So the democrats have strong principals that they will stand up to Bush on and fight to the death for what is right… for at least 5 months anyway. T’was nice while it lasted.
Or, you could see it as Bush was ready to let U.S. troops starve and go without ammo over his “principals” while Democrats didn’t because of their principals.
Hey Joe Mama, you tend to post a lot of thoughts by others, have you ever, you know tried thinking for yourself?
And yeah, i guess rather than admit that we have reached a point where Iraq is simply not winnable given the current state of affairs we should continue to throw troops into the quagmire rather than admit, gee i guess its unwinnable. Don’t get me wrong, if the U.S. really wanted to we could have won this war and we still could. But in order to win it in the first place Bush would have had to listen to the generals who told him we needed more troops to begin with (and not done things like leave ammo dumps ungaurded, etc). And to win now would require a war commitment that this country is not likely to want to give for what amounts to a civil war. Nope, instead lets just let the Bush doctrine play out while we throw time, money, and lives into an ever worsening situation. Thats much better than leaving Iraq…
Thanks, I hadn’t had my daily dose of bullsh*t yet today. Being told I don’t think for myself by someone who can’t accurately describe an opposing argument if his life depended on it, or keep two contrary ideas in his head simultaneously, is rich indeed.
For someone who is so smart, and who is so right, you seem to be incapable of arguing the point and continously need to insult your oponent. I guess I hit a little to close to home, eh?
David K - when the troops start fragging their lieutenants with any regularity in Iraq, you can tart to convince me that it’s a quagmire over there … when enrolment into the volunteer armed forces is markedly down, you may be able to start convincing me … when the number of US soldiers being killed is significantly higher than the number of local Iraqis being blown up, you may well be able to start convincing me …
When the best you can give me is Murtha and Pelosi and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and Kos feeding you what to say, you just ain’t convincing me …
When our government has to force soldiers to re-enlist its a quagmire. When the death toll continues to stay the same or rise, it’s a quagmire. When the people in Iraq believe they are worse off then they were a year ago, then it’s a quagmire. As for this asinine point:
when the number of US soldiers being killed is significantly higher than the number of local Iraqis being blown up, you may well be able to start convincing me
Hmmm imagine that, in a country filled with Iraqi’s more of them are going to be killed than our soldiers. Right.
When the best you can give me is Murtha and Pelosi and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and Kos feeding you what to say, you just ain’t convincing me …
Never been to MoveOn or Kos. Never seen a Michael Moore film or read much of what he says. I agree with Murtha on alot and Pelosi on some.
Of course i could say the same about you and what Limbaugh, Bush, et al are saying. Agreeing with others isn’t a bad thing, neither is disagreeing. Being incapable of accepting that the people you agree with are ever wrong, now thats a bad thing. You seem to be of that mindset when it comes to Bush. But i don’t disagree with what you say because Bush says it to. I don’t disagree with what Bush says because you say it. I disagree with what you are both saying because the evidence has shown over and over that your both wrong. Wrong to go to war, wrong in the way we handled the early war, wrong about admitting that things are getting worse now, wrong about this helping stop terrorism, wrong about the American people supporting it, wrong about things improving, wrong about the surge working. Wrong about the war period.
however, as wrong as I think you are, thank you for atleast making an argument, and not resorting to ad-hominems, its refreshing and if you did it more often i think we could have better discussions. To answer your question, yes you did argue the point.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:07:29 pm
So the democrats have strong principals that they will stand up to Bush on and fight to the death for what is right… for at least 5 months anyway. T’was nice while it lasted.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:22:57 pm
Or, you could see it as Bush was ready to let U.S. troops starve and go without ammo over his “principals” while Democrats didn’t because of their principals.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:13:59 am
Hope the Democrats are paying you good money to peddly that bullshit.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:30:57 am
Or perhaps principles.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:15:25 am
There seems to be a lot of surprise and disgust that the people who advocate surrender practice it.
Heh.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:19:50 am
Brendan-
I was referring to Bush’s and the Democrats’ former high school administrators ; ).
