PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi: Bush Lacks Power to Invade Iran



Okieflyer
2/16/2007, 08:51 AM
Yeah, let's just tell our enemy that we're not going to invade. What an idiot, and this is "our" speaker of the house.

Bush Lacks Power to Invade Iran (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070216/D8NAGTUG0.html)

OU4LIFE
2/16/2007, 09:04 AM
but he sure got some serious jack from USC.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 09:14 AM
Amazing how far these people will go in order to ensure our defeat in the war on terror.

Gandalf_The_Grey
2/16/2007, 09:18 AM
Remember when they painted all 2.3 million of our troops as torturers because of 8 idiots at Abu Ghraib!

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 09:19 AM
In other news, we just hurt an AQ leader.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17174562/

But the donks are right, we should just run away like cowards, and let AQ and Iran slaughter as many people as possible.

Okla-homey
2/16/2007, 09:23 AM
Her saying it don't make it so. She's probably hoping her comment will have the effect of convincing lots of folks who don't know any better that its a fact.

The law is absolutely clear that a President acting in his Constitutional capacity as commander-in-chief can send troops anywhere he wants for as long as he wants, unless and until the Congress pulls the bucks to pay for the expedition.

That's why that cheesy War Powers Act passed in the wake of Vietnam has never been enforced by Congress. They are powerless to do so and the Supremes won't touch it.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 09:25 AM
Now THIS is supporting the troops!


Rep. Murtha touts way to choke off Iraq war By Richard Cowan and David Alexander
Thu Feb 15, 2:34 PM ET

"They won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070215/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc

This guy voted for the war BTW.

Dude almost seems giddy that he can strip our men and women of the tools to try to win.

Oh, wait, he doesn't want us to try to win. Never mind.

Hatfield
2/16/2007, 09:52 AM
do people really think there is a democratic lair where they all lay around and laugh about how much they enjoy attempting to lose the war on terror and hope for daily US troop deaths?

and given the current state of things do you really think an assualt on Iran is the soundest decision? seems we are pretty spread thin at the moment.

Hatfield
2/16/2007, 09:54 AM
Yeah, let's just tell our enemy that we're not going to invade. What an idiot, and this is "our" speaker of the house.

Bush Lacks Power to Invade Iran (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070216/D8NAGTUG0.html)

and for the record, she didn't tell "our enemy that we're not going to invade"

but don't let the FACTS get in the way.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 09:57 AM
Iran still blames us for the crash of their economy after the IRAQ/IRAN Conflict in which we supported IRAQ and bled IRANS money dry and killed the business etc etc.


People worry about bombing because it will cause more hatred for Americans.

That will not change- so if they want a piece of us just send in the airforce and take out every single major military operation and facility they have in place in less than 30 days of bombing- then give them money to go ahead and develop educational and industrial ecconomic power- provide sanctions for the nucluar program they want and inspection on a 24/7 basis.

my 2 cents -

Widescreen
2/16/2007, 10:12 AM
do people really think there is a democratic lair where they all lay around and laugh about how much they enjoy attempting to lose the war on terror and hope for daily US troop deaths?
I don't think they necessarily laugh.


and given the current state of things do you really think an assualt on Iran is the soundest decision? seems we are pretty spread thin at the moment.
We're spread thin. But we should never take the option off the table. Pelosi was wrong to shoot her mouth off like that.

JohnnyMack
2/16/2007, 10:15 AM
Common Sense: Bush Lacks Enough Troops to Invade Iran

jk the sooner fan
2/16/2007, 10:16 AM
and for the record, she didn't tell "our enemy that we're not going to invade"

but don't let the FACTS get in the way.

pssst, iran has access to our news sources......

they dont read the boards, but they do read the papers ;)

jk the sooner fan
2/16/2007, 10:18 AM
Common Sense: Bush Lacks Enough Troops to Invade Iran

for a ground war, yeah probably

but we've got the air force and other resources to open up a can of missile whoop *** on them

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 10:22 AM
That is the problem these days- She should know better that you can not just count on Diplomacy with the likes of IRAN and having an option on the table doesn't mean you will do it- but you need some levarage in these negotiations....

They hate us as it is- and if she wanted too go speak with them- I doubt they would let a woman in the same room as their fundamentalist leaders.

Not my view but certainly that of the middle east Fundamentalist leaders predominately.

That poses a question- could a woman president have good relations in the middle east even if they were the most qualified for the job?????

royalfan5
2/16/2007, 10:25 AM
That is the problem these days- She should know better that you can not just count on Diplomacy with the likes of IRAN and having an option on the table doesn't mean you will do it- but you need some levarage in these negotiations....

They hate us as it is- and if she wanted too go speak with them- I doubt they would let a woman in the same room as their fundamentalist leaders.

Not my view but certainly that of the middle east Fundamentalist leaders predominately.

