RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 9:10:04 AM)

Hmmmm, I see the Religious Right as a bunch of Nihilists to be honest



Sinergy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 2:51:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

And here I thought you were a Nihilist


"A nihilist, whoa.  Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it is an ethos."

Walter, The Big Lebowski



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 4:52:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

And here I thought you were a Nihilist


"A nihilist, whoa. Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it is an ethos."

Walter, The Big Lebowski



I was in meetings this afternoon, you beat me to it...




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 5:26:08 PM)

FR:

Meanwhile, back on topic ...

The following Democratic leaders have complained that Bush should increase the number of troops in Iraq:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid


Democratic Leaders now against a "surge" (as soon as Bush suggests it, apparently):

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid

FirmKY



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 5:40:25 PM)

One of the stories:
Published: July 14, 2005

The second:
Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET May 30, 2004

Hilary and Nancy's statements are obviously outdated, the underlying assumptions in the decisions are invalid, so we can discount them.


Last December, is relevant. ( the Harry Reid Statement) Quoting from TFA:

"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it,"

So, you're saying we'll be out of Iraq by January 2008?
That should get more press, shouldn't It?

"Bush Announces Troops Out Of Iraq For New Years Eve 2008!!!"

Break out the Champagne boys, we're gonna have a party! With everyone out of Shitville, Iraq by NYE, NEXT YEARS SUPERBOWL PARTY is going to be one to remember!

But til you're home then guys and gals, we'll hoist a few for ye!



FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 5:51:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

One of the stories:
Published: July 14, 2005

The second:
Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET May 30, 2004

Hilary and Nancy's statements...

Well those 2 citations are obviously so old, the underlying assumptions in the decisions aren't relevant any longer, are they.


Last December ( the Harry Reid ) FTFA:

"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it,"

So, you're saying we'll be out of Iraq by January 2008?
That should get more press, shouldn't It?

"Bush Announces Troops Out Of Iraq For New Years Eve 2008!!!"

Break out the Champagne boys, we're gonna have a party!


Ok FB ... when did their opinions about the need for additional troops .... change?

I've given you statements and proof that when Bush was resisting putting more troops in, they said he was wrong.

I've given you statements and proof that when Bush decides to put more troops in, they say he is wrong.

So ... give me the first time that they said anything to indicate when they changed their opinion (contemporaneous comments, not something from them now, where they say ".... I changed my mind back in ought 2 ..."

FirmKY

edited: spelling



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 5:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

One of the stories:
Published: July 14, 2005

The second:
Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET May 30, 2004

Hilary and Nancy's statements...

Well those 2 citations are obviously so old, the underlying assumptions in the decisions aren't relevant any longer, are they.


Last December ( the Harry Reid ) FTFA:

"If it's for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it,"

So, you're saying we'll be out of Iraq by January 2008?
That should get more press, shouldn't It?

"Bush Announces Troops Out Of Iraq For New Years Eve 2008!!!"

Break out the Champagne boys, we're gonna have a party!


Ok FB ... when did their opinion about the need for additional troops .... change?

I've given you statements and proof that when Bush was resisting putting more troops in, they said he was wrong.

I've given you statemenst and proof that when Bush decides to put more troops in, they say he is wrong.

So ... give me the first time that they said anything to indicate when they changed their opinion (contemporaneous comments, not something from them now, where they say ".... I changed my mind back in ought 2 ..."

FirmKY


quote:


Ok FB ... when did their opinion about the need for additional troops .... change?


Sometime in the past 2 to 3 years.

Let's do some math... We fucking WON WWII in 3 years, didn't we?

A lot of things change. The idea of killing more kids on behalf of the Iraqis who don't want us there is Just Plain Dumb.

Wanna way out? Give every Iraqi who can hold it a rifle and crate of ammo, some grenades, some other surplus shit, a SAW or 3 for the village, tell them to form Neighborhood Watches, and clean up the mess. Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful, and GOODBYE!

If they deserve Freedom and Liberty, they'll have the tools, and they can earn it for themselves. That way they'll appreciate it. Cause they don't seem to care now, and I'm unsure why anyone would want to see the pointless loss of life continue.

