Originally Posted by jimmac
No. I'm sorry SDW but I'm living or leaving in a fantasy.
It's you who live in this nonexistant world where Bush is just a nice man, The republican's who support him can do no wrong, and we were justified to attack a small country without just provocation. And then you call it honerable.
I don't live in that world, you hack. Oh, and it's honOrable. Jesus.
SDW by your own standards you're nuts. To continue to support this whole thing in the face of all the evidence to the contrary is silly.
Meaningless, ah-hom and subjective.
True. And if there were, would that change your mind? It has nothing to do with the here and now.
They really don't want us there.
Who is they?
This was supposed to be a quick procedure.
No, it wasn't. That's been invented through Truth by Repetition. It was never sold to the public as being quick.
The killing goes on.
We throw more lives at the problem and predictably it's not really making a difference.
We're not "throwing lives" at it just because people are dying. And you cannot claim it's not making a difference at this point. That's like going on a diet and saying it's a failure after three days.
And the true test will come when we leave. Was it for some good cause or will things revert back to the way they were? As if we weren't there ( except for the loss of life of course ) Just like Vietnam.
1. False dilemma. It could be for a good cause AND things could "revert back to the way they were." Or it could be for a good cause and things could be different. Saddam's gone, at least.
2. Vietnam: Hmm...which political party pulled us out of there?
Anyone who thinks this is supportable under this kind of evidence is clearly not living in this reality.
You know, that doesn't become a reasonable statement just because you keep repeating it in different ways. The surge cannot be evaluated right now. It cannot. We'll see what happens with it in September/October.
Sorry SDW it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.
That's true. Thouh that fact does not seem to help you
Ps. And your idea that we can talk about every other aspect of the Bush administration in a political forum except the Vice President is just stupid.
You know. Kind of like Chenney saying he's not part of the executive branch.
Strawman. That is not what I said. I take issue with your deliberate inclusion of that article despite knowing in advance that there was a dedicated thread for discussing it. You used it to try and advance your argument, and somewhat cheaply, might I add.
Originally Posted by iPoster
Where's Stormin' Norman when you need him?
(not to say the current generals are doing a bad job with what they've been handed...)
Just to re-iterate:What is the mission?
What is the objective?
There is no territory to take.
We 'don't do body counts' anymore.
Elections have been held.
The people see us as a destabilizing force.
The government barely qualifies as such, and doesn't really want us there either.
Warfare Rule #1 - Never get involved in somebody else's civil war!
You know, I don't totally disagree with that. I just think we ought to try and secure things more before trying to draw down. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it will.
That is an unbelievable statement. I take it you'll be voting for Edwards then.
Originally Posted by Northgate
Really? So when John Kerry makes a joke we can assume the soldier's can take it?
When we want to argue the political ramifications of troop withrawal the solder's aren't so hapless that they understand we're trying to bring them home?
When we say that the surge is a "failure" we know the soldier's families aren't so fragile and hapless that they will understand what we "mean"?
You guys can't have it both ways...even though you try to.
Can they take it? Sure. Should they have to? No. John Kerry called them stupid. That's basically what he did. Saying the surge is a failure when it has literally just begun is not OK, either. "Dear Troops: We know you just got there, but you lose. Have a nice day. Oh yeah, and GO USA! We support you. Bye!"
Originally Posted by Northgate
Mocking? Hey buddy, fuck you! How's that for mocking you sanctimonious piece of garbage! You know goddamn well what I was saying and what I meant. So fuck you very much!
You have ZERO IDEA of what I, or my family, have or have not committed to this war and which loved ones of mine have given EVERYTHING to this country.
And you have the unmitigated GALL to accuse me of mocking these soldier's deaths!
No, I don't know what you meant. And you're right...I have no idea what you or your family has given. I suggest you enlighten me.
Maybe you'd like to present your own arguments next time? Oh, and psst: The deficit is shrinking rapidly....even with big pork spending. I'm just sayin'.
Originally Posted by audiopollution
Exactly.Ron Paul is *not* Chuck Norris.
As such, threads dedicated to him require some form of cogent discourse.
If not, I become a locking machine.
Blind links just won't cut it.
He's not? Fuck!
Originally Posted by jimmac
Typical no content response.
All you can do is dance around and insult people and think of yourself as oh so clever ( much like someone else on this board ) with no real content.
jimmac said "original content!"
And when you do have content it jumps back and forth across the line between you support GWB but you really don't like him depending on the context of the post.
And when you do have content it jumps back and forth between bashing GWB and...bashing GWB.
If you're an example of what Libertarians have to offer these days things have really changed and I don't want any.
By the way watch your spelling and typos in the future because I will.
1. Color me shocked.
2. Your typos are repeated and likely NOT typos. When you consistently use the same misspelling and make the same major grammatical mistakes, one begins to wonder.