143 democrats vote against victory in Iraq,

Well,after reading that thread,your thoughts mean nothing.

When you actively root for Americans to die,and when you actively root for as many American casualties as possible,do you realy expect to be taken seriously on anything you say about the war?

mysteryman wrote:

Well,after reading that thread,your thoughts mean nothing.

You read that entire thread in less than an hour?

mysteryman wrote:

When you actively root for Americans to die,and when you actively root for as many American casualties as possible,do you realy expect to be taken seriously on anything you say about the war?

Not that I care about your opinion regarding the seriousness of my views, but I do not actively root for as many American casualties as possible. I want the US to withdraw immediately, which would entail the fewest casualties possible. It is people like you, mysteryman, who want to vigorously prosecute the war, that are actively rooting for as many American casualties as possible.

When you say that you want America to lose,then you are rooting for as many American casualties as possible.

You can try to spin it any way you want,but the bottom line doesnt change.

You have had too much coffee . . . i'm just making my second cup, give me a break . . .

When you root for America to lose,there is only one way we can.

That would be for the enemy to inflict so many casualties that the American people,en masse, rise up in opposition to the war.
The Vietnam war was lost that way.

So,since you want the US to lose,you want us to suffer casualties.

The Vietnam War could have been lost in any number of ways. Just because Johnson and Nixon tried just one approach doesn't mean that's the only way.

Quote:

The operative heart of House Resolution 612 reads: "[S]etting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq…."

"House Resolution 612 is a prescription for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely," said Abercrombie. "It appears to have been written in concert with the Republican National Committee. It dovetails perfectly with their t.v. ads attacking Democrats who question President Bush's flawed decision to go to war and his subsequent mismanagement of the conflict."

At the same time House Republican leaders were rushing House Resolution 612 through the chamber with minimal debate, they refused to bring to the floor a measure (House Resolution 613) containing bipartisan language congratulating Iraqis for successfully conducting an election for a national government.

"This cynical partisan manipulation is unworthy of our troops," said Abercrombie. "They've done everything we've asked of them, and they deserve our thanks and support. Our challenge now is to formulate a policy worthy of their heroism and sacrifices. House Resolution 612 fails miserably in that regard. Instead, it substitutes empty posturing for serious policy deliberation."

Link

So Joe,you think we should lose?

Your mind surely doesn't change . . . of that we can be certain . . .

MM thinks it is amusing that the Republican congressmen tweaked the nose of the Democrats.

I imagine he will be just as amused when the Republicans get tweaked. Surely he will.

(6) setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq;