Republicans...
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:46 am
Why are we in Iraq ???
Thanks...
Thanks...
To cause dumbfucks to ask stupid questions whilst expecting serious answers.
Next?
Page 1 of 4
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:51 am
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:54 am
McCarthy...War Wagon wrote:To cause dumbfucks to ask stupid questions whilst expecting serious answers.
Next?
Nixon...
Reagan...
Would you like to add something?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:56 am
Jenny MCCarthy?
Cynthia Nixon?
Patty Reagan?
I'd fuck em.
Cynthia Nixon?
Patty Reagan?
I'd fuck em.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:00 am
The Assassin wrote:Jenny MCCarthy?
Cynthia Nixon?
Patty Reagan?
I'd fuck em.
You'd fuck anything that moves...
not a bright kid
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:00 am
m2,
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:03 am
m2 wrote:The Assassin wrote:Jenny MCCarthy?
Cynthia Nixon?
Patty Reagan?
I'd fuck em.
You'd fuck anything that moves...
whats your point??
Hurt feelings much?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:03 am
Y2k...Y2K wrote:m2,
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
Is that an excuse???
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:06 am
Not really...
You just don't have a sense of humor.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:30 am
Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:36 am
Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?SunCoastSooner wrote:Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
Why would a "man" ask what and what not he can do?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:39 am
Ah heem...m2 wrote:Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?SunCoastSooner wrote:Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:43 am
SunCoastSooner wrote:Ah heem...m2 wrote:Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?SunCoastSooner wrote:Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
hmmm... thank you for not making sense again.
... and thank you to southern georgia for having a place to put you.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:07 am
NO wonder you had to drop out of Kal...m2 wrote:SunCoastSooner wrote:Ah heem...m2 wrote: Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?
<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
hmmm... thank you for not making sense again.
... and thank you to southern georgia for having a place to put you.
You quoted me wonder boy and stated that I was a republican. I know you don't need any reading comprehension skills to make wind chimes but I think just about anyone with an IQ above Forest Gump's would understand that I said I was a Liberatarian. Jesus you are dense.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:16 am
That's a suggestion.m2 wrote:Y2k...Y2K wrote:m2,
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
Is that an excuse???
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:21 am
Sounds... like you might have some stanfurd in you...SunCoastSooner wrote:NO wonder you had to drop out of Kal...m2 wrote:SunCoastSooner wrote: Ah heem...
<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
hmmm... thank you for not making sense again.
... and thank you to southern georgia for having a place to put you.
You quoted me wonder boy and stated that I was a republican. I know you don't need any reading comprehension skills to make wind chimes but I think just about anyone with an IQ above Forest Gump's would understand that I said I was a Liberatarian. Jesus you are dense.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:04 pm
m2 wrote:Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?SunCoastSooner wrote:Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
Yeah, cause the Dems always come up w/ great ideas and never just sit back and point fingers at the administration. At least the Republicans have balls and not wet, fat pussies.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:19 pm
Saddam needed a beating. So does the Iranian leadership. So do you, by the way.
:twisted:
:twisted:
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:03 pm
You forgot to include the obligatory Halliburton referenceRoach wrote:Let's see, possible reasons the US is in Iraq:
Unseen and powerful world economic forces are work, and all we see is the media rendition spooned out by those in power. Really it is all about the Tri-Lateral Commission keeping the Jews alive and not making them move Israel to Florida...
W's knowledge of coming commodity shortages due to increasing world demand, and that iraq was about to fuk up the system, so rather than fess up and say it's about the oil he made up some other reasons...
W's pissed off because they tried to kill his daddy...
It was a massive fuck up based on pride.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:23 pm
You are a dumbass. The reasons for giving the potus the power to invade and invading are two totally different things.Y2K wrote:m2,
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:24 pm
How's Saddam's trial going?Saddam needed a beating.
I still think that fucker's going to slip away before all is said and done. They sure are having a lot of trouble inishing off that fucking trial.
They should have shot him dead moments after capturing him.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:56 pm
You classify yourself as a “Liberatarian dumbass”?SunCoastSooner wrote:Ah heem...m2 wrote:Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?SunCoastSooner wrote:Isn't it about time for an Al Gore reset?
<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:13 pm
I have yet to see the connection made between "support for the war" and "support for how the war was undertaken".
New Media radio hams love to point out that Dems also supported the war. Everyone wanted to deal with Saddam, but not everyone wanted to do it the way Rummy did. In fact, very few people were comfortable with invading the country without planning for what would follow the invasion. Yet, that's what they went with...
New Media radio hams love to point out that Dems also supported the war. Everyone wanted to deal with Saddam, but not everyone wanted to do it the way Rummy did. In fact, very few people were comfortable with invading the country without planning for what would follow the invasion. Yet, that's what they went with...
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:18 pm
thanks for your compelling analysis.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:25 pm
What part of "Rumsfeld didn't plan for the occupation" is giving you trouble?
Sure Dems and others voted for the war. That doesn't mean they voted for Rummy to bungle the occupation.
Rummy's got egg all over his face. I guess some splashed on you too?
Sure Dems and others voted for the war. That doesn't mean they voted for Rummy to bungle the occupation.
