Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 399
  1. #81  
    The difference between a liberal and a conservative on Iraq is this (& I swear I won't post again w/out a link! )...

    A liberal reads the doom and gloom and they want to run from Iraq.

    A conservative reads the doom and gloom and it pisses us off and wants us to succeed there even more. The Bush resolve will not let us run scared like the libs want. When I read that an insurgent kills a child, a woman, an old man, etc. I want to kill an insurgent myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Hmmm. It is just news. I am sure you can find something that shows things are going well in Iraq. I mean I did. Hobbes did. All you have to do is look. It is too easy for you to say "Not Fair. Liberal Media" . Just look I am sure you will find something.
  2. #82  
    ATM, your avatar reminds me of the last of the good times.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ
    ATM, your avatar reminds me of the last of the good times.
    That's me in the 2nd row.

    Here's bad news out of Afghanistan.
  4. #84  
    Ladies and Gentleman, the BEATLES!!!
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Thank God for conservatives or we would of had multiple 911's by now.
    I dont have an article to post (sorry NRG) but Advance: do you really believe this...you REALLY think that we would have multiple attacks here on US soil if we didnt declare war on Iraq?

    If you do, what do you base it on? First, it assumes that if we didnt do what we have done, that it would embolden them (while this is probably true...but its definitely not conclusive.) Second, its simply not true that ONLY conservatives wanted to stomp out terrorism. I am pretty sure that a large majority of both conservatives and liberals agree that we should go after terrorists (the debate begins on how). To claim that its JUST conservatives that made the war on terrorism occur is simply not true. Third, this type of scare tactic really has been played before...its not very logical and it doesnt sway people who actually put some thought into what they say.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    The difference between a liberal and a conservative on Iraq is this ...

    A liberal reads the doom and gloom and they want to run from Iraq.
    Maybe the very left of liberals. The majority of liberals (and some Republicans I might add) want to know how long we will be in Iraq. By saying "We will be there until the job gets done"...it could NEVER be done. In order to claim we are 'done' would require us to determine how many (if not ALL) terrorists have to be killed/hunted down, how many Iraq security forces have been trained and brought up to speed, infrastructure rebuilt, stable political structure (among other things.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    A conservative reads the doom and gloom and it pisses us off and wants us to succeed there even more. The Bush resolve will not let us run scared like the libs want.
    Again, I dont think most Liberals want to run...we just want to have a clear plan for success along with how long it will take (I think Rumsfeld said it might go on for a total of 12 years!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    When I read that an insurgent kills a child, a woman, an old man, etc. I want to kill an insurgent myself.
    I feel the same. I hope you know that being a liberal or conservative doesnt mean that you love you country any less.

    Oh, here is my article:

    Key Democrats said Wednesday that they were disappointed with the President Bush's failure to lay out a clear "strategy for success" in war-torn Iraq.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Key Democrats said Wednesday that they were disappointed with the President Bush's failure to lay out a clear "strategy for success" in war-torn Iraq.
    Oh, here is my article:
    And this surprises you how?
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    And this surprises you how?
    If I led you to believe I was surprised, than that was not my intention.

    Quote Originally Posted by From the article I referenced:
    In his speech, Bush said the three steps were partnering U.S. and Iraqi units, embedding U.S. advisers with Iraqi troops and helping Iraqi ministry officials to coordinate antiterrorism operations.
    The above appear to be Pres. Bush's 3 goals before we can leave Iraq. Although I applaud the idea behind each goal, it gives us no indication when we will see troops come home. We invaded on March 19, 2003 and in the past 27 months, we still havent gotten the Iraqi forces up to speed and there is some evidence that more insurgents keep flooding into the region.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. #89  
    Yes, if we didn't go to their turf and take the war to them, they would of brought the war here on our homeland. Thanks to our soldiers we are safe here at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I dont have an article to post (sorry NRG) but Advance: do you really believe this...you REALLY think that we would have multiple attacks here on US soil if we didnt declare war on Iraq?

