1
   

Kerry's secret plan to get the US out of Iraq

 
 
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 12:00 am
Where have I heard something like this before? Smile

Actually, I have a secret plan to make $1,000,000.00

Send me $50 bucks and I'll tell you how.....
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,035 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
PoeticMisterE
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 12:02 am
haha nice one man yea he doesn't really tell how he is going to do it either does Bush
0 Replies
 
padmasambava
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:05 am
You guys are the masters of the preconceived idea.

You're either psychic or you have a case swamp gas ufo sighting syndrome.

If you listened to Kerry's statements he was clear in how he differs from GW. GW has blown the opportunity to bring in massive forces from other countries and he isn't pitching for it either.

Bush and his xenophobic followers aren't interested in anything less than world domination. And they'd to take away the rights of the many here in the process to make themselves feel safe an unmolested by criticism or dissent from the other party. Their supporters are those who think that they won't be targeted after their rights have been erased.

I wouldn't bet on it and that's why I will vote for Kerry.

Bush has no intention of completing his eternal great war until he has continued to alienate his chosen barbarians in Iraq, and has decimated them until he can safely gain access to the petroleum reserves without intervention.

That is Bush's aim - and it is what he intends to continue to aim at. If it takes forever and burdens the working classes thats good!

If it requires a constant tribute of our young men and women putting their lives on the line wonderful. If you lose one, think of the adornment to the mantle piece and the nice smart photo of your deceased loved one in uniform that was taken just for this eventuality.

The CIA and Kerry and others know that the cost will be phenomenal. It already is. And Bush has wrung the economy out prior to leaving a poorly equipped army on the ground in Iraq.

There is no argument that Bush's plan is working unless you never watch C-span, you're unaware of the reports to congressional committees of the failure and futility, and you buy into the claim that this operation is both successful and moving with a plan and direction, vote for the governor. Elect him for the first time if you must and you can get a majority.

If you can believe we are making great progress in Iraq just based on todays news, you can believe anything. People believe in UFOs. They believe in UFOs because they want to believe in them. Crop circles are often hoaxes. Those that aren't are natural phenomena. A skilled idiot will think they are both caused by flying saucers. (Why not a flying teapot)?

The one of the two presidential candidates I'd trust to get us out of Iraq the fastest would be the one who doesn't want this war to go on forever. That would be Kerry.

If you think Bush or his followers intend to finish this war before the end of his next term (should he win one) you may be mistaken. The reason Kerry can do it is due to one basic difference: he'll try to get it done in his first term.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 03:18 am
Pad...

...super post.

Don't think I can add anything of value so I won't even try.

Thanks for posting it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 05:04 am
What's the difference between the Vietnam war and the present Iraq conflict? ....






George Bush had good plan to get out of the Vietnam war.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 04:41 pm
Hey pad, how come you never responded to my observation of your contempt for the 1st Amemdment?

You know, where you said an entertainer on TV should be beat up and given black eyes and a bloody nose for voicing an opinion?

Kerry now has a "plan". What kind of plan? Well, he is going to hold a summit with the countries who refused to support the US and the UN in confronting Iraq and their refusual to abide by UN sanctions.

And magically, Iraq will be tamed! Yea!

Talk about believing in anything.....

Once again, Kerry was saying anything he needed to say to please an audience, without any thought or regard to the real world. And if his focus groups show he should change his opinion, he will.

Just like his has, again and again and again.

Fantasyland, indeed.....
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 05:29 pm
A Lone Voice wrote:
Kerry now has a "plan". What kind of plan? Well, he is going to hold a summit with the countries who refused to support the US and the UN in confronting Iraq and their refusual to abide by UN sanctions.


Continue to ignore the obvious, things are going like crap right now and there is NO plan to do anything different. Now, Here are Kerry's four points. . .

Internationalize, because others must share the burden;

Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;

Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror

Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.


Now what's Bush's plan, I don't expect an answer because he has NO PLAN!!!! WTF? Were in a hellstorm and Bush wants to keep it that way, just as long as his base get's their money from government contracts, utterly disgusting. He shoult be censured for treason.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 06:09 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:
Kerry now has a "plan". What kind of plan? Well, he is going to hold a summit with the countries who refused to support the US and the UN in confronting Iraq and their refusual to abide by UN sanctions.


Continue to ignore the obvious, things are going like crap right now and there is NO plan to do anything different. Now, Here are Kerry's four points. . .

Internationalize, because others must share the burden;

Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;

Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror

Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.


Now what's Bush's plan, I don't expect an answer because he has NO PLAN!!!! WTF? Were in a hellstorm and Bush wants to keep it that way, just as long as his base get's their money from government contracts, utterly disgusting. He shoult be censured for treason.


This is irony, right?

-Internationalize, because others must share the burden;

-Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security;

-Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror

-Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country.

Currently, the US is doing those things. Yet when Kerry says, "I'll do them better!", all you libs stand up and cheer.