Rummy's got egg all over his face. I guess some splashed on you too?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:35 pm
Spare us the gibberish, mv_fellatrix. Cheney and Rumsfeld expected to be carried through the streets by millions of adoring and grateful iraqis. In short, their understanding of what would follow the invasion was childish, at very best.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:42 pm
:iraqsizemeds:PSUFAN wrote:Cheney and Rumsfeld expected to be carried through the streets by millions of adoring and grateful iraqis. In short, their understanding of what would follow the invasion was childish, at very best.
I don't buy into the notion that errors were made because of some "Land of Make Believe" vision of post war iraq.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:44 pm
So what happened? Was it sheer arrogance that caused them to bungle the occupation?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:49 pm
bwaahahahaha! Perhaps they were too Shocked and Awed?What was unexpected is that the rest of the Iraqis would fail to step up to take responsibility for their own country.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:49 pm
PSUFAN wrote:So what happened? Was it sheer arrogance that caused them to bungle the occupation?
I don't know what happened, I'm not a military strategist. You've never answered the question I've posed, the countless times we've discussed this issue.
Would MORE personnel been able to stop the I.E.D and VBIED attacks, or would they have presented MORE targets ?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:52 pm
The correct answer to that question is yes and yes.Tom In VA wrote:Would MORE personnel been able to stop the I.E.D and VBIED attacks, or would they have presented MORE targets ?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:52 pm
What are you talking about?You've never answered the question I've posed, the countless times we've discussed this issue.
Would more occupiers have had a better handle on what followed the invasion? Very probably, imo.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:53 pm
And your opinion is based on what experience ?PSUFAN wrote:What are you talking about?You've never answered the question I've posed, the countless times we've discussed this issue.
Would more occupiers have had a better handle on what followed the invasion? Very probably, imo.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:55 pm
Shit - you asked me the question.
As for what we've all experienced...well, we've experienced a bungled occupation.
As for what we've all experienced...well, we've experienced a bungled occupation.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:58 pm
You're not slippery enough to get away with that. I'd like you back up your contention that Cheney and Rumsfeld made the decisions they did because "their understanding of what would follow the invasion was childish, at very best."PSUFAN wrote:Shit - you asked me the question.
As for what we've all experienced...well, we've experienced a bungled occupation.
So far you are failing miserably. So how did you know, before the occupation, what was needed ?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:58 pm
Moving Sale wrote:You are a dumbass. The reasons for giving the potus the power to invade and invading are two totally different things.Y2K wrote:m2,
Ask the Democrats that voted to go there as well, You probably won't like their answer or they'll lie.
.... Is that an excuse?I remember when I was a kid all the neighborhood kids would vote on what we were gonna do that afternoon whether we played Baseball or aFootball Game, blew up GI Joes with M-80's, egg someone's house ect.
The vote was for overwhelming for the power to play a Football game.
There were always the kids who voted against such a brutal sport and went home to play with their Barbie and Ken Doll collection.
There were the kids who showed up and when they found out we were gonna play Tackle Football instead using Flags "changed their mind" and went home.
There were the kids that found out you get hurt playing tackle and "it's not worth the pain" so they went home.
There were kids who's found out that the other team cheats especially in the middle of a big scrum and a lot of the time it hurt and they wanted to quit and go home.
Then there was the players who were left who had the balls to play the game right or wrong, win or lose because the game was worth playing.
But when all those kids got older and they got "Smart" they changed.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:18 pm
Hitting the bottle a tad early this morning? The reasons one amasses troops on the boarder and the reasons for crossing that border are different, in spite of the fact that racistcal thinks otherwise.
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:21 pm
Thanks for the disclaimer, but that's pretty much understood whenever you post.Moving Sale wrote:Hitting the bottle a tad early this morning.....
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:23 pm
The Senate did not vote for the war, they voted to give Bush the power to invade if he saw fit and reported his reasons for invading.PSUFAN wrote: Sure Dems and others voted for the war.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
What part of that don't you get?
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:37 pm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... llows.html
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... PUB182.pdf
Also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5145.htm
When Paul Wolfowitz was asked why he thought Shinseki's estimates were so wildly off the mark, first he used the sort of standard Pentagon line, especially under Donald Rumsfeld, which was really, "The future was unknowable." Of course the future is unknowable, although that line was used to excuse a failure to give any financial estimates, which was more irresponsible than it was unknowable.
Then he went on to say, first, he thought many things would go fairly easily. Countries like France were likely to help us in the reconstruction, that this was likely to go more easily than most people thought. Then he went on to make the crucial point that raised the main philosophical difference between the Army and the civilian leadership. Wolfowitz said he found it hard to conceive that it would be harder to occupy Iraq than it had been to conquer it. This was a thing that was difficult to imagine, he said.
Far from being an imaginary concept, this idea that the occupation was the hard part was the heart of the Army's prewar argument.
Tom, it hardly matters what I knew...but the Bush Administration was certainly presented with this:So how did you know, before the occupation, what was needed ?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... PUB182.pdf
Also:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5145.htm
From Meet the Press, March 16 2003
Vice President Cheney: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president's made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that's representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it's a commitment worth making. And we don't have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we're back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.
Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.