[WaydayTew]

If they were to get their way, they would flush the nation down the toilet with social programs and the surrender of our troops.

or maybe if the so called "conservatives" get their way they would flush the nation down the toilet with totally unecessary, massive defense spending and the slaughtering of our troops in a nation most americans can't even locate on a map. oh wait, thats already happening. nevermind.

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Actually it was Bush that defined defeat as us leaving. We went in, took Saddam out of power, confirmed no WMD, attempted to rebuild Iraq by giving billions of dollars to contactors with no accountability, helped them have elections, are attempting to enable them to protect themselves. The only failure I see is in the governments execution of the entire war. You may think liberals want to lose the war, but Bush Co. is making damn sure we do that.

We declared victory 3 days after we started the war. The war is over, we are now occupying Iraq. Are we going to lose the occupation? I don't understand why conservatives define leaving as losing. We haven't lost anything.

Emphasis mine. Except over 3000 US troops and billions and billions of our tax dollars. Oh wait, the war isn't in the budget, that's right, billions and billions of debt to China even.

[blackjackblax]

Except over 3000 US troops and billions and billions of our tax dollars. Oh wait, the war isn't in the budget, that's right, billions and billions of debt to China even.

well yeah besides that

[alias]

Actually it was Bush that defined defeat as us leaving. We went in, took Saddam out of power, confirmed no WMD, attempted to rebuild Iraq by giving billions of dollars to contactors with no accountability, helped them have elections, are attempting to enable them to protect themselves. The only failure I see is in the governments execution of the entire war. You may think liberals want to lose the war, but Bush Co. is making damn sure we do that.

That's because if we do leave this theater of the war on terror, we will lose, the terrorists will follow us, and try to kill us. Who do you suggest rebuild Iraq, really, your conspiracy theories amuse me. Bush is the only one that has prevented us from losing this war.

We declared victory 3 days after we started the war. The war is over, we are now occupying Iraq. Are we going to lose the occupation? I don't understand why conservatives define leaving as losing. We haven't lost anything. That statement is inaccurate, we've never declared victory, I'm not sure where you got that at, but you've been mis-informed.

Once again, another example of Liberals not wanting us to defend ourselves.

[Swidemaiskikemu]

He does have plans, but nations like France and Germany were too afraid to help out, From the soldiers I talk to (that would be quite alot) they tell me that things are going way better than what the Liberal media is reporting. But I guess the soldiers are lying too, right?


So, if Bush has and had no plan, that means the terrorist attacks on the us should have continued, right?

France and Germany said not to invade. But the Bush admin invaded anyway. If the prime ministers in France or Germany decided to sent troops into Iraq on Monday, they would have a vote and new prime minister by Tuesday.

The people of these countries feel that they didn't break it so why should they fix it... They have no wish to help Bush who has done nothing but insult them.

The US millitary strategy has no correctly implentented a proper counter-insurgency plan. The French and the Germans will not send troops any where near US troops led by Bush.

Bush Administration has continuely insulted the Internation community so the International Community has told the Bush administration to 'Fuck off'.

I don't blame troops back the plan. There the poor lads that have to implement it. Even if I thought it was crap I still back it, as I would have no other choice.

This country is in turmoil. If it wasn't then why don't the troops just leave? You can't have it both ways ...

[AdvertisingPo]

Remember when the insurgency was in it's "death throes?"

[alias]

or maybe if the so called "conservatives" get their way they would flush the nation down the toilet with totally unecessary, massive defense spending and the slaughtering of our troops in a nation most americans can't even locate on a map. oh wait, thats already happening. nevermind.

Now that is totally delusional! It was the Liberals that are trying to get rid of the military, we need the biggest baddest military we can get, and exactly how would that flush the country down the toilet? It wouldn't, what would flush the country down the toilet is Liberal social programs and unnecessary tax increases. However, your post mirrors your nickname.

[alias]

France and Germany said not to invade. But the Bush admin invaded anyway. If the prime ministers in France or Germany decided to sent troops into Iraq on Monday, they would have a vote and new prime minister by Tuesday.

Yet another example of the lack of their backbone.

The people of these countries feel that they didn't break it so why should they fix it... They have no wish to help Bush who has done nothing but insult them. And exactly how did he insult them? By upholding his oath of office?

The US millitary strategy has no correctly implentented a proper counter-insurgency plan. The French and the Germans will not send troops any where near US troops led by Bush. Somewhat agree here, we should've went in with much much more fury than we did, and as I've stated before, for some reason nations are worried about their "image" like France and Germany, making them into weak nations.

Bush Administration has continuely insulted the Internation community so the International Community has told the Bush administration to 'Fuck off'. They insulted us by their lack of support.

I don't blame troops back the plan. There the poor lads that have to implement it. Even if I thought it was crap I still back it, as I would have no other choice. That's good, but the troops are happy to do their jobs and protect us.

This country is in turmoil. If it wasn't then why don't the troops just leave? You can't have it both ways ... Because we haven't had victory yet, but we will.

[Gedominew]

Apparentley the freely elected leader is now only asking for material support.



Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader - World - Times Online

So now they're leader is only asking for more weapons to stifle this insurgency. The only question is will the Democrats go along with a troop decrease coupled with an increase of weapons support.

Here's the Iraqis chance, with our support, to fight for their own country.