    If you do, what do you base it on? First, it assumes that if we didnt do what we have done, that it would embolden them (while this is probably true...but its definitely not conclusive.) Second, its simply not true that ONLY conservatives wanted to stomp out terrorism. I am pretty sure that a large majority of both conservatives and liberals agree that we should go after terrorists (the debate begins on how). To claim that its JUST conservatives that made the war on terrorism occur is simply not true. Third, this type of scare tactic really has been played before...its not very logical and it doesnt sway people who actually put some thought into what they say.
  10. #90  
    You libs forget....the US declared war on terrorism...not just Bin Laden.
    Yeah yeah yeah...so the Iraq war has brought out more terrorism. Like other conservatives here, all I can say is better there than here. If you think I'm being cold, then screw you. This is US vs THEM. Black and white. The terrorists wanted a war, we gave it to them. Now please shut up or fight with us. Sure almost 2000 American troops have not just died, but they have given their lives in the name of getting rid of terrorism. If I was still in my early 20s, I would have glady gone and enlisted in the effort.
    Would you rather see Hussein still in power? Sure, its going to take a long time for Iraq to recover. Post WWII Germany took about 10 years to recover from Hilter. The Southern US took a long time too to recover (after the civil war). Change isn't easy but its here to stay.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    You libs forget....the US declared war on terrorism...not just Bin Laden. Yeah yeah yeah...so the Iraq war has brought out more terrorism.
    Usually when you go to war, its not a good sign when your enemies numbers increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Like other conservatives here, all I can say is better there than here.
    I think both conservatives and liberals could agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    If you think I'm being cold, then screw you.
    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    This is US vs THEM. Black and white.
    What is your definition of a terrorists so I know who you refer to as THEM. (once you define terrorists, then you might notice that there are a lot more countries that have them and we might be fighting this war for a very long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    The terrorists wanted a war, we gave it to them.
    I don't know if the terrorists thought we were going to go into their backyard...but yeah, I agree we are giving it to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Now please shut up or fight with us.
    Why should people who arent conservatives have to shut up because we may disagree with the direction/duration/objectives of the Iraq war. If you don't want to see the other side of the coin, you can always put your head and the sand...but I don't think that is very beneficial?

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Sure almost 2000 American troops have not just died, but they have given their lives in the name of getting rid of terrorism.
    They gave their lives for their country...this included your point of getting rid of terrorism but it also includes the idea of defending the constitution (which allows a majority to have a point of view) and the American way of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    If I was still in my early 20s, I would have glady gone and enlisted in the effort.
    Great.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Would you rather see Hussein still in power?
    Maybe, I mean if it meant that 27 months later and 10's of billions of dollars and 2000 American lives and 10's of thousands of innocent civilian lives could have been saved. I just dont see it as being so black and white. I totally agree that Saddam was horrible and getting rid of him on its own is not a bad idea but...weigh that against all that has happened...I not so sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Sure, its going to take a long time for Iraq to recover.
    I agree it will take time but when the American people were sold on the idea of the war on Terrorism, I never heard someone say it might take 12 years.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #92  
    Speaking of terrorists ...Im not passing judgment but it does give new meaning to "Its a small world..."

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=8935144

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three Americans held hostage in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran remember Iran's president-elect as a key player in the seizure, The Washington Times reported on Thursday.

    In interviews with the newspaper, the former hostages recalled Iran's ultra-conservative President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad interrogating captives, the report said.

    "As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the *******," retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73, a former hostage, told the newspaper.

    "He was one of the top two or three leaders," said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  13. #93  
    T2
    Are you a lawyer or a psychiartrist? If not, you should be...you over analyze things way too much on every angle, line by line. But the real annoying thing about you is you've even broken down liberal posts. I don't know whose side you're on. Besides, several people have posted the picture before. I only do it because it's still fun to throw mud...we all get dirty, and everyone who is dirty wins... and loses.
    I don't know where it is, otherwise I'd insert it here too....the picture about the guy running a race that says even if you win, you're still a retard. But this picture about another retard is just about as funny:

