Reply With QuoteIt's official:
DEMS PASS IRAQ SURRENDER BILL
I love the banner on Reid's lecturn that reads "Time to change course in Iraq". How many more euphimisms will they concoct to avoid saying cut and run, surrender or defeat?
Would give it to the Dems like they do the Republicans. If so, today's headline would read:
DEMS SET A DATE FOR DEFEAT
Let's be honest, that's what's about to happen. After all the rhetoric from the left about Iraq being another Vietnam, which party is following the script from that war verbatim?
It's official:
DEMS PASS IRAQ SURRENDER BILL
I love the banner on Reid's lecturn that reads "Time to change course in Iraq". How many more euphimisms will they concoct to avoid saying cut and run, surrender or defeat?
They are going to force us to pull out of the middle east before the job is done and then the war will take place on our soil.........they will torch off an Iranian produced nuke somewhere like LA and then try to Monday morning quarterback why it happened.....then instead of firing up the stealth bombers they will do nothing and say they need to negotiate with the terrorists. I guess lucky for them Pelosi has already opened the dialoge.
They are going to force us to pull out of the middle east before the job is done and then the war will take place on our soil.........they will torch off an Iranian produced nuke somewhere like LA and then try to Monday morning quarterback why it happened.....then instead of firing up the stealth bombers they will do nothing and say they need to negotiate with the terrorists. I guess lucky for them Pelosi has already opened the dialoge.
Ah yeah.
They are going to force us to pull out of the middle east before the job is done and then the war will take place on our soil.........they will torch off an Iranian produced nuke somewhere like LA and then try to Monday morning quarterback why it happened.....then instead of firing up the stealth bombers they will do nothing and say they need to negotiate with the terrorists. I guess lucky for them Pelosi has already opened the dialoge.
Questions:
1. Do you actually believe that, no matter how long that US stays in Iraq, there is any possibility of killing or eliminating all of the terrorists?
2. What will have occured if we get the job done in Iraq?
IMO, your prediction isn't very realistic or probable regardless of what we do or don't do in Iraq. Nonetheless, the US needs to get to work, pronto, securing it's borders. Spending billions and billions in Iraq, while leaving our borders wide f'n open is beyond stupid.
Also, I see the Dem Senate bill that ties pulling the troops from Iraq, to funding the war, as grandstanding. Bush has promised to veto this bill, common knowledge. If the Dems had any spine whatsoever, they would make it known that a veto will result in cutting off the funds. But the a**holes won't do that, as they don't have the balls. Considering that the Dems are not serious about their planned troop withdrawl, I believe that they shoud shut the fu** up.
well I don't believe it to be an "only Irag" problem...its a middleeast problem. Their religious beliefs cause them to want everyone who doesn't follow them needing exterminated......me personally I would prefer to move the Israelis out and nuke the rest of it. The only other way to end their shit is to cut off their money.....well as long as we buy their oil, they will have cash to terrorize the whole world. As far as the billions spent on the war, those numbers are only made aware to people becasue of the war....most of that money would be spent anyway whether we are in Iraq or not...its just funner for the media to put a spin on it like that money would not be spent if we were not in Iraq....well most of it would have......much along the lines of Iraq casualties.....compare the casualties that are highly publicized from Iraq to 4 year periods with other presidents when we weren't at war.....Securing opur borders, well that won't happen and do you really think they need to be on our soil to attack us? Look how many pets were killed from a stupid rat poison in pet food......so much of what we use comes from elsewhere that we couldn't protect ourselves if we wanted to.......just my .02
Questions:
1. Do you actually believe that, no matter how long that US stays in Iraq, there is any possibility of killing or eliminating all of the terrorists? .
Of course not.
2. What will have occured if we get the job done in Iraq?.
A stable, pro-western, anti-islamofascist terrorist government will exist in Iraq.
The sucessful existence of such a govt is what Iran, Syria, Egypt, and the other local dictatorships fear because it will bring, TO THE PEOPLE, prosperity that no dictatorship ever has in the history of the middle east. That prosperity will only bring pressure on those other govts for the same in their countries. Who wants to lose power?
The results of the LOSS of power, and the limitless desire to regain it, are readilly apparent in the modern US democrat party.
IMO, your prediction isn't very realistic or probable regardless of what we do or don't do in Iraq.
I think the foillowing is VERY LIKELY Ultra:
It's going to be like watching dominos fall over.
