Winning in Iraq!

[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
lumbernac wrote:
There is no winning this conflict that is why we are getting out, probably by mid 08 from everything thats been put out on press.

I have been hearing local talks of as early as Fall/07. That makes a push to spread the word of us “winning” understandable if the goal is to back out. I am all for screaming “we won” if it allows our soldiers to come back home. They can remain delusional as long as they wish.

I agree. If they want to trumpet We kicked there ass for everyone to hear, then that is fine by me. As long as it gets everyone home, more power 2um.

Goku[/quote]

I think that most of you have missed the point.

The GOAL is not to get the troops home, the GOAL of any military action is to WIN.

The war on terror, which Iraq is a large part, was taken to us, not the other way around. We are protected when we are on the offensive. These people will stop short of nothing to kill everyone of us if they had the chance.

It is amazing to me to see so many Americans seemingly rooting for the other side. How do I know this? Because if you were truly for America, then you would be saying (or writing) things like:

(1) Stay the course until the job is finished.

(2) We need to wipe out all of the leaders of these terrorist organizations and the people who harbour them.

(3) We must protect America and Americans first by staying on the offensive.

etc. etc.

What I am reading is the old “blame America first” crowd and how Bush is like Hitler and the U.S. is like the Nazis. Your leaders (like Hillary, Chuck Shumer, etc) also agree with you. Actually, I don’t want you to stop, because the way it is going, these positions will lead to another resounding defeat for the libs this fall in the elections for Congress.

I call on citizens to unite behind our president and our good cause against international terrorism. That is the best solution for us, for the Iraqi people, and for the world.

I think “winning” needs to be defined. What would you call winning?

Here’s my definition:

-Crushing the Iraq Army

-Capturing Saddam

-Planting a democracy

Having accomplished all of the above, we are certainly winning in my opinion.

The only thing left for total victory would be to leave and then have the democracy run on it’s own.

If this final event happens then I think we won.

As of right now, we are most definitely winning. And anyone who questions Jeff’s assertion should indeed open their eyes to the reality of the situation.

I wonder how many haters on this thread would be acting this way if a democrat were occupying the White House.

Am I now a cheerleader for realistically assessing what has happened? Yet, I am NOT a cheerleader for disagreeing with President Bush on other matters…right?

You far lefties are actually good to have around…Cheap entertainment!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I sure am glad we’ve got ‘objective’ sites like antiwar.com to show us the real truth!

I’m sorry, NP, but some of the stuff you post is just a plain old-fashioned knee-slapper! Please don’t stop!![/quote]

There’s no such thing as objectivity. Stop whining and just respond to the article. It’s either right or it’s wrong. And if it’s wrong, there must be a reason for it. Until you can demonstrate that reason, the site is as legit as any other source of information. Got it?

Now I got this emailed to me and checked some of the facts. It is on point. I just thought I would post it here for all to see. Im not trying to sway anyone in there thinking here, Im not really a Bush supporter nor am I here to say the war was right or wrong. Just wanted to share the Email.

Goku

Senator John Glenn

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:

Things that make you think a little…

  1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January… In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
    That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq .
  2. When some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR…led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman…finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy. …started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson…turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton…went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing Osama has attacked us on multiple occas! ions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but…It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chapaquiddick

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale! is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I think that most of you have missed the point.

The GOAL is not to get the troops home, the GOAL of any military action is to WIN.[/quote]

The goal of a water buffalo is to graze in a rice field. The goal of a leftwing activist is to impeach Bush and bring the troops home. The goal of a military hawk is to establish American military supremacy over the middle east. When you make generalizations and treat them as universal truths, baby Jesus cries.

A statement has no meaning without a context. The context consists of the person who makes the statement, the things the statement applies to, and the recipient(s) of the statement, among other factors.

