The Capitulation Caucus

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

What he’s not telling you is that he had a hunderd soldiers and four Blackwater helicopters around him all the time.

[/quote]

Blackwater helicopters???

Blackwater operates scout and cargo helicopters on supply runs. Gunships are operated by the US Army.

Protection of US Senators abroad is handled by the State Department.

Try again.

42

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Thoughts?

[/quote]
Any war that has been worth fighting has been worth winning, however, losing this war (like Korea and Vietnam) doesn’t seem likely to negatively affect this country.

I mean, in these wars the US was actually fighting a political doctrine that it told us would change our lives yet it changed nothing about American life.

Is the war on terroism a fightable war? I don’t think it is. The best the US can do is protect the borders–which it isn’t doing in Iraq.

In WWII we dropped bombs on everything and were able to declare victory by sheer decimation and death (of even innocent people). That will never happen again in modern warfare and thus all future wars (including this one) will end in stalemate because wars are unwinable without massive casualties on one side or the other.

43

Sorry, but I just couldn’t resist.

44

[quote]hedo wrote:

It’s very common. It’s an effort that is
encouraged on certain Arab websites. It jams up a lot of otherwise good sites. Most place simply delete the posters but Biotest has been pretty tolerant of lixy.
[/quote]

How exactly does it jam up this website? It doesn’t jam up anything other than making you have to scroll over words that you want to ignore. If you are ignoring them what is the problem?

Troll is a made up term used to define people whose opinions people like you want ignored. I don’t consider people who give me differing perspectives to be trolls, including those I disagree with.

The truth is that true trollish behavior is attempting to invalidate opinions one disagrees with by calling that particular poster a troll–as if people reading the forums cannot spot it for what it is–if it really does exist.

By calling someone a troll one is implying that they are an authority on authenticity. No one can make that claim via internet discussion and is seem by me as an invalid and ineffective argument.

45

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:

It’s very common. It’s an effort that is
encouraged on certain Arab websites. It jams up a lot of otherwise good sites. Most place simply delete the posters but Biotest has been pretty tolerant of lixy.

How exactly does it jam up this website? It doesn’t jam up anything other than making you have to scroll over words that you want to ignore. If you are ignoring them what is the problem?

Troll is a made up term used to define people whose opinions people like you want ignored. I don’t consider people who give me differing perspectives to be trolls, including those I disagree with.

The truth is that true trollish behavior is attempting to invalidate opinions one disagrees with by calling that particular poster a troll–as if people reading the forums cannot spot it for what it is–if it really does exist.

By calling someone a troll one is implying that they are an authority on authenticity. No one can make that claim via internet discussion and is seem by me as an invalid and ineffective argument.[/quote]

You are just being silly at this point.

Does your argument have a point or are you just trying to propose your opinion as fact?

If you think the trolls add something to this site go right ahead and support them. I don’t.

46

[quote]hedo wrote:
Blackwater helicopters???

Blackwater operates scout and cargo helicopters on supply runs. Gunships are operated by the US Army.

Protection of US Senators abroad is handled by the State Department.

Try again. [/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say Blackhawk helicopters.

My bad.

The point’s still valid though.

47

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Also, do you think that senator McCain would go to Detroit, LA, NY city, or even Sweden for that matter, without a significant security detail? [/quote]

One hundred troops, three Blackhawk helicopters, two gunships sure sounds like he’s going into a messy place. Plus, he wore a bullet-proof vest.

Not entirely sure his behavior validates what he was trying to portray in your article.

48

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 – and my first since Gen. David Petraeus’s new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

What he’s not telling you is that he had a hunderd soldiers and four Blackwater helicopters around him all the time.

Also, do you think that senator McCain would go to Detroit, LA, NY city, or even Sweden for that matter, without a significant security detail?

I realize that this is a long comparison, however my point is that he is a high profile U.S. senator. Put him in a region of the world that’s indigenous to terrorism, and that’s going to produce a large security detail.

Use your head boy.

[/quote]

I grew up in Detroit. If he goes there, he might want to be inside an Abrahms tank.

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I grew up in Detroit. If he goes there, he might want to be inside an Abrahms tank.

[/quote]

I grew up in Vienna.If he goes there he can ride through it on a bicycle.

50

[quote]hedo wrote:
Blackwater helicopters???

Blackwater operates scout and cargo helicopters on supply runs. Gunships are operated by the US Army.

Protection of US Senators abroad is handled by the State Department.

Try again.

[/quote]

The State Department subcontracts private companies like Blackwater for protection, for their security in Iraq.

Try again.