That poses a question- could a woman president have good relations in the middle east even if they were the most qualified for the job?????
Is any American going to have good relations with the Middle East regardless of Gender? **** we could elect a Muslim and they still probably wouldn't like us.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 10:27 AM
I hear you on that and agree- but i believe impossible for Female gender-

Also since they hate us- Airforce and Navy is all we need to bombared them if need be.

No troops needed- it will never be a democracy..

OU4LIFE
2/16/2007, 10:38 AM
we could elect a Muslim

you take that back right now.

;)

mdklatt
2/16/2007, 10:41 AM
That poses a question- could a woman president have good relations in the middle east even if they were the most qualified for the job?????

Well, Pakistan has elected more female presidents than the US has.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 10:43 AM
And they suffered a military cou- just sayin

There are more countries in the mid east than not that still treat woman as 2nd rate citizens.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2007, 10:44 AM
Boy-howdy, we sure taught those politicians a thing or two in the '06, elections, eh? We got ourselves a much better congress, now....er, ah, WAIT!!!

Scott D
2/16/2007, 10:51 AM
further proof that politicians are best when they are seen and not heard...kind of like children.

picasso
2/16/2007, 10:54 AM
ummm I thought we didn't have to invade them to put them down.
you know, drain their weak economy and stuff.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 11:22 AM
ummm I thought we didn't have to invade them to put them down.
you know, drain their weak economy and stuff.


Yes cost them 1 trillion in R&D and equiptment with a month long campain of Airforce- cost us 10 billion in bombs- and we stimulate our ecconomy by building more!

DeadSolidPerfect
2/16/2007, 11:24 AM
I would like to hear the Speakers plan to counter Iran's support of the insergents. Does she not believe the Iranians are suppling weapons to our enemies? These weapons kill Americans, she would be against the death of Americans, right? Does anyone have the nuts to ask her this?

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 11:34 AM
I would like to hear the Speakers plan to counter Iran's support of the insergents. Does she not believe the Iranians are suppling weapons to our enemies? These weapons kill Americans, she would be against the death of Americans, right? Does anyone have the nuts to ask her this?

Many libz and progressives, like her, have their head deeply buried in the sand.

They really do think that by cutting and running away from evil, all our problems will be solved.

That, or they just believe hurting Bush politically is more important than stopping AQ and Iran from slaughtering thousands of innocent people.

Since the cold war they have repeatedly showed they really have no interest in protecting this nation. Sad.

TUSooner
2/16/2007, 11:34 AM
do people really think there is a democratic lair where they all lay around and laugh about how much they enjoy attempting to lose the war on terror and hope for daily US troop deaths?.

Exactly. These folks can't just be wrong, or even stupid; they must be deliberately evil. :rolleyes:


and given the current state of things do you really think an assualt on Iran is the soundest decision? seems we are pretty spread thin at the moment.

That's debatable, but for those who see the world as a John Wayne flick, anything is possible.

For the record -
I think the donkeys are wrong and probably stupid to undermine the war effort as they are.
That's even though I think the Iraq war plan (or lack thereof) was stupid.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 11:37 AM
What is stupid is trying to take away the tools from our soliders to complete the mission in the middle of a war.

picasso
2/16/2007, 11:38 AM
Exactly. These folks can't just be wrong, or even stupid; they must be deliberately evil. :rolleyes:



That's debatable, but for those who see the world as a John Wayne flick, anything is possible.

For the record -
I think the donkeys are wrong and probably stupid to undermine the war effort as they are.
That's even though I think the Iraq war plan (or lack thereof) was stupid.
all we have to go from his their words and actions right?

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 11:41 AM
Well, looks like a great time to start retreating...


Iraq PM tells Bush of 'dazzling successes' in Baghdad

Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told US President George W. Bush by videolink that the first few days of their countries' joint security plan in Baghdad had been a great success.
"He told President Bush that the security plan had seen dazzling success during its first days and that the government will deal with every outlaw in a firm manner whatever group they belong to," according to his office.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/16/070216154712.mfivb2lt.html

JohnnyMack
2/16/2007, 11:43 AM
I wonder if Joe McCarthy has any long lost kids you might be related to?

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 11:43 AM
What is stupid is trying to take away the tools from our soliders to complete the mission in the middle of a war.


Their underminding of our Soldiers at War for the sake of Power should not be forgivin......

Certainly there are other tacs too raise a point and pressure the situation w/o running scared and taking a position that is distructive and strictly for political gain.

They want too nudder the millitary's chances while we are in the middle of trying to win a war- they should absolutely not be forgiven and or listened too for that matter... don't we all just see straight through it- they want this too be compared to Naum and have Bush fail no matter the cost-

PDXsooner
2/16/2007, 11:45 AM
the best part about pelosi is how much she riles up all the hard-core repubs...this is so fun!! ha ha ha

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 11:50 AM
the Marine Corp General doesn't call this a troop surge- it is a build up... FYI

Surge is too say that we are taking away from other military initiatives to surge troop levels in IRAQ.