When the Democrats get their way, we will surrender, we will not have lost.
When we surender in Iraq, the Iranian backed terrorists will win.
When the Iranian-backed terrorists win, the elected Iraqi Govt will fall.
When the Elected Govt falls, just who will seize power? The terrorists.
When the terrorists controll the country they controll the entire oil revenue.
When the terrorists have unlimited money, they will decend on the US like you cannot imagine.
The terrorists curently want to make attacks here, but our offense is keeping them off balance.
After we surrender, eventually, there WELL BE, at minimum, a terrorist "Dirty Bomb" (simple conventional explosive laced with anything from enriched uranium to medical nuclear waste like Str-90, which is EASY TO GET in many places overseas. It could make 1/2 of a city like LA or NYC instantly uninhabitable, for decades to centuries.
At maximum, a low-power nuke, like Japan's will go off here somewhere. Much harder engineering, but nowhere near impossible. It only takes $$$$$.
Nonetheless, the US needs to get to work, pronto, securing it's borders. Spending billions and billions in Iraq, while leaving our borders wide f'n open is beyond stupid. .
Damn right they do, and should have AT MINIMUM 6 years ago in late 2001!
Also, I see the Dem Senate bill that ties pulling the troops from Iraq, to funding the war, as grandstanding. Bush has promised to veto this bill, common knowledge. If the Dems had any spine whatsoever, they would make it known that a veto will result in cutting off the funds. But the a**holes won't do that, as they don't have the balls. Considering that the Dems are not serious about their planned troop withdrawl, I believe that they shoud shut the fu** up.
True, every word of it. Pure political showmanship for zero result, because they know the vast majority of the US public WILL NOT ACCEPT just cutting the troops off on a limb. To do so would be political mass suicide in 2 years. They keep trying to back-door it so Joe-six-pack doesn't notice and get pissed.
Dipshit Harry Reid has said that as long as the president keeps vetoing dated surender bills, he'll keep sending them, to be Veto'd. I heard him say it personally, on the radio, before they went on Easter Recess.
It SHOULD BE mass political suicide just the knowledge that 48% of the senate has made itself known as willing to surender, but it will be forgotten in 18 mos. time.
Of course not.
A stable, pro-western, anti-islamofascist terrorist government will exist in Iraq.
The sucessful existence of such a govt is what Iran, Syria, Egypt, and the other local dictatorships fear because it will bring, TO THE PEOPLE, prosperity that no dictatorship ever has in the history of the middle east. That prosperity will only bring pressure on those other govts for the same in their countries. Who wants to lose power?
The results of the LOSS of power, and the limitless desire to regain it, are readilly apparent in the modern US democrat party.
I think the foillowing is VERY LIKELY Ultra:
It's going to be like watching dominos fall over.
When the Democrats get their way, we will surrender, we will not have lost.
When we surender in Iraq, the Iranian backed terrorists will win.
When the Iranian-backed terrorists win, the elected Iraqi Govt will fall.
When the Elected Govt falls, just who will seize power? The terrorists.
When the terrorists controll the country they controll the entire oil revenue.
When the terrorists have unlimited money, they will decend on the US like you cannot imagine.
The terrorists curently want to make attacks here, but our offense is keeping them off balance.
After we surrender, eventually, there WELL BE, at minimum, a terrorist "Dirty Bomb" (simple conventional explosive laced with anything from enriched uranium to medical nuclear waste like Str-90, which is EASY TO GET in many places overseas. It could make 1/2 of a city like LA or NYC instantly uninhabitable, for decades to centuries.
At maximum, a low-power nuke, like Japan's will go off here somewhere. Much harder engineering, but nowhere near impossible. It only takes $$$$$.
Damn right they do, and should have AT MINIMUM 6 years ago in late 2001!
True, every word of it. Pure political showmanship for zero result, because they know the vast majority of the US public WILL NOT ACCEPT just cutting the troops off on a limb. To do so would be political mass suicide in 2 years. They keep trying to back-door it so Joe-six-pack doesn't notice and get pissed.
Dipshit Harry Reid has said that as long as the president keeps vetoing dated surender bills, he'll keep sending them, to be Veto'd. I heard him say it personally, on the radio, before they went on Easter Recess.
It SHOULD BE mass political suicide just the knowledge that 48% of the senate has made itself known as willing to surender, but it will be forgotten in 18 mos. time.