Yet, he hasn't explained HOW he will do anything different. If you lefties were true to your beliefs, you would be shouting Kerry down. But just because Dems are obsessed with regaining some form of power, you support Kerry.

Pathetic.....
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Oct, 2004 07:18 pm
Joe Republican wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:
Kerry now has a "plan". What kind of plan? Well, he is going to hold a summit with the countries who refused to support the US and the UN in confronting Iraq and their refusual to abide by UN sanctions.


Continue to ignore the obvious, things are going like crap right now and there is NO plan to do anything different. Now, Here are Kerry's four points. . .

Internationalize, because others must share the burden;


In other words, enlist the aid of Kofi Annan, Chirac and the east german commies running Germany these days in disarming Saddam Hussein while they're taking oil4food&terrorism payola FROM Saddam Hussein, right?

Kerry reminds me of G. Gordon Liddy in his younger days. There was this sort of a media/message disconnect. If you didn't pay any particular attention to what the guy was saying, he sounded like an Oxford don or a gentleman of the old school but, the first time you ever actually listened to four sentences in a row and paid attention to what was being said, the impression was GEEEEEEsh, this son of a bitch is CRAZY.

I had Kerry down for an A for style and an F for substance last night and Bush with about a C+ for style and a B+ or A- for substance. Still an easy choice which does not favor Kerry.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 07:09 am
gungasnake wrote:

I had Kerry down for an A for style and an F for substance last night and Bush with about a C+ for style and a B+ or A- for substance. Still an easy choice which does not favor Kerry.



You gotta be joking!

Kerry gets an "F" for substance...and Bush a B+ or A-!!!!!


In that debate?????




I have never heard nor seen denial like the stuff coming out of Bush supporters during this campaign.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 09:21 am
Kerry actually stood there claiming that we needed to give Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, aand the French and Germans another six months to "negotiate" with Saddam Hussein while 150,000 American soldiers sat there until the weather got impossible, when the whole world knows that two of Blix's aides were taking money from Saddam Hussein as were numerous people in the French, German, and Russian governments.

What were those guys going to negotiate? More money for themselves??

Give me a reason why that doesn't earn an F for content.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 11:05 am
gungasnake wrote:
Kerry actually stood there claiming that we needed to give Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, aand the French and Germans another six months to "negotiate" with Saddam Hussein while 150,000 American soldiers sat there until the weather got impossible, when the whole world knows that two of Blix's aides were taking money from Saddam Hussein as were numerous people in the French, German, and Russian governments.

What were those guys going to negotiate? More money for themselves??

Give me a reason why that doesn't earn an F for content.



How about having a president with enough brains not to put 150,000 American soldiers in a position such as you mentioned?

There were no weapons of mass destruction!!!!

Can't you get that through your head?

Saddam was cooperating!

He was being underhanded, of course, but so was George Bush.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 11:23 am
Frank Apisa wrote:


How about having a president with enough brains not to put 150,000 American soldiers in a position such as you mentioned?

There were no weapons of mass destruction!!!!

Can't you get that through your head?

Saddam was cooperating!

He was being underhanded, of course, but so was George Bush.


I guess you could say there were no weapons of mass destruction after people like you gave Hussein an extra 8 months to move them all to Syria ...

The idea of "cooperating" and being underhanded at the same time might work in some language I'm not familiar with; it doesn't work in English.

Other than that, I can think of ten or fifteen reasons for the troops to have been there and no reason for them not to have been. Aside from terrorism and everything else, Hussein and the threat he posed to Saudi Arabia was the major reason we had to have troops in Saudi Arabia with targets painted on them.

But the hell of it is that the dems are right in one thing, i.e. that there were a half dozen or so regimes in the region which need(ed) either taking down or having their attitudes adjusted, and you could almost flip coins or draw straws as to where you started. W. has taken one down and affected the necessary adjustment on at least one (Libya) and probably another (Syria), leaving only Saudi Arabia and Iran to deal with. My own view is that W. and his organization were correct in choosing Iraq as the starting point, but I don't see that as a big deal. W was going to start SOMEWHERE, and Gore in all likelihood would not have and Kerry would not.

As to North Korea, Clinton himself was on the edge ot taking that regime out and the south Koreans vetoed it, and North Korea is clearly more of a problem for Japan, Russia, and China than it is for us. W. is absolutely correct in wanting them to carry their fair share of the burdon in fixing whatever is broken in that place.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 11:34 am
gungasnake wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:


How about having a president with enough brains not to put 150,000 American soldiers in a position such as you mentioned?

There were no weapons of mass destruction!!!!

Can't you get that through your head?

Saddam was cooperating!

He was being underhanded, of course, but so was George Bush.


I guess you could say there were no weapons of mass destruction after people like you gave Hussein an extra 8 months to move them all to Syria ...


Boy...once one of you people go delusional...there is no escape for you, is there?



Quote:
The idea of "cooperating" and being underhanded at the same time might work in some language I'm not familiar with; it doesn't work in English.


Oh it works just fine in English...unless you are a person who has closed his/her mind to the possibility.