This is not the case- there are several units of Marines who would love to get in their and win... They just haven't been sent over yet and they do train too kill and kill they will.

FYI

mdklatt
2/16/2007, 11:52 AM
Their underminding of our Soldiers at War for the sake of Power should not be forgivin......

...

They want too nudder the millitary's chances while we are in the middle of trying to win a war- they should absolutely not be forgiven and or listened too for that matter... don't we all just see straight through it- they want this too be compared to Naum and have Bush fail no matter the cost-

One the other hand, it's 100% forgivable to put our troops at war in the first place without a plan or the resources to win the war.

:rolleyes:

Hatfield
2/16/2007, 11:52 AM
i like how everyone is piling on her for saying we aren't going to invade iran....when that isn't at all what she said.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 11:54 AM
One the other hand, it's 100% forgivable to put our troops at war in the first place without a plan or the resources to win the war.

:rolleyes:

NO- but they want more they got more- and the Marines are willing....

mdklatt
2/16/2007, 11:55 AM
Surge is too say that we are taking away from other military initiatives to surge troop levels in IRAQ.


We seem to be pretty desparate for forces in Afghanistan right now. The 10th Mountain Division is having their deployment extended, and Bush is asking for more NATO assistance.

Xstnlsooner
2/16/2007, 11:56 AM
I think it would be stupid, to say the least, for us to invade Iran.
Obviously, the problem with terrorism is not going away and even
more important, the ideology behind terrorism is not going away.
It's ludicrous to think we can change that Islamic mindset,
seeing how world domination is their goal, so that they can usher
in their messiah. Our children will still be dealing with this when
we're all dead and gone!!

SCOUT
2/16/2007, 11:56 AM
the best part about pelosi is how much she riles up all the hard-core repubs...this is so fun!! ha ha ha
I thought she was elected to actually govern and not just be a thorn in the side.

Maybe she should start suggesting solutions now that she is in power.

mdklatt
2/16/2007, 11:59 AM
i like how everyone is piling on her for saying we aren't going to invade iran....when that isn't at all what she said.

Pfft, facts schmacts. BURN, STRAWMAN, BURN!!!

I also like how people think Iran will base strategic decisions on what Nancy freakin' Pelosi says.

picasso
2/16/2007, 11:59 AM
I wonder if Joe McCarthy has any long lost kids you might be related to?
hahaha:D .

McCarthyism seems to be rearing it's head again, only from the other side of the aisle.

Tear Down This Wall
2/16/2007, 12:00 PM
Boy-howdy, we sure taught those politicians a thing or two in the '06, elections, eh? We got ourselves a much better congress, now....er, ah, WAIT!!!

That's rich. In the only election where Republicans turned on Bush, they got whipped. It's the GOP's own fault the Dems are in control.

And, as I've said before, it's fun to watch McCain, Hagel, Warner, Voinovich, Collins, and all the other GOP Bush-bashers out of power. The GOP has become nothing more than a frothing wasteland of backbiting Senators who are perpetually running for President.

F'em. They got what they deserved in 2006. Bush still sits in the White House eating tasty B-B-Q sandwiches and farting in their general direction. Go ahead, Hagel & Co., bash away. It sure has done wonders for your political fortunes...as*sbadgers.

Have fun getting your butts whipped again in 2008, GOP, when W heads back to the ranch and laughs at your futuile attempts to turn the party into the same worthless pile of horse **** that the Democratic Party became decades ago. Sniveling, power hungry idiots.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 12:01 PM
We seem to be pretty desparate for forces in Afghanistan right now. The 10th Mountain Division is having their deployment extended, and Bush is asking for more NATO assistance.

We can have stronger international support for Afghanistan and certainly should have more Internaional Troops to help.

Tell me how many troops were part of the build up in the first gulf war compared to what we have in place right now?

Certainly we have more troops to send in- Gaining International Troops for Afganistan means less US troops in harms way- Sending some from Afganistan to fight in Iraq- means less troops from the US that have not been tested yet on the battlefield.

Should we have sent more in right out of the get go???? NO because now we understand the red on red fighting and the numbers we send in now have a much better understanding of the enemy and the way the war is being waged.

We have more troops folks and the intel now to win- let the marines be marines it is a voluntary Malitia for pete's sake.

JohnnyMack
2/16/2007, 12:01 PM
hahaha:D .

McCarthyism seems to be rearing it's head again, only from the other side of the aisle.

Hey how'd the showing go? I got the invite but the wife and I stayed home and made sweet love for valentine's day. And by "made sweet love" I mean gave the kid a bath, watched American Idol and fell asleep early. We rule. :D

sooneron
2/16/2007, 12:02 PM
They hate us as it is- and if she wanted too go speak with them- I doubt they would let a woman in the same room as their fundamentalist leaders.

Not my view but certainly that of the middle east Fundamentalist leaders predominately.


Actually, there are women in the Iranian parliament or whatever it's called. Would they be allowed to shake the hand of the dudes? NO. Would they have to wear a thing on their head? Yes, but they are a country built upon Islam. Just as you don't want someone disrespecting your religion, I would hope you would do likewise in their house.
Oh and I saw Diane Sawyer ask the Prez of Iran some pretty pointed questions the other day.

I do think those people are bat **** crazy, at times.

picasso
2/16/2007, 12:05 PM
Hey how'd the showing go? I got the invite but the wife and I stayed home and made sweet love for valentine's day. And by "made sweet love" I mean gave the kid a bath, watched American Idol and fell asleep early. We rule. :D
I was wondering if you'd be there but since I don't know what you look like I wasn't sure. Great turn out. Good music and food, not enough wine.
Go check out my painting, it's nothing like I've done in the past.

oh yeah, and there seems to be a few Democrats who want to tell you what should be on the radio these days. Talk about big brother.:rolleyes:

and damnit, while I'm at it. Tell Sharizio Theron that this country seems to be a wee bit better than Cuba. and tell her to look up Tipper Gore's work in the 90's. mmmk?

OU4LIFE
2/16/2007, 12:08 PM
I was wondering if you'd be there but since I don't know what you look like I wasn't sure. Great turn out. Good music and food, not enough wine.
Go check out my painting, it's nothing like I've done in the past.

oh yeah, and there seems to be a few Democrats who want to tell you what should be on the radio these days. Talk about big brother.:rolleyes:

and damnit, while I'm at it. Tell Sharizio Theron that this country seems to be a wee bit better than Cuba. and tell her to look up Tipper Gore's work in the 90's. mmmk?

stop gheying up this sweet-as s political thread.

SoonerBorn68
2/16/2007, 12:18 PM
the best part about pelosi is how she's a power hungry, gavel bangin', big jet ridin' wannabe, liberal dumbass who's willing to weaken this great country just so she can get her way...this is so fun!! ha ha ha

Fixed.

picasso
2/16/2007, 12:26 PM
I thought I heard on the radio that Israel will fix the Iran problem if need be.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 12:45 PM
I thought I heard on the radio that Israel will fix the Iran problem if need be.

Likely and what did NATO do last time Isreal wiped out Iraqs nuclear facilities-
NATA not NATO

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
2/16/2007, 12:46 PM
That's rich. In the only election where Republicans turned on Bush, they got whipped. It's the GOP's own fault the Dems are in control.

And, as I've said before, it's fun to watch McCain, Hagel, Warner, Voinovich, Collins, and all the other GOP Bush-bashers out of power. The GOP has become nothing more than a frothing wasteland of backbiting Senators who are perpetually running for President.

F'em. They got what they deserved in 2006. Bush still sits in the White House eating tasty B-B-Q sandwiches and farting in their general direction. Go ahead, Hagel & Co., bash away. It sure has done wonders for your political fortunes...as*sbadgers.

Have fun getting your butts whipped again in 2008, GOP, when W heads back to the ranch and laughs at your futuile attempts to turn the party into the same worthless pile of horse **** that the Democratic Party became decades ago. Sniveling, power hungry idiots.Your complaints are justified. However, the dims are, as you know, even worse. So, don't completely leave the voters out of blame for this problem.

Okieflyer
2/16/2007, 01:03 PM
and for the record, she didn't tell "our enemy that we're not going to invade"

but don't let the FACTS get in the way.

Yes, that is what she said. What you liberals don't understand is that she may not have used those words, but that is exactly what she meant.

Kind of like "Pro choice" instead of infanticide

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:13 PM
That poses a question- could a woman president have good relations in the middle east even if they were the most qualified for the job?????


No. I honestly don't think they would take a female President seriously. It's culturally unacceptable to them for a woman to have power.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:22 PM
One the other hand, it's 100% forgivable to put our troops at war in the first place without a plan or the resources to win the war.

:rolleyes:


They did have a plan.... maybe not the best one... but it was a plan.

Things don't always go as planned... Terrorists don't play by the rules and thus "traditional" warfare goes out the window... and I think too many politicians in Washington fail to see that.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:24 PM
Our children will still be dealing with this when
we're all dead and gone!!


True... but I sure would like to think that my generation played a part in making sure there were less of them for our children to deal with when we're all dead and gone.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:25 PM
I thought she was elected to actually govern and not just be a thorn in the side.

Maybe she should start suggesting solutions now that she is in power.


She has no solutions... that's the whole problem.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:27 PM
They did have a plan.... maybe not the best one... but it was a plan.