Now that we’ve established that there is no one “goal” in Iraq, we can move on to the question of how to determine a “win”. I’ll let you answer that, since you should have done it in the first place.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The war on terror, which Iraq is a large part, was taken to us, not the other way around.[/quote]

Really? In what way was the war “taken to us” when 9/11 was preceded by more than half a century of British and American imperialism, in the Middle East and elsewhere? I’m talking about the decades of American intervention all over the world.

Now, just because you and the rest of the American public don’t give a shit about what your government has done in the past, it doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of those acts. And as we have seen, the way that foreigners get Americans to care is by slamming jets into American skyscrapers. A fairly effective strategy. It will continue to be used against the U.S. as long as the American government gives foreigners a reason to hate this country by stationing troops in their homelands and dictating their private affairs.

Each of those assertions has its premise in academic theories dealing with international relations, and both of them are open to debate. Again, you need to realize this, and stop assuming that other people are going to take for granted the opinions and premises which you have chosen to believe.

On the latter assertion, I will offer the libertarian perspective:

The only way that nutjubs will ever succeed in harming the United States is if they are directly or indirectly empowered by the government. All the more reason to stop picking sides in every conflict around the world and mind our own business. Witness the U.S. backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the support given to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, the nuclear program in Iran started under the US-backed regime of the Shah.

The examples of US government fuckups in foreign affairs simply go on and on and on, like a bad joke.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
It is amazing to me to see so many Americans seemingly rooting for the other side. How do I know this? Because if you were truly for America, then you would be saying (or writing) things like:[/quote]

Everyone is rooting for “America”, from the hardcore peace activist to the old guard conservative. The problem is that “America” means different things to different people. This should be obvious enough if you put a bit of thought into the matter. A nation is not a singular entity. It consists of millions of individuals with seperate lives, seperate histories, and therefore, seperate perspectives.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(1) Stay the course until the job is finished.[/quote]

Only if you have a true understanding of the academic theories supporting this course of action and have taken everything else into consideration. This is very complex, academic, historical stuff. It’s not a matter of beating your chest and being “with us or against us”, like a WWF match.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(2) We need to wipe out all of the leaders of these terrorist organizations and the people who harbour them.[/quote]

If, in the process of wiping out said terrorists, you create more of them, the net result is a loss. This has to be considered before the latter course of action can be taken.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(3) We must protect America and Americans first by staying on the offensive.[/quote]

Okay, so you obviously buy into the argument that “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here, etc…” That’s fine. But make THAT the focal point of your argument – don’t cloak it under the guise of some phoney issue such as “patriotism”, “national duty”, etc…It has nothing to do with any of those things.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
What I am reading is the old “blame America first” crowd and how Bush is like Hitler and the U.S. is like the Nazis. Your leaders (like Hillary, Chuck Shumer, etc) also agree with you. Actually, I don’t want you to stop, because the way it is going, these positions will lead to another resounding defeat for the libs this fall in the elections for Congress.[/quote]

No, what you’re reading is different perspectives coming from people with different premises and different information than you. It’s only a very small minority that actually compares Bush to Hitler and practices that militant activism shit.

You and other neocons on this board also need to stop deluding yourselves into thinking that anyone who doesn’t support an interventionist foreign policy is a liberal; it ain’t even remotely true.

#1 Mainstream liberals aren’t opposed to war. They support it for the “right” reasons. This translates into to cheering for “humanitarian interventions” sponsored by Democratic administrations and denouncing Republican-sponsored wars as evil. Liberals and Democrats cheered when Clinton bombed Serbia in 99’, violating dozens of international laws in the process. Antiwar.com was there to document that sorry incident in detail and gave it the same treatment that would later be used to document Bush’s Iraq war. It’s interesting to note that the Antiwar site was widely supported on Freerepublic, the popular conservative forum – that is, until Bush came into office, at which point it suddenly became “garbage” in the eyes of conservatives everywhere.