Smokin,
I don't agree with your possition in Iraq, which is the way it is. However, I have had it with the constant posturing by the Dems. Like I said, cut funding or shut the Fu** up. Cutting funding isn't PC, so it will never happen . BS all the way
I'm curious how a US colony in the middle east would effect things. Just like the old days (actually 200 to 250 years ago isn't that long in the grand scheme of things) we send in settlers with a full military contingent for protection. We establish fortified communities and begin to build an economic base. We buy property in central Iraq with our friends the Kurds on our northern border. We pay extremely high wages and offer incentives for long term stays. We basically build a little democratic society right in the middle of them.
Now I know Blown will equate this with another Israel:devil: , but it doesn't have to be anything like that at all. Just a little colony bought and paid for but with a bad asse militia that no terrorist could touch. The colony's presence alone could go a long way towards keeping things more peaceful and "civilized" in the entire region. In our colony there would be no sympathizers to hide "islamic guerillas".
It would be rather interesting to see who would be attracted to the "mercenary colonist" concept. I bet on some real "hardy" types that would easily survive and show the islama-fascists what real American frontiersmen are all about. Osama never met Davy Crockett or he wouldn't have pulled the shit he's done.:devil:
I'm actually quite tired of all the "pussifacation" that has happened to this country. We keep being accused of being the world's bullies, why not show them what we can really do if we choose to. Time to gather a little respect like our forefathers earned.
Around these parts we still "Remember the Alamo". It's high time we reminded the rest of the world who the hell we really are here in the USA. F--- politcal correctness and F--- anybody that doesn't like who we are , we've been to long kissing foreign asse and John Kerry and his pussified posse can go to hell if they think we need to get the world consens to like us. Enoughs, enough already. And maybe we just might set us up a couple colonies in Mexico. They want to come here and make a few bucks mowing lawns and framing houses, maybe we might just move into Cabo and Acapulco and decide to stay.:devil:
Damn this Siera Nevada Pale Ale tastes good, and all the good brain storming it produces......:devil: :devil:
Of course not.
A stable, pro-western, anti-islamofascist terrorist government will exist in Iraq.
The sucessful existence of such a govt is what Iran, Syria, Egypt, and the other local dictatorships fear because it will bring, TO THE PEOPLE, prosperity that no dictatorship ever has in the history of the middle east. That prosperity will only bring pressure on those other govts for the same in their countries. Who wants to lose power?
The results of the LOSS of power, and the limitless desire to regain it, are readilly apparent in the modern US democrat party.
I think the foillowing is VERY LIKELY Ultra:
It's going to be like watching dominos fall over.
When the Democrats get their way, we will surrender, we will not have lost.
When we surender in Iraq, the Iranian backed terrorists will win.
When the Iranian-backed terrorists win, the elected Iraqi Govt will fall.
When the Elected Govt falls, just who will seize power? The terrorists.
When the terrorists controll the country they controll the entire oil revenue.
When the terrorists have unlimited money, they will decend on the US like you cannot imagine.
The terrorists curently want to make attacks here, but our offense is keeping them off balance.
After we surrender, eventually, there WELL BE, at minimum, a terrorist "Dirty Bomb" (simple conventional explosive laced with anything from enriched uranium to medical nuclear waste like Str-90, which is EASY TO GET in many places overseas. It could make 1/2 of a city like LA or NYC instantly uninhabitable, for decades to centuries.
At maximum, a low-power nuke, like Japan's will go off here somewhere. Much harder engineering, but nowhere near impossible. It only takes $$$$$.
Damn right they do, and should have AT MINIMUM 6 years ago in late 2001!
True, every word of it. Pure political showmanship for zero result, because they know the vast majority of the US public WILL NOT ACCEPT just cutting the troops off on a limb. To do so would be political mass suicide in 2 years. They keep trying to back-door it so Joe-six-pack doesn't notice and get pissed.
Dipshit Harry Reid has said that as long as the president keeps vetoing dated surender bills, he'll keep sending them, to be Veto'd. I heard him say it personally, on the radio, before they went on Easter Recess.
It SHOULD BE mass political suicide just the knowledge that 48% of the senate has made itself known as willing to surender, but it will be forgotten in 18 mos. time.
And kiddies if you look close you will see where gdumbya puts his hand in the back of smoking to make his mouth move.
Posting Permissions