ever were by Saddam Hussein, if the 'true threat' is to be believed.

[olevetonahill]

Then you should walk the walk and volunteer to fight over there as long as it takes. And as for Kerry, I believe that he served his country in war time. Where were Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld at that time?
Son I have walked the walk . IVE HUMPED THE 80 LB ALICE PACK thru the boonies , sat up on ambush . done a few sniper things . Oh and I played like birdshat a few times also :eek:
And if they would let my old beat up carcass go there Id be there in a heartbeat

[SoonerBorn68]

Stupid war for stupid people started by a stupid politician named George Bush! Peace, Out!

Wow, Kerry calls our soldiers dumb and you call them stupid. No wonder you admire Mr. 3 medals in 3 months. :rolleyes:

:twinkies:

Enjoy the freedom to have those views. Allah Akbar.

[Scott D]

Son I have walked the walk . IVE HUMPED THE 80 LB ALICE PACK thru the boonies , sat up on ambush . done a few sniper things . Oh and I played like birdshat a few times also :eek:
And if they would let my old beat up carcass go there Id be there in a heartbeat

ok someone put the old relic away before he busts a hip ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

ok someone put the old relic away before he busts a hip ;)

You stay out of this or you might bring some civility to this argument. :D

[Mongo]

Stupid war for stupid people started by a stupid politician named George Bush! Peace, Out!

CUT AND RUN!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[olevetonahill]

ok someone put the old relic away before he busts a hip ;)
Easy there Scott , THE 16 yrs old kids around here still dont want to try tackle this old man ;)

[Scott D]

CUT AND RUN!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

you..answer my solution.

[Scott D]

Easy there Scott , THE 16 yrs old kids around here still dont want to try tackle this old man ;)

the 16 year olds around here would cause you to break your hip :D

[Mongo]

you..answer my solution.
que??

[Scott D]

I direct you to post 179 in this asanine thread. :D

[olevetonahill]

the 16 year olds around here would cause you to break your hip :D
That would be after they lost both knees and the throat ? :)

[olevetonahill]

would you like my solution?

either blow up all the mosques in the world, or develop a sterility drug and cropdust the entire middle east with it. We're more at risk via worldwide immigration than we ever were by Saddam Hussein, if the 'true threat' is to be believed.
That statement is broader than my last ex wife :eek:

[SoonerBorn68]

So Scott are you saying we need to spray for Mosque-itos? :D

[olevetonahill]

So Scott are you saying we need to spray for Mosque-itos? :D
:D :D :D :D :D ;)

[Mongo]

I have no idea what my Bwhahahaha has to do with your "solution" so I guess you win the Al Gore Award of the interwebs

[olevetonahill]

I have no idea what my Bwhahahaha has to do with your "solution" so I guess you win the Al Gore Award of the interwebs
Another easy, there Mongo
AGs ole lady would be a NICE award ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If it were up to you, jd sooner,we would be getting fingerbanged by any arab nation.

We will stay there as long as it take Biizaro Willaim FavorEr, ah, WTF???

[Scott D]

I have no idea what my Bwhahahaha has to do with your "solution" so I guess you win the Al Gore Award of the interwebs

Do I get the twins or do I have to deal with Tipper too? :D

[Mongo]

Do I get the twins or do I have to deal with Tipper too? :D

Tipper and a small trophy:D

[Scott D]

she's a little ripe..lemme have the daughters instead and we can call it even :)