Antiwar.com is a paleo-conservative/libertarian/non-interventionist news & editorial site. Which brings me to my next point:

#2 You are aware of the libertarian platform, are you not? Reducing the scope of the federal government in every area, military included, is completely antithetical [opposed to] every tenet of modern liberalism. And while Libertarians may not be a blip on the national political radar, there ARE plenty of them to be found on the net. So don’t try to claim ignorance…

#3 Are you aware that the group most responsible for propogating the ideas associated with neoconservatism is a cadre of Ivy-league educated academic scholars, the majority of them being of former leftist persuasion? You’ve heard of “knowing your enemy”. Well, maybe you should know your own side.

#4 While we’re on the subject, Hil Clinton will be elected president, and the Democratic party will be rejuvenated, on a platform more hawkish than that of the Reps. The GOP is abandoning Bush and his neocon cabal. The Dems will pick up the reins where Bush left off. Watch and see.

Antiwar.com made the prediction, and it’s a plausible-enough scenario. Interesting, if nothing else:
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess - Antiwar.com

Okay, I’ve been writing too long. Enough of dealing with this nonsense. If this post is ignored by the resident neocons I will gladly quote it and repost it as many times as it takes to get a legitimate response.

[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Now I got this emailed to me and checked some of the facts. It is on point. I just thought I would post it here for all to see. Im not trying to sway anyone in there thinking here, Im not really a Bush supporter nor am I here to say the war was right or wrong. Just wanted to share the Email.[/quote]

Great post. It DOES make one think. This is exactly the type of intelligent content that is needed on this board.

Not, “you’re a hippy soy-lover” or “you’re a rightwing fanatic”.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
I think that most of you have missed the point.

The GOAL is not to get the troops home, the GOAL of any military action is to WIN.

The goal of a water buffalo is to graze in a rice field. The goal of a leftwing activist is to impeach Bush and bring the troops home. The goal of a military hawk is to establish American military supremacy over the middle east. When you make generalizations and treat them as universal truths, baby Jesus cries. [/quote]

You are an idiot – bless your heart! America doesn’t want supremacy over anyone. WE WERE ATTACKED. THEY WISH TO KILL US. WE NEED TO WIN.

Now is that so hard for you to understand?[quote]

A statement has no meaning without a context. The context consists of the person who makes the statement, the things the statement applies to, and the recipient(s) of the statement, among other factors.

Now that we’ve established that there is no one “goal” in Iraq, we can move on to the question of how to determine a “win”. I’ll let you answer that, since you should have done it in the first place.

steveo5801 wrote:
The war on terror, which Iraq is a large part, was taken to us, not the other way around.

Really? In what way was the war “taken to us” when 9/11 was preceded by more than half a century of British and American imperialism, in the Middle East and elsewhere? I’m talking about the decades of American intervention all over the world.

Now, just because you and the rest of the American public don’t give a shit about what your government has done in the past, it doesn’t make you immune to the consequences of those acts. And as we have seen, the way that foreigners get Americans to care is by slamming jets into American skyscrapers. A fairly effective strategy. It will continue to be used against the U.S. as long as the American government gives foreigners a reason to hate this country by stationing troops in their homelands and dictating their private affairs.

steveo5801 wrote:We are protected when we are on the offensive. These people will stop short of nothing to kill everyone of us if they had the chance.

Each of those assertions has its premise in academic theories dealing with international relations, and both of them are open to debate. Again, you need to realize this, and stop assuming that other people are going to take for granted the opinions and premises which you have chosen to believe.

On the latter assertion, I will offer the libertarian perspective:

The only way that nutjubs will ever succeed in harming the United States is if they are directly or indirectly empowered by the government. All the more reason to stop picking sides in every conflict around the world and mind our own business. Witness the U.S. backing of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the support given to Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, the nuclear program in Iran started under the US-backed regime of the Shah.

The examples of US government fuckups in foreign affairs simply go on and on and on, like a bad joke.

steveo5801 wrote:
It is amazing to me to see so many Americans seemingly rooting for the other side. How do I know this? Because if you were truly for America, then you would be saying (or writing) things like:

Everyone is rooting for “America”, from the hardcore peace activist to the old guard conservative. The problem is that “America” means different things to different people. This should be obvious enough if you put a bit of thought into the matter. A nation is not a singular entity. It consists of millions of individuals with seperate lives, seperate histories, and therefore, seperate perspectives.

steveo5801 wrote:
(1) Stay the course until the job is finished.

