mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 02:18 pm
JTT wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?


STFU and wait and see. What's been happening has clearly been a major clusterf**k from the get go, brought to you by stunning incompetence.

Tribute to your thought processes that you think that the military action so far has solved these problems.


Dont you EVER tell me to STFU.
You have no right and no authority to tell me to do anything.

I suggest you sit quiet and learn from your betters,and listen to the people that have been there and KNOW whats happening.

But,I also notice you didnt answer the question,so I will ask it another way.
What will you consider a win in Iraq and what do you think it will take to accomplish that?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 02:58 pm
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?

How do you define winning MM?

Do win if we kill 10,000 terrorists but create 1 billion more terrorists?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 03:26 pm
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?

How do you define winning MM?

Do win if we kill 10,000 terrorists but create 1 billion more terrorists?


We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or external.
We win by successfully creating up a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 03:27 pm
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?

How do you define winning MM?

Do win if we kill 10,000 terrorists but create 1 billion more terrorists?


We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or internal.
We win by successfully creating up a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 03:27 pm
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
Last year there were probably 5 times the terrorist attacks worldwide that there were in 2000. Hardly something to brag about if the goal is to reduce terrorism worldwide. Oh, but that's right, Americans aren't dying here on US soil. They are just dying in greater numbers overseas.


How many if you parse out terrorist attacks in Iraq?

I more than took out attacks in Iraq.

Terrorist attacks in 2000 according to 2000 terrorism report.
423 attacks,
405 people killed.
19 Americans killed, 17 of them were military personnel on the Cole.
2 civilian US citizens killed outside Iraq

Terrorist attacks in 2005 according to 2005 terrorism report.
11,111 attacks, (A hell of a lot more than 5 times, 26 times 2000)
14,600 people killed, (36 times 2000)
56 non military US deaths.
Only 30% of the attacks were in Iraq. 3,474 attacks in Iraq. (Don't include Iraq and still a hell of a lot more than 5 times)
10 US citizens were killed outside Iraq (5 times that of 2000)

Bush has not reduced terrorism. It has gone up every year. 2005 was 3 times what it was in 2004 which was higher than 2003, which was higher than 2002. I see a trend here that has NOTHING to do with reducing terrorism.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 03:29 pm
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?

How do you define winning MM?

Do win if we kill 10,000 terrorists but create 1 billion more terrorists?


We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or external.
We win by successfully creating up a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.

I see, so your goal of winning has NOTHING to do with winning the war but it is a problem to be solved that will not be solved by US soldiers.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 05:20 pm
[/quote]

Dont you EVER tell me to STFU.
You have no right and no authority to tell me to do anything.[/quote]


Clearly I do for I did. When you put forward such inanities, everyone should exercise their right to tell you to STFU.


mysteryman wrote:

We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or external.

That's exactly what you have. The insurgents fighting the invaders. What more could you ask of any country.

We win by successfully creating up [sic] a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.

That's never been the policy of the US; EVER. It's create any old dictatorship/"government" as long as they do our bidding.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 05:20 pm
[/quote]

Dont you EVER tell me to STFU.
You have no right and no authority to tell me to do anything.[/quote]


Clearly I do for I did. When you put forward such inanities, everyone should exercise their right to tell you to STFU.


mysteryman wrote:

We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or external.

That's exactly what you have. The insurgents fighting the invaders. What more could you ask of any country.

We win by successfully creating up [sic] a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.

That's never been the policy of the US; EVER. It's create any old dictatorship/"government" as long as they do our bidding.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Nov, 2006 05:26 pm
STFU? What exactly does that stand for? I think I got the FU part.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 12:32 am
Shut The F*ck Up =STFU
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 08:15 am
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
WE have already seen how Nancy Pelosi wants to handle the Iraq war.
She told Brit Hume on Special Report wednesday, in an interview that it "wasnt a war,it was a problem to be solved."

She also said that you could "define winning anyway you choose".

So,if its not a war and we can define winning anyway we want,if every US soldier in Iraq dies this week,will she consider that a win?

How do you define winning MM?

Do win if we kill 10,000 terrorists but create 1 billion more terrorists?


We win by creating up a successful,stable govt able to defend itself against all enemies,be they external or external.
We win by successfully creating up a govt that is "of,by,and for"the Iraqi people,no matter what form that govt takes.

I see, so your goal of winning has NOTHING to do with winning the war but it is a problem to be solved that will not be solved by US soldiers.


A diplomatic solution is always to be preferred,but it isnt possible right now.

If the insurgents were only trying to drive us out so that Iraq would be "unoccupied",then they would limit their attacks to the US and other coalition troops.

When they attack marketplaces,schools,and other civilian targets,they are not trying to win,they are trying to create terror.
Before Iraq can be a stable govt,those insurgents must be totally destroyed.
To do that,you need to use military force.
If the insurgents really wanted a stable Iraq,they would have stopped killing soldiers and civilians.

So,as long as the insurgents are killing innocent,unarmed women and children,we will stay there and fight them.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Nov, 2006 08:16 am
talk, oh. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 06:02 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Nancy Pelosi is coming to take away your guns!


It looks that way. The NRA is going to have their hands full defending our civil rights from both Pelosi and the UN.

I hope they can manage it.


I owe Nancy Pelosi an apology for this ancient post.

When Obama came into office in 2009 and started babbling eagerly about gun bans, Pelosi (figuratively) kneed him in the balls and told him to get his grubby paws off our Constitution.

Kudos to Pelosi for being pro-gun at a time when everyone feared for our freedom!
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:21 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
When Obama came into office in 2009 and started babbling eagerly about gun bans...

And now you owe Obama an apology.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 09:37 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
When Obama came into office in 2009 and started babbling eagerly about gun bans...


And now you owe Obama an apology.


No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment. It is only thanks to Nancy Pelosi and the Supreme Court that we still have our freedom today.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:49 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS42uN7tmlNB0Jn0HmpdttOl3KqrDDCnuOtUowmFvzIMfqGcTXDEw
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 09:50 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS42uN7tmlNB0Jn0HmpdttOl3KqrDDCnuOtUowmFvzIMfqGcTXDEw


Yeah - from what orifice do you pull that particular canard?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 11:03 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS42uN7tmlNB0Jn0HmpdttOl3KqrDDCnuOtUowmFvzIMfqGcTXDEw


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 12:01 pm
@oralloy,
A ban on assault weapons doesn't violate the second amendment.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 05:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
A ban on assault weapons doesn't violate the second amendment.


Sure it does. Strict scrutiny means that a law is only constitutional if the government has a compelling reason to have it, and even then only if the law is narrowly tailored to address that compelling need.

The government has no compelling need to ban cosmetic features like pistol grips and flash suppressors.

And any law that bans them along with other things, is not narrowly tailored.

Nancy Pelosi single-handedly rescued America from tyranny when she put a stop to Obama's evil plot to overthrow American freedom. I will forever be grateful for her heroism.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 10:20:21