General: Mr. Secretary, I think we really need more troops for this operation.
Rumsfeld: *plugs ears with fingers* LA LA LA, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO HEAR, SO I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA SOMEBODY GET ME SOMEONE WHO WILL TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR LA LA LA LA LA

That's not a plan. That's a prayer.

sooneron
2/16/2007, 01:31 PM
How many troops would be necessary for a country with 40 mill more inhabitants? That is a huge difference.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 01:32 PM
True... but I should would like to think that my generation played a part in making sure there were less of them for our children to deal with when we're all dead and gone.


I wished I could see the problem going away- this is and will be a dangerous world for our children... I say fight it- not hope it goes away. Continue to get better at it as well.

Our next generation of Military will be swift and mechanic/robotic. If the Terriost continue to fight amongst themselves for power over Iraq- I think it is better served there than allowing them the time and resources again to attack us on our soil. We need to keep the pressure on them and hope Iraq is ready to police itself within the next year.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:34 PM
How many troops would be necessary for a country with 40 mill more inhabitants? That is a huge difference.

If you're talking about putting down an insurgency, according to a recently published military manual, a minimum of 20 active counter-insurgents for every 1000 citizens.

So a minimum of 80k troops actively working on counter-insurgency, not including any troops necessary to support their efforts (supply, cooks, whatever).

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:36 PM
I wished I could see the problem going away- this is and will be a dangerous world for our children... I say fight it- not hope it goes away. Continue to get better at it as well.

Our next generation of Military will be swift and mechanic/robotic. If the Terriost continue to fight amongst themselves for power over Iraq- I think it is better served there than allowing them the time and resources again to attack us on our soil. We need to keep the pressure on them and hope Iraq is ready to police itself within the next year.


I agree.

They've been fighting against Christians and anyone else who stands in their way for thousands of years. Nothing you say will change that about them. Nothing.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:40 PM
They've been fighting against Christians and anyone else who stands in their way for thousands of years. Nothing you say will change that about them. Nothing.

Muslims? For thousands of years?

I think you may be confused.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 01:41 PM
One the other hand, it's 100% forgivable to put our troops at war in the first place without a plan or the resources to win the war.

:rolleyes:

Well, if only Mr Kerry had voted for the 87 Billion, before he voted against it...

Widescreen
2/16/2007, 01:42 PM
Muslims? For thousands of years?

I think you may be confused.
Yes. For 1.3 thousands. :D

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 01:42 PM
General: Mr. Secretary, I think we really need more troops for this operation.
Rumsfeld: *plugs ears with fingers* LA LA LA, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO HEAR, SO I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA SOMEBODY GET ME SOMEONE WHO WILL TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR LA LA LA LA LA

That's not a plan. That's a prayer.

I don't think it was a prayer- Arguable yes- but no-one of millitary rank that wants to win the war will dis-agree that more troops initially would have ended in more US casualties- perhaps now combined with Intel , Government and Military there can be true democracy in Iraq eventually and light at the end of the tunnel with numbers of well trained and prepared troops. I am not saying I am an expert in building nations - but that seems too be the consencious among the brass and the soldiers...

So timing is everything- either you want to win or you want out... but understand the consequences of this action very well. Short and Long term.

sooneron
2/16/2007, 01:43 PM
If you're talking about putting down an insurgency, according to a recently published military manual, a minimum of 20 active counter-insurgents for every 1000 citizens.

So a minimum of 80k troops actively working on counter-insurgency, not including any troops necessary to support their efforts (supply, cooks, whatever).
80K for a country of nearly 80 million?

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 01:43 PM
Their underminding of our Soldiers at War for the sake of Power should not be forgivin......

"...against all enemies, foreign and domestic...."

Okieflyer
2/16/2007, 01:44 PM
Pfft, facts schmacts. BURN, STRAWMAN, BURN!!!

I also like how people think Iran will base strategic decisions on what Nancy freakin' Pelosi says.


It's not about what she says to us. Because in reality Bush does have the power to invade. Congress only was the power to declare and or fund the war.

But the idiots in Iran see it as that "They won't do anything to us. They don't have the stomach for it." From what I've seen so far, they maybe right.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:44 PM
Yes. For 1.3 thousands. :D

Yeah, that's one view. A view that ignores that 200 or so year period where it was Christendom raising a ruckus :D

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:46 PM
80K for a country of nearly 80 million?

For the additional 40 million. And yeah, I screwed up a decimal place.

Try 800k. For the additional 40 million.

1.6 million for the 80 million.

EDIT: But again, to reiterate -- that's if you're talking counter-insurgency operations.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 01:46 PM
Yeah, that's one view. A view that ignores that 200 or so year period where it was Christendom raising a ruckus :D

Pope John apologized for that- although we wanted Jerusalem.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 01:48 PM
It's not about what she says to us. Because in reality Bush does have the power to invade. Congress only was the power to declare and or fund the war.