Varus

Nice spin there Varus, but who has been in power until recently. Malaki's criticism has been about what we have done in this area in the past as much about the future. Weapons have been withheld, and for once I agree with the reasons. Until the security services can be reformed and turned from fronts for the various militias to actual security services the government here has been holding back sending these weapons. You want to actually increase the sectarian violence, send the weapons with no demand for reform. Yep good plan.

[Gedominew]

When the Democrats suggest we bail on the Iraqis they're in essence threatening to weaken the freely elected govn by not aiding in them being able to protect themselves. Would the Democrats rather the US just leave and offer no support for this hotbed of terrorism?

Varus

This has already been done by the administration.

[Japakefrope]

Anyone else notice how rabid the liberals response to the notion that the war is going much better than reported, even so that the Iraqi leader has said they can do the job now? They'll twist this information inside and out to find the Bush bad agenda. Rather than focusing on the apparent good news that the country is about ready to run things themselves they focus on demonizing the efforts of the administration.

Liberals really are invested in defeat. Can anyone remember or recall any plans the liberals actually have to prevent islamic radicalism.

Varus

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Remember when the insurgency was in it's "death throes?"

If you will...

[XarokLasa]

Why do you need to supply the weapons? Surely any number of nations could do that? Ahh but of course, American interests and elites have to profit somehow off this mess. Sure the democrats would be on board.

Andrew

Absolutely!!
I can't possibly imagine anything more stupid than re-equipping Iraqi's.
For crying out loud several of saddam's old military guys are still in charge.

I got a better idea...let's give them computers and books.

[TheBestCheapestOEM]

Anyone else notice how rabid the liberals response to the notion that the war is going much better than reported, even so that the Iraqi leader has said they can do the job now? They'll twist this information inside and out to find the Bush bad agenda. Rather than focusing on the apparent good news that the country is about ready to run things themselves they focus on demonizing the efforts of the administration.

You mean you want to cut and run now?

Sure Maliki wants us to leave. He wants to run the country without US occupation. He just wants us to give him weapons to do it. Do we trust this guy?

Liberals really are invested in defeat. Can anyone remember or recall any plans the liberals actually have to prevent islamic radicalism.

Varus

Hmmm enacting the 9/11 commission suggestions; protecting the ports etc...fighting the taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan, finding Bin Laden....these are things the liberals actually want.

[blackjackblax]

Sure sounds like cut and run to me. Get some backbone!

[Japakefrope]

Sure sounds like cut and run to me. Get some backbone!

Who said anything about leaving? We're talking about helping a govn we've supported defend itself from terrorists. We can still have a base of operations there. And I love how the cut and run losers are the first to berate it when it seems like Bush may be turning complete control over to the Iraqis, what the liberal nutz wanted in the first place.

Varus

[blackjackblax]

Anyone else notice how rabid the liberals response to the notion that the war is going much better than reported, even so that the Iraqi leader has said they can do the job now? They'll twist this information inside and out to find the Bush bad agenda. Rather than focusing on the apparent good news that the country is about ready to run things themselves they focus on demonizing the efforts of the administration.

Liberals really are invested in defeat. Can anyone remember or recall any plans the liberals actually have to prevent islamic radicalism.

Varus

hehe you posted the article that shows the complete opposite of your title. In fact you have pretty much disproven yourself. If the war is going so good why do we need another 20K troops? We aren't twisting anything. We read the article and all came to the same conclusion. maybe it is you that is trying to twist the article to fit your argument, which you have failed at doing.

Also I dunno how you define defeat, but if we leave Iraq we are not defeated. We have liberated them from saddam and that was our goal. Iraq has just about as much to do with terrorists as any other middle eastern country. I don't understand how some people can think and are ok with beign at war with the middle east for hundreds of years. The liberals do have plans for preventing islamic radicals as opposed to the conservative plans to create more.

[blackjackblax]

Who said anything about leaving? We're talking about helping a govn we've supported defend itself from terrorists. We can still have a base of operations there. And I love how the cut and run losers are the first to berate it when it seems like Bush may be turning complete control over to the Iraqis, what the liberal nutz wanted in the first place.

Varus

Hmm wasn't your whole point that Iraq is almost top the point where it can stand on it's own now and we can start withdrawing troops? Doesn't that imply leaving?

Yeah it sucks for someone to keep calling a plan something it's not isn't it. Isn't cute and run what conswervatives called every withdrawl plan for Iraq? SO this is pretty much a cut and run plan too.

[Japakefrope]

Hmm wasn't your whole point that Iraq is almost top the point where it can stand on it's own now and we can start withdrawing troops? Doesn't that imply leaving?

Yeah it sucks for someone to keep calling a plan something it's not isn't it. Isn't cute and run what conswervatives called every withdrawl plan for Iraq? SO this is pretty much a cut and run plan too.

So unless the military plans on being in Iraq forever anyone who says otherwise is now a cut and run advocate? You really are twisted. You just don't want to accept that Iraq is not in nearly the shape you've been led to believe.

Varus

[blackjackblax]

So unless the military plans on being in Iraq forever anyone who says otherwise is now a cut and run advocate?

You do see the irony in that right? Me (more liberal) calling you (more conservative) a cut and run advocate. That is the phrase that Bush Co. would use to describe anything that called for troop withdrawls. I am totally joking and realize it isn't calling for cut and run, but I just couldn't pass up the opportunity