Only if you have a true understanding of the academic theories supporting this course of action and have taken everything else into consideration. This is very complex, academic, historical stuff. It’s not a matter of beating your chest and being “with us or against us”, like a WWF match.

steveo5801 wrote:
(2) We need to wipe out all of the leaders of these terrorist organizations and the people who harbour them.

If, in the process of wiping out said terrorists, you create more of them, the net result is a loss. This has to be considered before the latter course of action can be taken.

steveo5801 wrote:
(3) We must protect America and Americans first by staying on the offensive.

Okay, so you obviously buy into the argument that “we’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here, etc…” That’s fine. But make THAT the focal point of your argument – don’t cloak it under the guise of some phoney issue such as “patriotism”, “national duty”, etc…It has nothing to do with any of those things.

steveo5801 wrote:
What I am reading is the old “blame America first” crowd and how Bush is like Hitler and the U.S. is like the Nazis. Your leaders (like Hillary, Chuck Shumer, etc) also agree with you. Actually, I don’t want you to stop, because the way it is going, these positions will lead to another resounding defeat for the libs this fall in the elections for Congress.

No, what you’re reading is different perspectives coming from people with different premises and different information than you. It’s only a very small minority that actually compares Bush to Hitler and practices that militant activism shit.

You and other neocons on this board also need to stop deluding yourselves into thinking that anyone who doesn’t support an interventionist foreign policy is a liberal; it ain’t even remotely true.

#1 Mainstream liberals aren’t opposed to war. They support it for the “right” reasons. This translates into to cheering for “humanitarian interventions” sponsored by Democratic administrations and denouncing Republican-sponsored wars as evil. Liberals and Democrats cheered when Clinton bombed Serbia in 99’, violating dozens of international laws in the process. Antiwar.com was there to document that sorry incident in detail and gave it the same treatment that would later be used to document Bush’s Iraq war. It’s interesting to note that the Antiwar site was widely supported on Freerepublic, the popular conservative forum – that is, until Bush came into office, at which point it suddenly became “garbage” in the eyes of conservatives everywhere.

Antiwar.com is a paleo-conservative/libertarian/non-interventionist news & editorial site. Which brings me to my next point:

#2 You are aware of the libertarian platform, are you not? Reducing the scope of the federal government in every area, military included, is completely antithetical [opposed to] every tenet of modern liberalism. And while Libertarians may not be a blip on the national political radar, there ARE plenty of them to be found on the net. So don’t try to claim ignorance…

#3 Are you aware that the group most responsible for propogating the ideas associated with neoconservatism is a cadre of Ivy-league educated academic scholars, the majority of them being of former leftist persuasion? You’ve heard of “knowing your enemy”. Well, maybe you should know your own side.

#4 While we’re on the subject, Hil Clinton will be elected president, and the Democratic party will be rejuvenated, on a platform more hawkish than that of the Reps. The GOP is abandoning Bush and his neocon cabal. The Dems will pick up the reins where Bush left off. Watch and see.

Antiwar.com made the prediction, and it’s a plausible-enough scenario. Interesting, if nothing else:
Hillary Clinton, War Goddess - Antiwar.com Original

Okay, I’ve been writing too long. Enough of dealing with this nonsense. If this post is ignored by the resident neocons I will gladly quote it and repost it as many times as it takes to get a legitimate response. [/quote]

The only response I will give this drivel is that you are clearly part of the “Blame America First” crowd, and I dismiss you outright. You will blame our nation for all the evils in this world as we deserve to get it.

Well, I might remind you that it was the U.S. that saved Europe’s rear end and it is the U.S. that won the cold war, and it will be the U.S. who will stand up to these Islamic evildoers and wipe their behinds from off the face of the planet. There is no coexisting with evil – otherwise you get a 9/11.