But the idiots in Iran see it as that "They won't do anything to us. They don't have the stomach for it." From what I've seen so far, they maybe right.

You have to know that the terrorists in Tehran and Iraq are smiling, knowing that the donks are planning to deliberately undercut the military and working to ensure US defeat in Iraq.

Must make getting run out of Baghdad feel a lot better.

royalfan5
2/16/2007, 01:49 PM
Pope John apologized for that- although we wanted Jerusalem.
The third holiest site on one religion built on top of the holiest site in another does tend to cause problems, especially when a third religion has a bunch of their holy stuff in the same neighborhood.

SoonerBorn68
2/16/2007, 01:51 PM
80K for a country of nearly 80 million?

You forget, Vaevictus is an expert on everything.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 01:55 PM
Muslims? For thousands of years?

I think you may be confused.



Yes. For 1.3 thousands. :D


Oh good grief... for a thousand years.... Happy now? I stand corrected. :P

Maybe I should have said "For a really, really, really long time." :D

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 01:57 PM
Pope John apologized for that- although we wanted Jerusalem.

Which is great. It just doesn't change the fact that it lops 200 years straight off the 1300 year figure.

The other question I would submit is -- how much of the 1100 year period's wars had to do with Islam, and how much had to do with Kings wanting to expand their empire? It's kind of hard to separate the two.

I mean, go back and look at the flip side of that coin, and you'll find Christians warring with each other over territory and internal religions schisms for most of that time too. Is that all because they were Christians, or was it because they were men?

Ike
2/16/2007, 01:57 PM
She has no solutions... that's the whole problem.

From my perspective, none of our elected officials have "solutions". Many of them have "plans" or "ideas", and frankly, every single idea I have heard from the mouth of an elected office holder or someone seeking elected office tends to be overly simplistic. they tend to fall into 3 categories. a) more force b) more diplomacy c) isolationism.

The fact of the matter is that we need both a and b (and maybe just a teeny bit of c, but not much), and not only that, but we are going to need to integrate our diplomatic efforts and military efforts much more so than we have in the past I think.

I really have no concrete idea how to solve the problems we face abroad, but what I do see is that our leaders in washington (on the right and left) seem ill equipped to handle this problem. We need them to decide on a course of action and present a unified front to the rest of the world. This can't happen when everyone and their dog is seeking office and planning to do so by presenting their "plan" for dealing with the terrorists. This also can't happen when the head honcho decides on his own course of action, and can't do what is necessary to keep everyone, or at least most of everyone in washington on board. The President had everyone on board through no fault of his own after 9/11. He fumbled the ball by essentially giving the impression that he didn't care what anyone else thought, he was going to go about this his way. I think he could have done something (dunno what exactly) to appease the democrats in congress enough to keep them on board with his plan for Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think he should have. Even if this would have meant giving in on some other area, I think people would have forgiven him if it meant that he was able to ensure that we presented the world with a united front in the war on terror.

Of course, I might be off my rocker and overly idealistic as well, but this is the way I think things should be going, and it's not the way I see them going.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 01:58 PM
Oh good grief... for a thousand years.... Happy now? I stand corrected. :P

Maybe I should have said "For a really, really, really long time." :D


Don't worry I think it can date back too Babylonia... except the world is bigger and bigger weapons.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 02:00 PM
Oh good grief... for a thousand years.... Happy now? I stand corrected. :P

Maybe I should have said "For a really, really, really long time." :D

Well, IMO, you are correct in the "thousands of years", just not in the source of it.

Fueding is part of Middle Eastern tribal culture, and it's something that long predates Islam. Yes, Islam has some violent aspects to it (most religions, including Christianity/Judaism do!), but I think that the Middle Eastern tribal culture has a whole lot to do with it.

(I mean, you get Americanized Muslims over here that would never do the things that the Middle Eastern raised Muslims would do. It can't be *just* the religion.)

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 02:02 PM
He fumbled the ball by essentially giving the impression that he didn't care what anyone else thought, he was going to go about this his way. I think he could have done something (dunno what exactly) to appease the democrats in congress enough to keep them on board with his plan for Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think he should have.

Ah, you do remember that most of the donks voted for the war, right?

He appeased them by waiting 1 full year before attacking Iraq. Never mind that Bill Clinton and most donks were publically calling for war well before Dubya was even elected. Hell, they even passed and signed something called "The Iraq Liberation Act" in 1998.

History man.

OklahomaTuba
2/16/2007, 02:06 PM
Well, IMO, you are correct in the "thousands of years", just not in the source of it.

Fueding is part of Middle Eastern tribal culture, and it's something that long predates Islam. Yes, Islam has some violent aspects to it (most religions, including Christianity/Judaism do!), but I think that the Middle Eastern tribal culture has a whole lot to do with it.

(I mean, you get Americanized Muslims over here that would never do the things that the Middle Eastern raised Muslims would do. It can't be *just* the religion.)