  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Usually when you go to war, its not a good sign when your enemies numbers increase.
    Have they? They've been there the whole time. Remember when US Forces first rolled into Iraq and the people pretty much gave up and ran away. Sure we got a good number of them in prisons all over the place, but both liberals and conservatives could agree that we didn't get them all.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    What is your definition of a terrorists so I know who you refer to as THEM.
    terrorist

    adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

    ter·ror·ism

    n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    (once you define terrorists, then you might notice that there are a lot more countries that have them and we might be fighting this war for a very long time.
    We can both agree here...Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, several countries in Africa, practically all of the Middle East, etc, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't know if the terrorists thought we were going to go into their backyard...but yeah, I agree we are giving it to them.
    A large percent of terrorists happen to reside in the Middle East due to their continued dictatorships there and lack of education etc. Forcing democracy on them is the only way to effective purge the area of terrorism so they can be educated and realize politics is not worth dying for.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Why should people who arent conservatives have to shut up because we may disagree with the direction/duration/objectives of the Iraq war. If you don't want to see the other side of the coin, you can always put your head and the sand...but I don't think that is very beneficial?
    Because if you aren't against terrorism then you are for it. This is something we need to work together on and the presidents that follow Bush need to continue this fight, conservative or liberal.


    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    They gave their lives for their country...this included your point of getting rid of terrorism but it also includes the idea of defending the constitution (which allows a majority to have a point of view) and the American way of life.
    Hmmm, if there is so many people 'against' Bush here and 'against' Blair in the UK, one would think they would have been voted out of office in both elections that happened within months of each other.


    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Maybe, I mean if it meant that 27 months later and 10's of billions of dollars and 2000 American lives and 10's of thousands of innocent civilian lives could have been saved. I just dont see it as being so black and white. I totally agree that Saddam was horrible and getting rid of him on its own is not a bad idea but...weigh that against all that has happened...I not so sure.
    OK, how about throwing a nuke at them. It would only take a couple minutes, not very much money, and no US Military deaths. 10's of thousands of innocent civilian lives would still be lost, but that's the same constant on both sides of the equation. Oh but wait...there's the oil factor....

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I agree it will take time but when the American people were sold on the idea of the war on Terrorism, I never heard someone say it might take 12 years.
    It's only taken 12 years because Clinton was too busy 'screwing' around.
    President Bush has stated and restated, but nobody seems to understand. This war is not going to end overnight. It will end when terrorism has been removed from the planet.
  15. #95  
    "Every day we see another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are just aiding the enemy."

    Intresting read by Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan Read Here

    Sorry NGR, this is actually by somebody that is there and not created by a producer in New York with some B roll.

    LTC Ryan in Iraq
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. #97  
    What a friggin hero that soldier is! Best read I've had in a while. I think we would all agree on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    "Every day we see another distorted and grossly exaggerated story from a major news organization about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a small fraction of the events in Iraq and more often than not, the events they cover are only the bad ones. Many of the journalists making public assessments about the progress of the war in Iraq are unqualified to do so, given their training and experience. The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are just aiding the enemy."

    Intresting read by Lieutenant Colonel Tim Ryan Read Here

    Sorry NGR, this is actually by somebody that is there and not created by a producer in New York with some B roll.

    LTC Ryan in Iraq
  17. #98  
    Great article claire....it about sums it all up.

    I wish that quack Randy Rhodes would read it and take it to heart. I listen her to regularly during the drive home for pure entertainment.
  18. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If I led you to believe I was surprised, than that was not my intention.

    The above appear to be Pres. Bush's 3 goals before we can leave Iraq. Although I applaud the idea behind each goal, it gives us no indication when we will see troops come home. We invaded on March 19, 2003 and in the past 27 months, we still havent gotten the Iraqi forces up to speed and there is some evidence that more insurgents keep flooding into the region.
    Surely being in the military has taught you that you cannot put a time line on such things? Is it not more a matter of completing the mission then choosing a date?
  19. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    T2
    Are you a lawyer or a psychiartrist? If not, you should be...you over analyze things way too much on every angle, line by line.
    Actually I am a law student (at least starting in the Fall) and I have a sociology minor and my coursework done for my MPA. The reason I like to break things down is so (hopefully) you will not misinterpret my posts (or alternatively so that I can understand each point someone else is making). Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if you plan on swaying me in your direction of thought, it will take a well-reasoned argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    But the real annoying thing about you is you've even broken down liberal posts. I don't know whose side you're on.
    LOL-I am on the side that makes the BEST argument. (This implies that I am not as political as others have been led to believe.) Advocacy...I love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ekuzco
    Besides, several people have posted the picture before. I only do it because it's still fun to throw mud...we all get dirty, and everyone who is dirty wins... and loses.
    The picture you posted is very funny (and as an aside...I thought it was funny that the incumbent lost his own seat).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions