What bothers me about the Dems right now....

Foxfyre wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.

Show me a couple of quotes from any Democrat in Congress or running for office that is supportive of President Bush and/or encourages the troops to do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemies of a free and independent Iraq, and I'll withdraw my statement.

Until then, you only make my case beautifully my friend.

so because I think bush and his war are a total failure that automatically means I WANT this war to fail and continue to take the lives of our soldiers and piss away my tax money and degrade our status in the world and divert money that could be spent on infrasturcture, education and health services to a failed war just so I can talk **** about bush?

Because you make my case re: you idiots, beautifully with that sort of nonsensical horseshit honey.

Was't that an episode of M.A.S.H. Or was it, "who's responsible?

I'd say about 50/50 between Saddam for his idiotic decade of defiance and Bush... Okay, blaming's done. Now wtf are we going to do about it?

Thanks Fox!

BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!

FreeDuck wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.

Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?

"Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?"

Sorry for highlighting it twice, but I needed to be sure about this.

Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad?

That sure seems to be a winning repub strategy. More soldiers die = Bush not looking bad....

Really?

But tell me, Duck: How will you feel if the surge begins to work? What if a couple of months from now, Iraq is stable?

Will you rejoice?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

cicerone imposter wrote:

BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!

I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...

Makes as much sense as "wanting us to lose so that Bush looks bad", doesn't it? To be clear I'm saying that both are nonsense and apply only to the fringe on either end.

Quote:

But tell me, Duck: How will you feel if the surge begins to work? What if a couple of months from now, Iraq is stable?

Will you rejoice?

Well, I might've been the wrong person to ask, ALV because the truth is that I'm not against the surge. (I'm also not a Democrat, but maybe that is beside the point.) Dems were saying for a long time that we needed more troops, and it seems like a ridiculous about-face now for them to say, well, now that you see it our way, what we really want is for them all to come home. If these new additional troops are well-placed and can bring stability, well, stability is what I'm for. I will indeed rejoice if Iraq becomes stable, regardless of how it got that way.

Well, I take that back, killing everyone in the country would bring stability but that wouldn't make me rejoice. I don't have much faith in Bush to fix this mess before he leaves office. I think he is too stubborn and spiteful to come up with anything that will actually work long term. But I have hopes that someone under him will be competent enough to pull something off.

A Lone Voice wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

BPB, Hurray! These war-mongers know how to twist things around to make it seem that the anti-war group wants us to fail, and our soldiers killed and maimed, while spending two billion every week in a failed war. They don't understand anything about what and who took us into this war on false information, then changed their justifications so many times, it's now become "the democrats don't offer any solutions!"

This from the president that made light of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, and refuses to negotiate with Iran.

That's chutzpah!

I happen to agree with you, in some respects.

I don't like the bad intel, I don't like the way Rumsfield shut out his military staff, and I don't like the fact we are failing.

But you are showing your ignorance by stereotyping me.

I'm "twisting things around" by asking a simple question?

Why do you people refuse to answer this rather simple question? What is about this that is causing such hatred on your part?

Can't some of you answer me? Or is it too hard to answer the question and face yourself?

Will you rejoice if Iraq is stable in two months?

Your silence is thundering...

I will certainly rejoice when every last american in Iraq is laid to waste from an IED or a snipers bullet, I will dance in the streets and sacrifice a goat. That's how much I hate Bush and america and every thing it stands for? Why you ask? Why just because I'm a LIBERAL.

ALV, Your assumption about Iraq being stable in two months is an idea that too far from reality. We've tried "surges" in the past, and they didn't work. What makes you think a time-lined surge of 21,500 more troops will change the sectarian violence in two months? Do we wish for it to be successful? Who doesn't?

The 21,500 troops will be ill-equipped and untrained to fight in a civil war. They will become the targets of the Iraqis and insurgents, and all we'll accomplish is more of our soldiers dead and maimed.

More of the same is not the solution; something Bush and the neocons refuses to understand.

For those who argue that when the American People and congress discusses the Iraq war, we motivate the terrorists is hyperbole; ours is a democracy that allows for challenging the wrong path for our country.

There's a reason for having the three branches of government; it's called the balance of power. Our government works for the American People.

"If the surge succeeds in two months" is a wet dream, but I'll be the first one on a2k to admit that I was wrong if they do succeed. Everything in the past tells me it ain't gonna happen, except get more of our soldiers killed and maimed.

Brandon,

If (hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqis did not support the "democratically elected" government, and in fact voted almost entirely along ethnic lines.

If (also hypothetically speaking of course) the majority of Iraqi's now had no alligience to the "democratically elected" government, infact if (again hypothetically) they thought the whole thing a sham set up by an occupying force.

And, if (hypothetically) the vast number of attacks against US troops in Iraq were commited by Iraqis (not foreign fighters), and (hypothetically speaking) the US army itself admited as much.

And (hypotheticially) if most of the Iraqis identified far more closely with their ethnic/religious group then any loyalty to a governemen that (hypothetically) everyone knows is (hypothetically) impotent.

And, if (of course completely hypothetically speaking) the majority of Iraqis opposed the US occupation, including over 50% of Iraqi citizens asked say killing US troops was morally justifiable action against an occupation.

And if (and I am really stretching here, but bear with me) the majority of American citizens felt the war was not only unjustified, but wanted a timetable to withdraw American troops as soon as possible. And if (stay with me) hypothetically they Americans opposing the war had an unexpected success in mid-term elections backed up by every poll.

Now I know I have made a lot of stuff up here, but I want to see how far your commitment is... And this is a yes or no question.

Under these ridiculous circumstances would you contemplate withdrawing US troops from Iraq?

I will absolutely celebrate if there is a positive outcome in Iraq.

For me this would mean an rapid end to violence (including the Iraq civil war) and a political settlement that is accepted by the vast majority of all Iraqis.

If Bush can pull this off, I will happily admit I was wrong.

If the violence continues to escalate, the Iraqis continue to kill Americans and each other I am going to be even angrier, especially if the Bush fans keep claiming victory as people die and hatred escalates.

They have had more than enough chances, made more than enough false claims and be wrong more than enough times. He doesn't deserve the one more chance that it seems likely he will demand.

All logic tells me that in spite of this surge, we will still be having the same stupid argument in six months (and in a year).

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.

Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?

FreeDuck wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

you idiots and your "we want the war to fail and go badly so we can blame bush". grow the hell up.

and btw... the war is already a miserable failure and was doomed from day one.

Where are the complaints about the Republicans who want soldiers to keep dying so that Bush won't look bad? If you believe that the Dems are capable of the one, then you have to believe that the Republicans are capable of the other, right?

Show me evidence that there is even one Republican who wants the war so that Bush won't look bad.