Not conservatives, neo-cons.

No, he will not win, he will be a spoiler for the Bush'ists.

What a load.

It's not my opinion. The most powerful Shiites in Iraq, the ones that control the government, the ones we are fighting for, are aligned with Iraq and Syria, our enemies. They have condemned Israel while holding mass demonstrations in support of Hezbollah.

If you are going to support continuing to send our men and women to fight and die for foreigners, at least have some clue what the hell you are talking about. For God's sake, at least take the time to find out who they are.

Oh, oh, oh!! Lemme Rodeo, can I, can I, ppplllllluuuueeeezzzeee???

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1155178621.jpg

No, I for one am mystified that you can't see WTF is going on. You are worse than the GOP was just prior to WWII, and this time the other side has been promoting exactly what their intentions are.

At least Adolf made nice for a while before he had his boys kicking in doors and putting numbers on peoples forearms, this crowd is much more straight up telling us in well produced videotapes what they want.

Obviously we need to get out of Iraq, but if we do it in a stupid manner, it will be promoted as a defeat by our opponents, which is one of several reasons the Israelis are still shooting at Lebanon. If it is not broken off just right, the gates of Hell open up

Isn't that guy the Kingmaker? I'm pretty sure he's the Kingmaker. Rodeo, am I right, is he the Kingmaker?

Not funny. Good people are dying.

That's one of the men controlling the deployment of our military forces. That one of the radical Muslims George Bush has us working for, and will keep us working for until he says we can go home.

I don't want to work for him. That makes me a "liberal" right?

No, it makes you a broken record.

but gee rodeo, if the Syrians and Iranians are on the same side as the guys we are supporting, why do they keep sending troops(insurgents),supplies and support to foght against the government, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children for every American they manage to kill?

Wait, the Arab dead are all martyrs, so it is all good, and the local population is thinned out a bit, they can sweep through Iraq on their way to the Mediterranean Sea more easily, it all makes so much sense.

Yeah, that militia dude is telling us what to do, I think I read that on the dailykos or maybe the NY Times:rolleyes:

Just so I know I'm getting this right..... your mentioning that "good men are dying" automatically costs me the argument, correct? It's kind of a trump card if I recall correctly. I mean I could throw out a reasoned argument with facts and citations and you can come back with "good men are dying" and I'de be stuck. Your debate-fu is strong indeed!

You have the parties completely mixed up.

Unbelievable that you vocally support making better men and women put their lives on the line every day, for a foreign nation, and you are CLUELESS.

The "insurgents" are Sunnis, assclown. The "government" is Shiite, just like Iran. And just like Hezbollah. The Shiia are using us to kill the Sunnis. When we are done with that, they will have no further use for us.

Iran is keeping things just unsettled enough that assclowns like you chant "finish the job," keep us bogged down in an impossible situation, allowing Iran to continue with its nuclear program and start wars with Israel.

You are clueless.

You are the perfect Bush supporter.

That's right, and it's to run the west out of their homelands and establish self government, or whatever type of government THEY want, in their own lands.

Quote:

At least Adolf made nice for a while before he had his boys kicking in doors and putting numbers on peoples forearms, this crowd is much more straight up telling us in well produced videotapes what they want.

No, in fact that was never true. The National Socialists had been killing and fighting in the streets for 5-6 years prior to Hitlers appointment to the Chancelory. Please, learn your history.

Quote:

Obviously we need to get out of Iraq, but if we do it in a stupid manner, it will be promoted as a defeat by our opponents, which is one of several reasons the Israelis are still shooting at Lebanon. If it is not broken off just right, the gates of Hell open up

We, Americans, need to force the US government out of Iraq immediately as fast as transports can move them out; then we need to force the US government to leave every overseas base on the planet where it has managed to insinuate itself; and finally we need to prohibit the US government from military adventures overseas by law, with deadly consequences for any lawmaker that proposes sending them anyplace outside the boundaries of the States United.

Period, no ifs, and no buts.

It's time to go back on the medication. ;)

Notice how Tobra, having been corrected in his idiotic, uninformed statement that Iran is sending insurgents to attack the Iraq government, silently goes away.