May 25th, 2007 at 1:11:08 pm
Hey Joe Mama, you tend to post a lot of thoughts by others, have you ever, you know tried thinking for yourself?
And yeah, i guess rather than admit that we have reached a point where Iraq is simply not winnable given the current state of affairs we should continue to throw troops into the quagmire rather than admit, gee i guess its unwinnable. Don’t get me wrong, if the U.S. really wanted to we could have won this war and we still could. But in order to win it in the first place Bush would have had to listen to the generals who told him we needed more troops to begin with (and not done things like leave ammo dumps ungaurded, etc). And to win now would require a war commitment that this country is not likely to want to give for what amounts to a civil war. Nope, instead lets just let the Bush doctrine play out while we throw time, money, and lives into an ever worsening situation. Thats much better than leaving Iraq…
May 25th, 2007 at 4:24:00 pm
David,
Thanks, I hadn’t had my daily dose of bullsh*t yet today. Being told I don’t think for myself by someone who can’t accurately describe an opposing argument if his life depended on it, or keep two contrary ideas in his head simultaneously, is rich indeed.
May 25th, 2007 at 5:02:51 pm
I’d say your an ignorant tool, David, but we both know I’m not the first person to have that thought, either . . .
May 25th, 2007 at 6:43:39 pm
For someone who is so smart, and who is so right, you seem to be incapable of arguing the point and continously need to insult your oponent. I guess I hit a little to close to home, eh?
May 25th, 2007 at 8:17:37 pm
David K - when the troops start fragging their lieutenants with any regularity in Iraq, you can tart to convince me that it’s a quagmire over there … when enrolment into the volunteer armed forces is markedly down, you may be able to start convincing me … when the number of US soldiers being killed is significantly higher than the number of local Iraqis being blown up, you may well be able to start convincing me …
When the best you can give me is Murtha and Pelosi and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and Kos feeding you what to say, you just ain’t convincing me …
Did I “argue the point” sufficiently, David K ?
{sweet smile}
May 25th, 2007 at 8:50:30 pm
Alasdair
When our government has to force soldiers to re-enlist its a quagmire. When the death toll continues to stay the same or rise, it’s a quagmire. When the people in Iraq believe they are worse off then they were a year ago, then it’s a quagmire. As for this asinine point:
when the number of US soldiers being killed is significantly higher than the number of local Iraqis being blown up, you may well be able to start convincing me
Hmmm imagine that, in a country filled with Iraqi’s more of them are going to be killed than our soldiers. Right.
When the best you can give me is Murtha and Pelosi and Michael Moore and MoveOn.org and Kos feeding you what to say, you just ain’t convincing me …
Never been to MoveOn or Kos. Never seen a Michael Moore film or read much of what he says. I agree with Murtha on alot and Pelosi on some.
Of course i could say the same about you and what Limbaugh, Bush, et al are saying. Agreeing with others isn’t a bad thing, neither is disagreeing. Being incapable of accepting that the people you agree with are ever wrong, now thats a bad thing. You seem to be of that mindset when it comes to Bush. But i don’t disagree with what you say because Bush says it to. I don’t disagree with what Bush says because you say it. I disagree with what you are both saying because the evidence has shown over and over that your both wrong. Wrong to go to war, wrong in the way we handled the early war, wrong about admitting that things are getting worse now, wrong about this helping stop terrorism, wrong about the American people supporting it, wrong about things improving, wrong about the surge working. Wrong about the war period.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:51:45 pm
however, as wrong as I think you are, thank you for atleast making an argument, and not resorting to ad-hominems, its refreshing and if you did it more often i think we could have better discussions. To answer your question, yes you did argue the point.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:50:40 pm
When the death toll continues to stay the same or rise, it’s a quagmire.
How could the death toll do anything but stay the same or rise, genius? So unless the dead are brought back to life, it’s a quagmire. Figures.
And again, the first person to attack someone personally (”do you ever think for yourself”) is complaining about ad hominems. Also figures.
You truly are amazing , David.