SternFanNetwork Archive - Democrats want to oppose the war.....not end it

SternFanNetwork Archive > Other Talk > Politics & News

Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.

Democrats want to oppose the war.....not end it - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

banner

Democrats want to oppose the war.....not end it - Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics

zimmie

Have you ever seen such a bunch of gutless wonders?

Tomofnnh

Mr PC gets banned, now we're stuck with this guy. :o

zimmie

truth hurts...huh junior?

Rike

libs are on the run today :)

it can't be easy supporting massive tax increases and a field of presidential candidates that have no intention of leaving iraq.

how they can raise hell over the war for the last 4 years and then happily go vote for a candidate that supports it is incredible to me. i might even speculate they've somehow been duped ;)

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Rike
libs are on the run today :)

it can't be easy supporting massive tax increases and a field of presidential candidates that have no intention of leaving iraq.

how they can raise hell over the war for the last 4 years and then happily go vote for a candidate that supports it is incredible to me. i might even speculate they've somehow been duped ;)

I agreee that the Liberals and their MoveOn.org Demorcat party is an absolute joke and disgrace.

However, to be fair this only applies to the top tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards). Dennis Kucinich is quite clear in regards to a complete surrender, as is Chris Dodd.

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Have you ever seen such a bunch of gutless wonders?

Yes. You and the rest of you bushcunts.

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
I agreee that the Republicans and their townhall.com Republican party is an absolute joke and disgrace.

However, to be fair this only applies to the top tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards). Dennis Kucinich is quite clear in regards to a complete surrender, as is Chris Dodd.

harley-davidson

Your first mistake is assuming the posters here are fucking Dems, right now there is one guy with the balls for my vote and thats Ron Paul...at least he has the fucking guts to stand alone and tell it like it is over this war bullshit....now go enjoy your fucking crow

ChaseDC

On the run? You delusional fuck.

Duped. As in, you and the rest of the bushcunts.....for 6+ years. I bet you are even proud of the FACT that DUMBYA is ruining the country. Get the fuck out of my country you cocksucking traitorous fagot.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
I agreee that the Liberals and their MoveOn.org Demorcat party is an absolute joke and disgrace.

However, to be fair this only applies to the top tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and Edwards). Dennis Kucinich is quite clear in regards to a complete surrender, as is Chris Dodd.

You stupid fuck Ron Paul wants out of Iraq YESTERDAY

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Your first mistake is assuming the posters here are fucking Dems, right now there is one guy with the balls for my vote and thats Ron Paul...at least he has the fucking guts to stand alone and tell it like it is over this war bullshit....now go enjoy your fucking crow

HD, it's what the retarded bush cum guzzlers are brainwashed to believe. They can't help it they are THAT fucking gullible and stupid.

Rike

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
You stupid fuck Ron Paul wants out of Iraq YESTERDAY

Yeah but your stupid Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer of winning shit, so what does supporting him solve?

Fight off the democrat label all you want but I don't need a crystal ball to see that 99% of you libs here will be voting for Hillary after all your idiotic fringe candidates go down in flames.

harley-davidson

Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
HD, it's what the retarded bush cum guzzlers are brainwashed to believe. They can't help it they are THAT fucking gullible and stupid.

Why do you think they don't like Paul, because they want the same old song and fucking dance, Hitlary is just another corporate fucking pig....fuck her ,Thompson and Rudy are a fucking joke .

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by Rike
Yeah but your stupid Ron Paul doesn't have a prayer of winning shit, so what does supporting him solve?

Fight off the democrat label all you want but I don't need a crystal ball to see that 99% of you libs here will be voting for Hillary after all your idiotic fringe candidates go down in flames.

and you'd be wrong. Just like you are 100% of the time.

too bad you fucking brainwashed ignorant cowards can't even spot a conservative if he came up and punched you in the face.
You backwards fucks actually think all the bush clones are the way to go. :p

Can't wait for you to have a breakdown after the election.

harley-davidson

See Chase what did I tell ya ? :lol:

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
See Chase what did I tell ya ? :lol:

Oh, I know. Retarded. Every last one of them.

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
You stupid fuck Ron Paul wants out of Iraq YESTERDAY

Sorry, "stupid fuck," but the topic of discussion is the Democrat party, not the Republican Party.

And I am well aware of Ron Paul's position. I've seen the Repubican debates and have heard the laughter he drums up when he is asked about it.

But I'm interested - if you were running for President, what would be your timetable for surrender?

ChaseDC

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Sorry, "stupid fuck," but the topic of discussion is the Democrat party, not the Republican Party.

And I am well aware of Ron Paul's position. I've seen the Repubican debates and have heard the laughter he drums up when he is asked about it.

But I'm interested - if you were running for President, what would be your timetable for surrender?

Find where ANYONE says ending the war or redeploying troops is surrender. Fucking talking point repeating inbred jerkoff.

I guess you didn't get the latest talking point that says that the "surrender" talking points is as stale as all the rest of your talking points.

mr wrong

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
I agreee that the Liberals and their MoveOn.org Demorcat party is an absolute joke and disgrace.

What's really disgraceful, and pathetic, is the fact that the only two tools you have are deflection, and projection.

