Preparing for Pelosi

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When Obama came into office in 2009 and started babbling eagerly about gun bans...

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.

oralloy wrote:

No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment.

oralloy wrote:

No, Obama would LOVE to violate the Second Amendment.

A ban on assault weapons doesn't violate the second amendment.