51

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Blackwater helicopters???

Blackwater operates scout and cargo helicopters on supply runs. Gunships are operated by the US Army.

Protection of US Senators abroad is handled by the State Department.

Try again.

The State Department subcontracts private companies like Blackwater for protection, for their security in Iraq.

Try again.

[/quote]

Try again…idiot.

You are apparently showing a picture of McCain walking with an officer and enlisted men from the 101St. Airborne. Since you’ve never served in the military I wouldn’t expect you to know what an military insignia is.

State handles this responsibility. They may subcontract people from time to time but the responsibility falls under the State Department. The picture you posted is McCain with active duty military.

Try and find one with Blackwater and McCain in it and you might be making sense but I think that is beyond your feeble ability.

Do you have a point?

52

Complaining about Democrats is not a substitute for a non-existent strategy for Iraq.

Complaining about Democrats is not a substitute for a lack of positive ideas.

Complaining about Democrats is not a winner at the polls, if 2006 was any indication. “No matter how bad we screw up, the Democrats would be worse!” wasn’t a winning platform.

I think it’s great that the Right Wingers keep pushing for longer military entanglement in Iraq. The war is considered a mistake by a clear majority of Americans, and a majority want Congress to take control of our Iraq policy.

So keep pushing the GOP further to the right, guys. Go ahead and advocate staying in Iraq until ‘the job is done’ (whatever the hell that means). Sure, George W Bush’s ego is the most important asset America has, that’s a real good strategy there. Hey, we’ve only given Bush four years to get his shit together in Iraq… lets give this thing a little time to work!! What’s the rush? Go ahead and advocate spending additional 2 billion tax dollars every week, on an open-ended engagement that lacks a clear plan for success…meanwhile peoples’ property taxes continue to rise, and domestic programs get cut. I’m sure you’ll be able to explain that during the 2008 campaign.

All you’re doing is ensuring your minority status in the political process, and I absolutely love watching it happen.

Oh yeah, keep scaring people that the GOP is trying it’s best to expand the war into Iran, too. Thanks in advance.

Dick Cheney 2008!!!

53

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Complaining about Democrats is not a substitute for a non-existent strategy for Iraq.

Complaining about Democrats is not a substitute for a lack of positive ideas.

Complaining about Democrats is not a winner at the polls, if 2006 was any indication. “No matter how bad we screw up, the Democrats would be worse!” wasn’t a winning platform.

I think it’s great that the Right Wingers keep pushing for longer military entanglement in Iraq. The war is considered a mistake by a clear majority of Americans, and a majority want Congress to take control of our Iraq policy.

So keep pushing the GOP further to the right, guys. Go ahead and advocate staying in Iraq until ‘the job is done’ (whatever the hell that means). Sure, George W Bush’s ego is the most important asset America has, that’s a real good strategy there. Hey, we’ve only given Bush four years to get his shit together in Iraq… lets give this thing a little time to work!! What’s the rush? Go ahead and advocate spending additional 2 billion tax dollars every week, on an open-ended engagement that lacks a clear plan for success…meanwhile peoples’ property taxes continue to rise, and domestic programs get cut. I’m sure you’ll be able to explain that during the 2008 campaign.

All you’re doing is ensuring your minority status in the political process, and I absolutely love watching it happen.

Oh yeah, keep scaring people that the GOP is trying it’s best to expand the war into Iran, too. Thanks in advance.

Dick Cheney 2008!!![/quote]

And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. Hey, I don’t like the status quo either, but “just give me something different, I don’t care what it is” is no way to vote for a leader. Frankly I think the frontrunners are a sad lot. They want to get elected, but I don’t think they realize there is one hell of a job to do. I’m hearing about the get elected part, but not about the doing the job part.

54

[quote]btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. Hey, I don’t like the status quo either, but “just give me something different, I don’t care what it is” is no way to vote for a leader. [/quote]

So are you saying that those of us in opposition to Bush’s war are required to make an omelette, out of Bush’s mess?

If the Dems can’t come up with a guaranteed happy ending, then America should keep our troops deployed indefinitely?

When you find yourself in a hole, first you have to stop digging. Keeping a huge troop deployment in Iraq is digging the hole deeper.

Bush has no political or diplomatic component to his Iraq strategy, just military deployment. So there will be no solutions on his watch, because he is just addressing symptoms, on a superficial level.

55

[quote]hedo wrote:
If you think the trolls add something to this site go right ahead and support them. I don’t.
[/quote]

A person with fifth grade reading skills should be able to discern my answer to this from what I have written.

Let me break it down “Bedrock” for you. I ignore it if I deem it warranting that course of action.

You know what fuels “trollish” behavior?

I leave that as an exercise for you to solve at home.

56

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. Hey, I don’t like the status quo either, but “just give me something different, I don’t care what it is” is no way to vote for a leader.

So are you saying that those of us in opposition to Bush’s war are required to make an omelette, out of Bush’s mess?

If the Dems can’t come up with a guaranteed happy ending, then America should keep our troops deployed indefinitely?

When you find yourself in a hole, first you have to stop digging. Keeping a huge troop deployment in Iraq is digging the hole deeper.

Bush has no political or diplomatic component to his Iraq strategy, just military deployment. So there will be no solutions on his watch, because he is just addressing symptoms, on a superficial level.

[/quote]

How about just an idea. Start there. (Or at least get some metaphor training.) I think somewhere else in the forums is an article posted from John McCain regarding the new strategy in Iraq. I’m not agreeing with it one way or the other because as with most things the truth lies somewhere in between. But there it is anyway.

Saying, “Bring the troops home!” is great. I’m all for it. I have friends I would dearly love to golf with this summer. For the sake of this forum though I’m asking what then?

That was my point BRAAAAAD.

Otherwise its just a campaign slogan.

57

[quote]btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. [/quote]

And then, nothing. Nothing is the opposite of what we are doing there now. Nothing is what we should be striving for over on that side of the world. The great thing about this approach is that it is clearly achievable. Then we can focus on defending our country for real and perhaps complete the original mission.

Really, though. What needs to be done? Do you really think we have an ethical commitment to the Iraqi people? We declared victory four years ago. Its now time to leave.

58

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you think the trolls add something to this site go right ahead and support them. I don’t.

A person with fifth grade reading skills should be able to discern my answer to this from what I have written.

Let me break it down “Bedrock” for you. I ignore it if I deem it warranting that course of action.

You know what fuels “trollish” behavior?

I leave that as an exercise for you to solve at home.[/quote]

Wow really deep dude. Next time if you don’t have anything to say…just move along…OK?

59

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. Hey, I don’t like the status quo either, but “just give me something different, I don’t care what it is” is no way to vote for a leader.

So are you saying that those of us in opposition to Bush’s war are required to make an omelette, out of Bush’s mess?

If the Dems can’t come up with a guaranteed happy ending, then America should keep our troops deployed indefinitely?

When you find yourself in a hole, first you have to stop digging. Keeping a huge troop deployment in Iraq is digging the hole deeper.

Bush has no political or diplomatic component to his Iraq strategy, just military deployment. So there will be no solutions on his watch, because he is just addressing symptoms, on a superficial level.

How about just an idea. Start there. (Or at least get some metaphor training.) I think somewhere else in the forums is an article posted from John McCain regarding the new strategy in Iraq. I’m not agreeing with it one way or the other because as with most things the truth lies somewhere in between. But there it is anyway.

Saying, “Bring the troops home!” is great. I’m all for it. I have friends I would dearly love to golf with this summer. For the sake of this forum though I’m asking what then?

That was my point BRAAAAAD.

Otherwise its just a campaign slogan.

[/quote]

Please don’t hold your breath.

JeffR

60

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking. Hey, I don’t like the status quo either, but “just give me something different, I don’t care what it is” is no way to vote for a leader.

So are you saying that those of us in opposition to Bush’s war are required to make an omelette, out of Bush’s mess?

If the Dems can’t come up with a guaranteed happy ending, then America should keep our troops deployed indefinitely?

When you find yourself in a hole, first you have to stop digging. Keeping a huge troop deployment in Iraq is digging the hole deeper.

Bush has no political or diplomatic component to his Iraq strategy, just military deployment. So there will be no solutions on his watch, because he is just addressing symptoms, on a superficial level.

[/quote]

You forget that, because of the libs and the lib media, we had to fight a ‘humane’ war. Carpet bombing, an excellent strategy, went out the window because it might offend the soccer moms and Charles Gibson. Smashing Iraq was not allowed.

Now, you libs complain that the strategy that YOU EMBRACE, a losing strategy both now and in Vietnam, a strategy that you screamed for, prolongs the war. You blame Bush for following YOUR template. Your guys report each death with quivering voice, never realizing that ITS YOUR STRATEGY, YOUR MINDSET, which made Bush follow a losing strategy. A liberal media that screams about the horrors of war prolongs the war.

If Bush had a brain, he’d have not worried about the libs. He have not worried about a public image for a brutal business and the war would be over. Damnned libs…(one of whom is GWB)