He'll pop up somewhere else, and call anyone that does not want our men and women to fight and die for the Iraqi/Iranian enemy "cowards." He'll be as clueless then as he is now.

You are asking people to put their lives on the line every day for a foreign nation! At least have the decency to figure out who you are sending them to die for.

Your debate-fu is weak, grashopper. At least try to feign concern over Americans dying for nothing.

Go right ahead, hope you have medical supervision.

Sorry buddy, I have a job, someone has to provide financial support to the Socialist Republic of California. I am self employed


Back to it,

Okay my friend, where is the financial and material support coming from for these insurgents(Iran, yeah they are sending people too), why are the Persians so hot for the Iraqui government to fail(Gives a nice black eye to the infidels, and makes it just that much easier to step in later) The Iranians are behind most of the trouble in that part of the world, they stir up lots of problems, let the US, along with the Brits, Aussies and Israelis chase around putting out fires and stay occupied. If we can get some semblance of stability in Iraq, it puts us in a much better position. We can try to deal with it now, or wait. Do you honestly believe that if we just bail it is going to make the situation in Iraq better?

I don't think you are a coward, you are an educated moron, which to me is much worse. You are absolutely convinced of your intellectual and moral superiority. You will present your opinion as unassailable fact and call anyone who disagrees with you names. I guess someone had to do this after Mul got booted, thanks for stepping up.

SmileWavy

Oh, and if you don't think the US is doing anything with respect to the Iranian nuclear situation you should try harder to keep current.

Saddam's Baath party was mostly Sunnis, so does this mean we are still fighting Saddam's forces?

Looks like we just hired them back to help make peace.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/i_latestdetail.asp?id=40178

They don't think so, I have never seen a quote from any military member who felt they were there "for nothing". Just because you say it, does not make it so.

I like how if you are not for bailing out of Iraq tomorrow you have no concern about dying Americans. Keep hitting those talking points boys

gotta go back to work, see y'all later, have some more kool aid Tech and Rodeo, gotta keep your strength up so you can hold that tinfoil hat straight

When deciding on a redeployment from an overseas military adventure, the last person I'm interested in hearing from is a soldier in the field in theater whose ego is completely wrapped up in being successful.

I think they'd be less worried about their ego being wrapped up in it than their mortal ass being wrapped up in it. . . It sounds a lot like you're attacking the troops. Although there's a SMALL amount of culpability there, let's keep the real blame for this quagmire right squarely where it belongs - on the policymakers and illusionists that created the spectre of Iraqi WMDs and phantom links to Al Qaeda. Remember who said "grave and gathering danger". That'll point you in the right direction of who the ghosts of all those dead soldiers should haunt.

The soldiers are following orders and short of EXTREME situations (spelled out in the UCMJ) they are expected to follow them to the letter under penalty of court-marshal.

Three words: Chain Of Command.

Iran is not "hot" for the Iraqi government to fail. Iraq is Iran's biggest ally in the region. Most of the people running Iraq lived in iran for the past twenty years. the insurgents have money not from iran, their arch enemy, but from years of Bath Party rule. You are clueless. You really have no idea of who's who.

Iran stirs up trouble in Iraq with Shiite death squads, which operate alonside Iraq's Shiite death squads. They are killing Sinnis so that when they kick America out on its arse, there are no pesky Sunnis to bohter them. Iran wants America to stay in Iraq, just like you. Does that concern you at all, that you have adopted the enemy's position on where America's military force should be deployed?

Iran is stable. How does that help America? If Iran was suffering from internal strife, would you send U.S. trops to stabilize the country for them?

Then why would you send U.S. troops to stabilize its sister country and ally, Iraq?

Better in that we will no longer be devoting our resources to helping the enemy consolidate power, yes. Better for the Sunnis and Kurds? No. Better for America? Yes.

Because I took the time to learn who's who in Iraq? Because when I hear "finish the job" I want to know what exactly the job is?

Don't be so casual with other people's lives, and my money. And with America's military readiness. Learn what the "course" is before you attack anyone that wants to change it.

Most of all, learn who it is you continue to lobby American soldiers to die for.

The Democrats these days are a more flexible party than the Republicans--which I think is a problem for the country.Lieberman just reflects that. The Republicans have become too rigid and lock-step in the Congress.