Or do you think BUILDING A WALL around Bagdhad is going to work? How'd that go for Berlin?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 6:06:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmKY

Ok FB ... when did their opinion about the need for additional troops .... change?


Sometime in the past 2 to 3 years.

You are avoiding the question.

***
Let's do some math... We fucking WON WWII in 3 years, didn't we?

Sure.  With massive civilian casualities, the complete destruction of the opponents' infrastructure, and the invasion of all neighboring countries.

And nukes, too.

I'd go for that in Iraq and surrounding countries.  Sounds like a plan.  Get off this "limited war" crap.  It rarely works.

***
Wanna way out? Give every Iraqi who can hold it a rifle and crate of ammo, some grenades, some other surplus shit, a SAW or 3 for the village, tell them to form Neighborhood Watches, and clean up the mess. Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful, and GOODBYE!

Stolen from UtopianRanger, methinks.  Might wanna give the man creds.

edited:  Nope, I was wrong.  You said it in the other thread.  Apologies.

***

If they deserve Freedom and Liberty, they'll have the tools, and they can earn it for themselves. That way they'll appreciate it. Cause they don't seem to care now, and I'm unsure why anyone would want to see the pointless loss of life continue.

Not a bad point, but underdeveloped.

***
Or do you think BUILDING A WALL around Bagdhad is going to work? How'd that go for Berlin?

We didn't build the wall in Berlin.  Go read some history.  It was our opponents at the time, the USSR.

Now, firebombing Baghdad would certainly eliminate the problem ...

FirmKY



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 6:21:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmKY

Ok FB ... when did their opinion about the need for additional troops .... change?


Sometime in the past 2 to 3 years.

You are avoiding the question.


The question is pointless. Email the offices of Sen. Clinton and Rep. Pelosi if you'd like meaningful answers to that.

Not being them, I cannot help you. Is it avoiding the question? Of course. How could I answer it in honesty?

quote:


***
Let's do some math... We fucking WON WWII in 3 years, didn't we?

Sure. With massive civilian casualities, the complete destruction of the opponents' infrastructure, and the invasion of all neighboring countries.


400,000 to 600,000 civilian casualties isn't massive enough?

How many hours is the electricity on and does fresh water come out the taps in beautiful downtown Badghad on any given day these days?

quote:


***
Wanna way out? Give every Iraqi who can hold it a rifle and crate of ammo, some grenades, some other surplus shit, a SAW or 3 for the village, tell them to form Neighborhood Watches, and clean up the mess. Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful, and GOODBYE!

Stolen from UtopianRanger, methinks. Might wanna give the man creds.


Who's that?

quote:


***

If they deserve Freedom and Liberty, they'll have the tools, and they can earn it for themselves. That way they'll appreciate it. Cause they don't seem to care now, and I'm unsure why anyone would want to see the pointless loss of life continue.

Not a bad point, but underdeveloped.


What's to develop?

Oh, and the point is "Walls Don't Work".

But that aside, I see troop increases, but Bush didn't say ANYTHING about having the troops back by Superbowl 2008?

WTF?




FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 6:49:56 PM)

1. The question isn't pointless at all.  You are simply attempting to avoid answering it, because it will point to the truth of my point. 

It's quite simple - as politicians, they have made public statements about policy.

Generally, you expect elected officials - when they change their minds about their support for a certain policy - to find a record of it in the public media.

I doubt you'll find any contemporaneous public record of those Dems changing their mind until after it leaked that Bush wanted to increase troop strength.

This clearly points to partisan reasons for their decisions, not decisions based on what's really best, or even effective.

You realize this (perhaps subconsciously) and therefore you will do anything to avoid the question.

2. Your casuality figures are bogus. 

3.  I corrected my UtopianRanger comment.

4.  How in the world did a discussion about "Walls" get into this?

FirmKY



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:10:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

1. The question isn't pointless at all. You are simply attempting to avoid answering it, because it will point to the truth of my point.

It's quite simple - as politicians, they have made public statements about policy.

Generally, you expect elected officials - when they change their minds about their support for a certain policy - to find a record of it in the public media.


I suggested you get off your ass and ask your question to those prepared to answer it.

quote:


I doubt you'll find any contemporaneous public record of those Dems changing their mind until after it leaked that Bush wanted to increase troop strength.


There just MIGHT be a staffer prepared to answer that question. They might have PDFs or something. It's what we pay them for , isn't it. Contact their offices. What else can I suggest?

quote:


This clearly points to partisan reasons for their decisions, not decisions based on what's really best, or even effective.


Hey, as an exercise, let's do this:

Let's say that I stipulate it. It's PARTISAN. Ok.

SO?

What's your fucking point? The Dims can have balls, and play hardball sometimes too?

Are you actually suggesting that "Bi-Partisinship" actually EXISTS outside of some bullshit speech?

You cannot be that naive.

That aside. Who CARES? Let's leave aside the potential legal issues of how we got here.

BUSH FAILED.

Every decision he and his staff made just fucked shit up. I guess, unless you're a US or UK oil company signed on to this weeks agreement. Hmmm... Maybe THAT"S why it's time for Law N Order. They're done making money building bases, it's time to make money building oil wells.

From their point of view, I guess it doesn't suck all that much.

But hey. Back to the point.

From where Joe Twelvepack sits, EVERY promise made has been unfulfilled, and we got FRIENDS over in the sandbox.

So, Bush has HAD HIS CHANCE AND FAILED.

Why continue supporting a failure?

Do you advocate giving the kid who can't pass the test a "C" just to keep his self-esteem up?

Isn't that a proper analogy for this situation.

400 MILLION DOLLARS for Iraqi Civilians.
5 BILLION DOLLARS for operations.
21,000 Troops. In Harms Way.

Just to keep Bush's flagging self esteem up.

It's would be easier for him to feel like a man if he loosened up , got a case of bourbon, some blow, and a few whores to tell him how wonderful he was. Like Kennedy did...

Man could he party.

Where were we.

quote:



You realize this (perhaps subconsciously) and therefore you will do anything to avoid the question.

2. Your casuality figures are bogus.


That's the LOW range of the Johns Hopkins/MIT study. Say what you will about it, and if you have a BETTER STUDY, I'd love to see it. You go to war with the studies you got, to paraphrase some loser...

quote:


3. I corrected my UtopianRanger comment.


Yeah. And I recognized the name in another forum, too!

Thanks

quote:


4. How in the world did a discussion about "Walls" get into this?


We're going to spend a shitload of money putting a wall around the city, so that we can keep the cleansed zones clear. Might be knock down buildings, razor wire, no-mans land variant. But how do you keep Baghdad clear, should you actually succeed in clearing it, once it's cleared.

I'd bet 10 bucks on it, just for fun at the office if someone would take the bet.

Call it a hunch. And it ain't gonna work either.



MzMia -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:22:15 PM)

They HAD to send more troops in, almost a no-brainer.
Both sides were scared not to support Bush, at least for now.



juliaoceania -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:27:55 PM)

Did the commission that went to Iraq recommend more troops? Are the generals over in Iraq recommending more troops?

In the beginning of this fiasco we call the Iraq War everyone thought that we needed more troops, except the "yes men" under Bush and Rummy. So a few years ago, when it mattered, the democrats also pushed for increasing troops.

So fast forward, the generals are now saying they do not want more troops if what I have been hearing is correct. The Iraq commission did not recommend more troops, so it stands to reason that the democrats would not want more troops... hell, the American people do not want more troops sent to Iraq either, and we pay their wages.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001052.html

So while I am not pleased with what I hear from democrats by and large on the subject of Iraq, their message does not seem inconsistent. It is only a fool that keeps on a failing course expecting that success will be had by being unyielding. If some of the Dem leaders have changed their position, that makes them much more astute than the village idiot calling the shots that continues to throw good after bad, no matter what.



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:31:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

They HAD to send more troops in, almost a no-brainer.
Both sides were scared not to support Bush, at least for now.


Bush didn't exactly ASK, did he?

Sure, he's under the 2003 Iraq AUMF. But, then again, I did see Durbin saying that all the preconditions of that AUMF were either fulfilled or unfounded.