Fact is, damn near every politician in the United States OFTEN cooperates with others while being underhanded.

But you don't want to understand what I am saying. You have your delusions to defend.


Quote:
Other than that, I can think of ten or fifteen reasons for the troops to have been there and no reason for them not to have been. Aside from terrorism and everything else, Hussein and the threat he posed to Saudi Arabia was the major reason we had to have troops in Saudi Arabia with targets painted on them.


Since this attack was presented as a response to the 9-11 attack on us...and since almost the entire attacking group was Saudi....just why in hell do you consider it anything less than insane to attack a country that posed a threat to Saudi Arabia.

Why would WE not be posing a threat to Saudi Arabia??????????




Hey...don't get me wrong, Gunga. I'm not holding any of this nonsense against you.

Delusions can be very persistent.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 04:46 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:


Since this attack was presented as a response to the 9-11 attack on us...and since almost the entire attacking group was Saudi....just why in hell do you consider it anything less than insane to attack a country that posed a threat to Saudi Arabia.

Why would WE not be posing a threat to Saudi Arabia??????????



The government's probably not going to do it (invade Saudi Arabia) for several reasons I could think of, including:

1. The Saudi GOVERNMENT has given us no cause for it. A few of their lunatic CITIZENS obviously have given us cause for action, but we have lunatic citizens of our own (democrats for instance).

Here's what I think happened on 9-11. The old guy who's been running Saudi Arabia is about to croak and the guys next in line are all in their seventies (time ain't on their side either), and Osama binLaden, being in the next generation down, thought he saw a chance to leapfrog the septuagenarians if he could score enough moxie points by walking up to the 800-lb. gorilla which appeared to be asleep, and kicking him in the balls. The reason he figured he could get by with that was the total lack of response to similar but smaller scale atrocities over the last eight years; he figured the Americans would simply lob a few cruise missiles his way and, after a few weeks, it'd blow over. If he had any idea what was actually going to happen, he'd not have done it.

This whole deal of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Israel, and absolutely nothing to do with American policies in the middle east. It had everything to do with Clinton's lack of a policy towards terrorism. In the history of the world there is no example of a country being attacked for appearing to be too strong and resolute. You get attacked by appearing weak and feckless.

2. Saudi Arabia is a major fraction of the world's total oil production and throwing Saudi Arabia into political chaos could throw the entire world into chaos. Oil of course is totally fungible and the fact that we buy very little of our oil from Saudi would not help us.

There are several other reasons why the government isn't likely to do anything directly about Saudi Arabia, nonetheless, recent events, influenced by American action in the region, have put the Saudi government painfully on notice that they cannot tolerate terrorism in their midst and they appear to be taking it a great deal more seriously.

Now, aside from government action, the other possibily I can see here would be something like an old people's version of one of the children's crusades of the middle ages. If you can organize something like that for people over 50, I'll join you in a heartbeat. The objectives should include the overthrow of the Saudi regime, the elimination of Islam and the forcible conversion of Saudi Arabia and the entire middle east to either Christianity of Judaeism, and the capture of that big green monstrosity we see pictures of and its conversion into an NFL football stadium. Teach the idiots to play football, and with any luck they'll give up on other forms of violence and terrorism.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 08:36 pm
gungasnake, you are not making conservative's messages any easier with crap like that.

Didn't think I would be saying this so soon, Frank, but have at em'.........
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Oct, 2004 09:37 pm
A Lone Voice wrote:
gungasnake, you are not making conservative's messages any easier with crap like that.

Didn't think I would be saying this so soon, Frank, but have at em'.........


Me??

Apisa's the one who wants to invade Saudi Arabia

Quote:
Why would WE not be posing a threat to Saudi Arabia??????????


I had the guy figured for a typical pinko leftist at first, but it sounds like the guy's got balls. All I'm saying is, count me in. Put something like that together and I'd even be willing to teach a bunch of democrats how to use assault rifles.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 10:57 am
A Lone Voice wrote:
gungasnake, you are not making conservative's messages any easier with crap like that.

Didn't think I would be saying this so soon, Frank, but have at em'.........



With what?

The moron has got our armed forces tied up settling personal family feuds.
0 Replies
 
John Kerry
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 11:25 am
Sshhh it is so secret I don't even know.
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2004 02:57 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:
gungasnake, you are not making conservative's messages any easier with crap like that.

Didn't think I would be saying this so soon, Frank, but have at em'.........



With what?

The moron has got our armed forces tied up settling personal family feuds.


When people like gunga start talking about "overthrow of the Saudi regime, the elimination of Islam and the forcible conversion of Saudi Arabia and the entire middle east to either Christianity of Judaeism" I tend to vomit.

It actually makes me side with you, Frank, when knuckleheads like gunga start jabbering about modern day Crusades.

In fact, is gunga a lib double-agent, trying to make Repub moderates appear to support nonsense such as this? Smile

I just want to be the first to point out that this guy is not on MY side....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kerry's secret plan to get the US out of Iraq
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2025 at 09:13:54