You can repost your Blame America First diatribe as many times as you wish. That only proves that your position is the position of weakness and not of strength.

And, btw, the objective in a war IS to WIN!

[quote]JeffR wrote:
For the Good Guys to relish and the bad guys to lament.

[/quote]

God you are a fucking moron.

So people that disagree with you are officially “bad guys”?

I want them to have a free country. I want my buddies to get the fuck out of there, but I am of the opinion that it won’t happen. So I’m evil huh?

I mean, call me a communist, but I don’t think the administration’s intentions were noble, and I don’t think that we can ever “win”, whatever that means in a guerilla fight against crazed religious zealots.

But now I’m a bad guy for disagreeing? Christ, what an idiot. Go find some political site to troll around on, and leave this one alone. Although, I bet you did your “speed squats” today, right?

LOL. Amazing.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Although, I bet you did your “speed squats” today, right?

[/quote]

LOL. I refuse to believe that Jefferriffy works out at all. That means the only squatting going on involves a subsequent flush.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
So people that disagree with you are officially “bad guys”?
[/quote]

You are either with us or against us. You are against us, ab=nd any sympthy you may have for your friends is nothing more than rooting for the enemy, hoping your friends aren’t caught in the cross fire.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Hahaaa!

I knew your crazy ass would be right around the corner on this one JTF. So you’re gonna say that we’re not winning in Iraq because more journalists have died in Iraq than in WWII? You’re too funny.

Maybe we just have more coverage today from journalists than in 1944? Did you consider that? Nobody is saying that it’s a big kumbaya love fest over there, but we are winning, and that must hurt you real bad. Honestly, do you want us to win there? You don’t even have to answer that.[/quote]

You also thought Bush was a great President.

Ironically more believable than “we’re winning in Iraq”. Your criteria for “winning” would get you fired from McDonald’s.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
You also thought Bush was a great President.[/quote]

I disagree vehemently on certain issues with the president. I do however fully support the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I also fully support the president on tax cuts and many other issues.

Even in the face of my full support of Bush, I don’t recall ever saying that he was a “great” president. Reagan was a great president, please visit that thread.

[quote]
Run along now and dig up some links to how jew aliens really brought down the towers with laser beams from their eyes. Oh yea, and Bush piloted the starship and Cheney was the trigger man.

Ironically more believable than “we’re winning in Iraq”. Your criteria for “winning” would get you fired from McDonald’s. [/quote]

You’re a funny guy JTF, keep the laughs coming.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
You also thought Bush was a great President.

I disagree vehemently on certain issues with the president. I do however fully support the war on terror and the war in Iraq. I also fully support the president on tax cuts and many other issues.

Even in the face of my full support of Bush, I don’t recall ever saying that he was a “great” president. Reagan was a great president, please visit that thread.

Run along now and dig up some links to how jew aliens really brought down the towers with laser beams from their eyes. Oh yea, and Bush piloted the starship and Cheney was the trigger man.

Ironically more believable than “we’re winning in Iraq”. Your criteria for “winning” would get you fired from McDonald’s.

You’re a funny guy JTF, keep the laughs coming.

[/quote]

You guys make me cry – it’s like watching little Ricky Schroder trying to wake up the “Champ”.

[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Now I got this emailed to me and checked some of the facts. It is on point. I just thought I would post it here for all to see. Im not trying to sway anyone in there thinking here, Im not really a Bush supporter nor am I here to say the war was right or wrong. Just wanted to share the Email.

Goku

Senator John Glenn

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:

Things that make you think a little…

  1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January… In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
    That’s just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq .
  2. When some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR…led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.[/quote]
That’s a lie. Germany declared war on the US first.

Gee, I wonder how many US soldiers were killed.

That’s another lie.

My my, and he did all this single handedly without any help from anybody else. He must be the ultimate action hero.
In reality however the allies have played, and continue to play an important role in Afghanistan, and it was mostly the European diplomacy that puts nuclear inspectors in Libya and Iran. Though Bush was quick to take credit for it, I’ll grant you that.