IF Bush's money for Iraq were to dry up, say by recinding the AUMF, then things could get interesting,




MzMia -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:44:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
quote:

Often I think like UtopianRanger, fuck it, let you all get drafted and killed and when the dust clears me and mine will inherit the Earth. I am almost past caring these days Caitlyn. I will just take my beloved child and make sure HE is ok, and let you kids work out your own issues with the right wing. After all, it is your future at stake.


Julia....

I musta missed this over the last few days. I hope you do not think that I want to see a draft because it will better a few of us. That's not my ploy.

I only want them to announce the news of a draft, because I know it is controversial enough that it will act as catalyst that formulates a rebellion.

My hope is that the many will one day get mad enough to take back their government from the few.

If they ever announce that there's actually going to be draft, I'll be one of the first ones in the streets to throw tomatoes and eggs at the politicians.

To paraphrase my friend Subfever '' Some of us look upon our leaders with the spirit of benevolence, and some of us don't '' [;)]

- R



The day you speak about is coming.



MzMia -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:49:16 PM)

farglebeagle? I am going back and reading all your posts.
you crack me up.
You are right about Bush needing to losen up, is Monica Lewinsky around?
Many people would take Slick Willy any day of the week over what we have now.
You are dead on.



MzMia -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 8:53:10 PM)

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Ok FB ... when did their opinion about the need for additional troops .... change?


Sometime in the past 2 to 3 years.

Let's do some math... We fucking WON WWII in 3 years, didn't we?

A lot of things change. The idea of killing more kids on behalf of the Iraqis who don't want us there is Just Plain Dumb.

Wanna way out? Give every Iraqi who can hold it a rifle and crate of ammo, some grenades, some other surplus shit, a SAW or 3 for the village, tell them to form Neighborhood Watches, and clean up the mess. Good Luck, May Allah Be Merciful, and GOODBYE!

If they deserve Freedom and Liberty, they'll have the tools, and they can earn it for themselves. That way they'll appreciate it. Cause they don't seem to care now, and I'm unsure why anyone would want to see the pointless loss of life continue.

Or do you think BUILDING A WALL around Bagdhad is going to work? How'd that go for Berlin?



OMG, this is priceless



farglebargle -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 9:03:52 PM)

quote:

you crack me up.


Think you're laughing NOW?

Just wait until I take my pants off!







Sinergy -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/10/2007 10:35:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

I suggested you get off your ass and ask your question to those prepared to answer it.



FB, there was a point in one of these threads where KY ranted about my not providing any proof or research, despite my having done so.  Then he opined that he is not going to (I used the term intellectually lazy) provide source material proving that I failed to do so.

You can provide him links and he wont bother to look at them.

quote:



You cannot be that naive.



FB:  I disagree.

Sinergy



FirmhandKY -> RE: Pelosi warns Bush: Troop surge won't be accepted (1/11/2007 1:47:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Let's say that I stipulate it. It's PARTISAN. Ok.

SO?

What's your fucking point? The Dims can have balls, and play hardball sometimes too?


No, my point was quite clear.  You and others are accusing Bush of taking the actions he has for reasons of self interest.  His, and his "class".  That's called partisanship.  And you bemoan, castigate and decry his lack of intelligence, morals and motivations for doing so.

Yet, even when you admit that "your side" is doing exactly the same things, for exactly the same reasons - it's ok.

There is a name for that, yah know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:



2. Your casuality figures are bogus.


That's the LOW range of the Johns Hopkins/MIT study. Say what you will about it, and if you have a BETTER STUDY, I'd love to see it. You go to war with the studies you got, to paraphrase some loser...


Do you have a link to your source?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


4. How in the world did a discussion about "Walls" get into this?


We're going to spend a shitload of money putting a wall around the city, so that we can keep the cleansed zones clear. Might be knock down buildings, razor wire, no-mans land variant. But how do you keep Baghdad clear, should you actually succeed in clearing it, once it's cleared.


If building a wall around Baghdad is part of Bush's speech last night, it's news to me.  I didn't watch it, nor have I yet read it.

When I do, and it's part of his plan, and if it interests me enough to respond to it, I will.  My only current observation is that you made your "walls" comment before the speech, so it was likely based on incomplete information.

FirmKY



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875