Its not just the middle east..


JAKARTA (Reuters) - Security forces are on highest alert in Indonesia’s restive Central Sulawesi province following warnings that militants may be planning attacks, the region’s police chief said on Friday.

The Australian government said earlier on Friday it had credible information militants may be in advanced stages of planning attacks in Central Sulawesi, the scene of tension between Muslims and Christians.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070216/ts_nm/australia_indonesia_warning_dc

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 02:06 PM
From my perspective, none of our elected officials have "solutions". Many of them have "plans" or "ideas", and frankly, every single idea I have heard from the mouth of an elected office holder or someone seeking elected office tends to be overly simplistic. they tend to fall into 3 categories. a) more force b) more diplomacy c) isolationism.

The fact of the matter is that we need both a and b (and maybe just a teeny bit of c, but not much), and not only that, but we are going to need to integrate our diplomatic efforts and military efforts much more so than we have in the past I think.

I really have no concrete idea how to solve the problems we face abroad, but what I do see is that our leaders in washington (on the right and left) seem ill equipped to handle this problem. We need them to decide on a course of action and present a unified front to the rest of the world. This can't happen when everyone and their dog is seeking office and planning to do so by presenting their "plan" for dealing with the terrorists. This also can't happen when the head honcho decides on his own course of action, and can't do what is necessary to keep everyone, or at least most of everyone in washington on board. The President had everyone on board through no fault of his own after 9/11. He fumbled the ball by essentially giving the impression that he didn't care what anyone else thought, he was going to go about this his way. I think he could have done something (dunno what exactly) to appease the democrats in congress enough to keep them on board with his plan for Afghanistan and Iraq, and I think he should have. Even if this would have meant giving in on some other area, I think people would have forgiven him if it meant that he was able to ensure that we presented the world with a united front in the war on terror.

Of course, I might be off my rocker and overly idealistic as well, but this is the way I think things should be going, and it's not the way I see them going.


I basically agree with what you're saying... it's been extremely frustrating listening and watching all the blowhards in Washington spout off at each other, trying to win the next ****ing contest in '08 and completely negating the position that we're in now regarding Iraq and the implications of our withdrawl from there.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 02:07 PM
General: Mr. Secretary, I think we really need more troops for this operation.
Rumsfeld: *plugs ears with fingers* LA LA LA, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO HEAR, SO I'M NOT LISTENING LA LA LA LA SOMEBODY GET ME SOMEONE WHO WILL TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR LA LA LA LA LA

That's not a plan. That's a prayer.


Rumsfeld... Good God! Don't get me started on him....

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 02:10 PM
Its not just the middle east..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070216/ts_nm/australia_indonesia_warning_dc

In Indonesia, it's cultural also. Notice that there are Christian militants over there that do the same stuff as the Muslims.

They were going to fight anyway, they just chose to divide along religions lines. If those lines didn't exist, they would have found other lines to divide on.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 02:13 PM
Well, IMO, you are correct in the "thousands of years", just not in the source of it.

Fueding is part of Middle Eastern tribal culture, and it's something that long predates Islam. Yes, Islam has some violent aspects to it (most religions, including Christianity/Judaism do!), but I think that the Middle Eastern tribal culture has a whole lot to do with it.

(I mean, you get Americanized Muslims over here that would never do the things that the Middle Eastern raised Muslims would do. It can't be *just* the religion.)



Thank you for that.... I was too busy eating Girl Scout cookies to really focus on the discussion at hand and articulate in the manner in which I meant to.
:D

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 02:14 PM
I basically agree with what you're saying... it's been extremely frustrating listening and watching all the blowhards in Washington spout off at each other, trying to win the next ****ing contest in '08 and completely negating the position that we're in now regarding Iraq and the implications of our withdrawl from there.


Our nutt is so easy to crack that Usama Bin laden is laughing at the destruction and division of our nation over weather or not too defend itself.

As a bicentinial American- They had better get it together or we need to do something about our democracy.

What percentage of this country is uneducated voters or simply vote on a few issues.

We have a problem and we better have a strategy- Unified.

SoonerGirl06
2/16/2007, 02:19 PM
Our nutt is so easy to crack that Usama Bin laden is laughing at the destruction and division of our nation over weather or not too defend itself.

As a bicentinial American- They had better get it together or we need to do something about our democracy.

What percentage of this country is uneducated voters or simply vote on a few issues.

We have a problem and we better have a strategy- Unified.


You're right about needing to have a united front. Right now division amongst our leaders is our greatest weakness and the terrorists are counting on that division to implement their plan(s) to destroy America.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 02:22 PM
IMO, the road to "re-unification" between the two parties on the terrorism front probably runs through Afghanistan.

Iraq is a huge cluster****, with about half the nation strongly doubting that it ever had anything to do with terrorism, and half of it certain it did. I sincerely doubt we'll ever be able to come to a consensus there. Iran likewise.