Yeah, but there aren’t any Branch Davidian terrorist still running around, are there?

[quote]
We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.[/quote]
Yeah, but eventually she found them. Did you find anything?

You’re starting to sound a lot like that overly optimistic Iraqian minister of propaganda you know. You remember the guy? Movies of him must still be floating on the internet.

I don’t see why the big push to find some good news. I mean, I do, but what will be really good news is when Iraq is no longer a war torn region.

War is a negative. People are dying. Money is being pissed down the toilet like it is going out of style. Yeah, lets look for the good bits!

Silly rabbit, war is hell.

The only good news worth worrying about is a successful conclusion to this event. And you cheerleaders had better notice that not once did I talk about pulling out or any other nonsense. I want a successful conclusion dammit, not “good news” for the next three years as soldiers are continuing to die.

Give your chickenhawk heads a shake…

[quote]vroom wrote:
I want a successful conclusion dammit, not “good news” for the next three years as soldiers are continuing to die.
[/quote]

I keep saying the same thing. I am wondering how many people screaming how great we are doing are actually helping any of these soldiers whose lives were screwed up by this war. Their wives? We’ll be winning when our men stop dying and losing limbs. This football fan bullshit is retarded.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
I want a successful conclusion dammit, not “good news” for the next three years as soldiers are continuing to die.

I keep saying the same thing. I am wondering how many people screaming how great we are doing are actually helping any of these soldiers whose lives were screwed up by this war. Their wives? We’ll be winning when our men stop dying and losing limbs. This football fan bullshit is retarded.[/quote]

It’s not only retarded. It’s also not true.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1150321812412&call_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World&pubid=968163964505

War on terror called failure
Another 9/11 `inevitable,’ experts conclude

Washington’s diplomatic efforts rated 1.8 out of 10

Washington is failing to make progress in the global war on terror and the next 9/11-style attack is not a question of if, but when. That is the scathing conclusion of a survey of 100 leading American foreign-policy analysts.

In its first “Terrorism Index,” released yesterday, the influential journal Foreign Policy found surprising consensus among the bipartisan experts.

Some 86 per cent of them said the world has grown more, not less, dangerous, despite President George W. Bush’s claims that the U.S. is winning the war on terror.

The main reasons for the decline in security, they said, were the war in Iraq, the detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay, U.S. policy towards Iran and U.S. energy policy.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
So people that disagree with you are officially “bad guys”?

You are either with us or against us. You are against us, ab=nd any sympthy you may have for your friends is nothing more than rooting for the enemy, hoping your friends aren’t caught in the cross fire.

IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

[/quote]

Bullshit. Nothing is ever as black and white as you make it seem Rainjack, especially the dynamics of an invasion and occupation of another soverign state.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
I want a successful conclusion dammit, not “good news” for the next three years as soldiers are continuing to die.

I keep saying the same thing. I am wondering how many people screaming how great we are doing are actually helping any of these soldiers whose lives were screwed up by this war. Their wives? We’ll be winning when our men stop dying and losing limbs. This football fan bullshit is retarded.[/quote]

War is Peace.

A low level war is perfect to keep fear mongering high and make all who oppose seem “Un-American”.

We will drive dissent down and walk upon it’s face…

This is such a great segment with reporter Lara Logan about the situation in Iraq.

As she explains, reporters used to be able to DRIVE almost anywhere in Iraq (remember that?) – and now about the only way they can travel at all is by military helicopter escort. (and they’re still getting killed)

Also she’s way hot - and that British accent, mmmm. That’s a T-woman right there.

And this just in:
From the US Embassy in Baghdad, a Grim Report

  1. Good to see good news.

  2. Being excited about good news is not the equivalent of pretending that the war is cost-free, error-free, or without concerns for the long-term future.

  3. Good news leads to a faster conclusion to this war - bad news does not. The more stories we hear about strengthening Iraqi civil and security institutions, dead al-Qaeda members, and Iraqis feeling antsy about being independent makes the US that much closer to bringing the troops home.