The primary system has fostered control of both major parties by minority left and right interests--to the exclusion of the centrists,who used to control both parties. Still, it is the centrists--now largely independent--who control the final elections. Despite this, the media tends to see things largely in terms of those fringe interests in both parties--to the exclusion of centrist views that still control elections. A disturbing paradox.

Lieberman is trying to take advantage of this by running as an independent--and portraying his opponents as "extremists." McCain may well have been elected President a while back running as an Independent. He chose to remain a loyal Republican. I suspect Lieberman will ultimately rethink his decision, after talking to a few of his Democratic party friends.
No sense in hurting the Party that has been very generous to him,having given him the opportunity to run for Vice President.

I have a different take on Lieberman. When he says people are 'on the terrorists' side' for wanting to set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, that puts him at the extreme end of the Republican party on the political spectrum. I expect he will run as an independent and make a decent showing. But I think he will hurt the Republican candidate more than he will hurt Lamont.

You are aware that Rove contacted Lieberman and may assist in his campaign? If so, watch for Lamont to get slimed.

You said that already. I bet Lamont is slimy enough on his own...

How much are you betting?

Lamont reminds me of Mitt Romney more than anyone else. He's a successful businessman from a long line of successful businessmen, well spoken, and someone that has not made his living off the public dole. he meets a payroll every week and he knows the pressures facing business people today.

He's certainly not "loony left," as the Roves of this world will not doubt portray him. He just realizes that we had our clock cleaned in Iraq, and it's time to call it a day. that's not "left," it's realistic and smart.

He's more of a Republican moderate in fact. He just feels the Republican party abandoned its moderates in the late 80s/early 90s.

First I have heard of this.....................what did he tell him?

Lieberman represents everything that is dead wrong in US policy for the last 6 years, and I'd be happy for him to fade into oblivian w/ his tail between his legs. HTF can he still think that Iraq was a smart/right thing to do? Jesus...

I can never remember a time when US politics were so hopeless; if Dems win control of congress we will have an absolute BS immigration policy that fails to address the 12 million(?) Mexicans squatting in the U.S. right now, and assures that life will continue to get more crowded, polluted and expensive here. If you think that life sucks now when you pay your property taxes to build schools for the "new Americans", just wait and see what your kids will be paying. And getting a hand full of empty peanut shells in return.

If repubs hold control, it will just empower the neocon crooks to continue their looting and killing, and we still probably won't deal w/ illegal immigration, which is a more serious problem than the ME, IMO. It's truly a nightmare.

Oh yeah, a juicy tidbit I heard on NPR last night on the way home from work. I'm ashamed that this is happening in Texas (soon to be Tejas), but here goes:

The El Paso city council is considering a law that would limit the ability of their police to enforce immigration law. Basically the chief of police has decided to get tough on immigration and is reporting illegals to the INS after traffic stops. Illegal gets stopped for speeding, asked for license and registration, has none, then gets reported to the INS and detained until the INS arrives. So far, they have sent about 900 illegals back home.

The city council and the local hispanic groups are crying foul because they say it is making the illegals scared to work or leave the house...

Liberman's defeat defined the Dems as the anti-war party. The Dems surely have a secret plan to defeat terror that will be explained before this next election?

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

Funny, I didn't see the word "warrantless" in that quote.

anyone see an ACLU member or supporter around here ?

The mention of ACLU is always interesting. Favorable feelings for it depend on which side of your argument they are on. I have hated them on occasions and loved them (admittedly not very often) on others.

Which terror plot was that? Because this week's British airliner plot was foiled because Muslims came forward about suspicious activities by their neighbors.

You are trying to make people believe that Bush critics don't like, for some unknown reason, watching bad guys. That's the clear implication of your post. I know that you are too smart to actually believe that, and that you are fully aware of the warrant/no warrant distinction.

So next time you post something like that, at least give some small nod to honesty. Karl wouldn't like it, but I'm sure your fellow Pelicans would.

that may have opened the door but according to newspapers and TV

"The latest terror plot was foiled because a large number of people were under surveillance concerning their spending, travel and communications."

Um, yeah, and the reason they were under surveillance was because their Muslim neighbors turned them in.