Afghanistan, however... well, nobody doubts that.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 02:22 PM
You're right about needing to have a united front. Right now division amongst our leaders is our greatest weakness and the terrorists are counting on that division to implement their plan(s) to destroy America.

So simple that 20 people can bring down our country- I say NAY :cool:

Hatfield
2/16/2007, 02:29 PM
Yes, that is what she said. What you liberals don't understand is that she may not have used those words, but that is exactly what she meant.

Kind of like "Pro choice" instead of infanticide

she said that he wouldn't be able to do it alone.

that is nowhere near the same thing as saying we won't do it.

but carry on your temper tantrum against the libs.

Okieflyer
2/16/2007, 02:51 PM
she said that he wouldn't be able to do it alone.

that is nowhere near the same thing as saying we won't do it.

but carry on your temper tantrum against the libs.


Don't be so sensitive.

But that's what lib's are, right, sensitive?:confused:



Ah just kiddin' Hatfield.;)

SoonerBorn68
2/16/2007, 03:00 PM
carry on your temper tantrum against the libs.

It's fun flinging poo. You libs did it for 8 years--have fun deflecting & dodging!

Tear Down This Wall
2/16/2007, 03:52 PM
Yeah, that's one view. A view that ignores that 200 or so year period where it was Christendom raising a ruckus :D

Not to digress, but don't confuse what the Catholics did hundreds of years ago to Christianity. The pope never has and never will speak for Chrsitians. He's Catholic. Anything he does reflects on Catholics, not Christians.

Christians follow Christ and his teachings. Catholics follow the Pope and the Catholics church's teachings. I know this because my wife made me go talk to the ridiculous people over at the Fort Worth Diocese before we got married. You know, the Diocese that has been embroiled for years over dozens and dozens of child molestation charges.... Apparently, I was supposed to discuss marriage with people who covered for child molesters. Go figure.

Anyway, when proving points to them using the actual words of Christ, they defaulted into "but 'The Church' teaches this or that." I asked them if they took the directives of the Vatican over the words of Christ. The Diocese guy said "We do what the Vatican says until they say otherwise." It was an eye-opening discussion.

By the way, we didn't (thankfully) get married in a Catholic church or by a Catholic priest (again, thankfully).

Oh, and last week, my marriage was rocking along just fine...but there were more revelations of the child molestation cover-ups at the Fort Worth Diocese. To paraphrase Jesus, the Catholics really should take care of the plank in their own eye before throwing a fit over the speck in others' eyes.

MojoRisen
2/16/2007, 03:58 PM
Oh, and last week, my marriage was rocking along just fine...but there were more revelations of the child molestation cover-ups at the Fort Worth Diocese. To paraphrase Jesus, the Catholics really should take care of the plank in their own eye before throwing a fit over the speck in others' eyes.[/QUOTE]


JIHAD MOTher F'r

Hamhock
2/16/2007, 04:03 PM
Anyway, when proving points to them using the actual words of Christ, they defaulted into "but 'The Church' teaches this or that." I asked them if they took the directives of the Vatican over the words of Christ. The Diocese guy said "We do what the Vatican says until they say otherwise."


catholics teach that when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair), he is infallible.

the catholic church most definitely looks to the vatican first. hence their vehement opposition to the doctrine of "solo fide", faith alone.

abraham lincoln was not a catholic

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 04:05 PM
All of which is why Martin Luther is my hero.

(well, one of them anyway)

Unfortunately, it seems that a goodly chunk (if not most) of the Protestants are falling or have fallen back into what is fundamentally the same trap.

Hamhock
2/16/2007, 04:08 PM
All of which is why Martin Luther is my hero.

(well, one of them anyway)

Unfortunately, it seems that a goodly chunk (if not most) of the Protestants are falling or have fallen back into what is fundamentally the same trap.


there are still a few of us faithful reformers. ;)

Tear Down This Wall
2/16/2007, 04:10 PM
catholics teach that when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the chair), he is infallible.

the catholic church most definitely looks to the vatican first. hence their vehement opposition to the doctrine of "solo fide", faith alone.

abraham lincoln was not a catholic

You know what I just realized? I've always listed my "Location" as "Chair." I didn't realize this made me infallible. I kind of like the idea, though.

Vaevictis
2/16/2007, 04:13 PM
Wrong chair.

Tear Down This Wall
2/16/2007, 04:20 PM
Wrong chair.

Oh. :D

PDXsooner
2/16/2007, 06:02 PM
ha ha, this is great!

royalfan5
2/16/2007, 06:08 PM
You know what I just realized? I've always listed my "Location" as "Chair." I didn't realize this made me infallible. I kind of like the idea, though.
It's the chair/hat combo that provides the power. It's like the Electric chair, with out the hat suppling power, it's just a chair.