Halcyon

Quote: Originally posted by mr wrong
What's really disgraceful, and pathetic, is the fact that the only two tools you have are deflection, and projection.

:spit: :bigup::bigclap:

What's doubly disgraceful is that VTW is too fucking stupid to see that in himself. It's so hard to turn that critical eye on yourself when you're busy hating America and the troops. VTW is not good at multi-taking though.

He can only hate America and the troops and never point a critical eye at Republicans, or himself.

Halcyon

YOU are NOT a patriot!

HotShotMagic

Let's reverse this... what's your timetable for victory? How many more years are you willing to go?

harley-davidson

If I was put in that fucking office it would start my first fucking day, and all you chicken shit they're coming here to get us, would have free training and air fair to go over there and finish the fucking job you feel needs done...all 26% of ya ...and don't look for no bid contractor help because they're fucking fired day one

According to guys like Vacate the British invaded us to give us democracy.....LOL... :D

Porcupine

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
And I am well aware of Ron Paul's position. I've seen the Repubican debates and have heard the laughter he drums up when he is asked about it.

I'd hardly call Rudy's cackling "laughter".

mb33139

Explain exactly how ending the occupation of another country "surrender"?

On other note, your hero and spokesperson of the wacko right wing Rush Limbaugh called our troops "phony soldiers" on his show. Specifically, he said that any troops who oppose the occupation are "not real soldiers". Do you agree with this latest talking point? Or, are you ready to denounce Rush Limbaugh for his hatred of our country?

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
Explain exactly how ending the occupation of another country "surrender"?

On other note, your hero and spokesperson of the wacko right wing Rush Limbaugh called our troops "phony soldiers" on his show. Specifically, he said that any troops who oppose the occupation are "not real soldiers". Do you agree with this latest talking point? Or, are you ready to denounce Rush Limbaugh for his hatred of our country?

To your first question, Al Qaeda in Iraq would be given a safe haven if we left precipitously.
It's just that simple.

As to your second question -

I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I do not know the context in which that comment was said....however taken at face value, no, I do not agree at all.

Stonewall

If America were to announce a pull out of Iraq tomorrow, say we are leaving Iraq as soon as possible, start heading for the border... it would not be surrender, but it would announce defeat and it would mean a victory for Al Qaeda and their friends. I don't think anyone could say that Al Qaeda will not claim victory. The tactics of Al Qaeda and the other Jihadi groups will be why we leave. We cannot convince others of why we were defeated. We can't say we were not defeated.

So, we give them a victory... lets be honest about that.

Where does that lead to? Perhaps that is why the Democrats are not so quick on the American defeat in Iraq. Not quite ready to steamroll down that road.

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
Find where ANYONE says ending the war or redeploying troops is surrender. Fucking talking point repeating inbred jerkoff.

I guess you didn't get the latest talking point that says that the "surrender" talking points is as stale as all the rest of your talking points.

I guess you just don't comprehend the basic fact that if we left precipitously we would give Al Qaeda a sanctuary in Iraq where they could plan, train and fund future attacks against the United States and our allies.

You see, we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda is in Iraq.
Al Qaeda's quest to continue to attack America will not be placated by our retreat.

Would you care to approach a family of a victim of 9/11 and explain to them that going after Al Qaeda is a "talking point?"

Your naivete of all things related to the national security of the United States is incredibly astounding.
Are you in the 5th grade?

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If America were to announce a pull out of Iraq tomorrow, say we are leaving Iraq as soon as possible, start heading for the border... it would not be surrender, but it would announce defeat and it would mean a victory for Al Qaeda and their friends. I don't think anyone could say that Al Qaeda will not claim victory. The tactics of Al Qaeda and the other Jihadi groups will be why we leave. We cannot convince others of why we were defeated. We can't say we were not defeated.

So, we give them a victory... lets be honest about that.

Where does that lead to? Perhaps that is why the Democrats are not so quick on the American defeat in Iraq. Not quite ready to steamroll down that road.

Surrender....technically declaring defeat.

This is really a matter of semantics on some level, no?

mb33139

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
To your first question, Al Qaeda in Iraq would be given a safe haven if we left precipitously.
It's just that simple.

As to your second question -

I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh.
I do not know the context in which that comment was said....however taken at face value, no, I do not agree at all.

In response to your first answer, you seem to assume that the Iraqi government is either:

A) incapable of eliminating Al Qaeda themselves (despite all the arms and training we have provided)
or
B) the Iraqi government is unwilling to be rid of Al Qaeda

Either way, the solution seems to lie in a more efficient GOVERNMENT. Not throwing more American troops in to the conflict.

As for Rush Limbaugh, I heard the show myself. And I hope that his words are not heard by any of the active military in Iraq. What a pathetic thing to say..

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Halcyon
:spit: :bigup::bigclap:

What's doubly disgraceful is that VTW is too fucking stupid to see that in himself. It's so hard to turn that critical eye on yourself when you're busy hating America and the troops. VTW is not good at multi-taking though.

He can only hate America and the troops and never point a critical eye at Republicans, or himself.

Nope, I've been critical of both President Bush and the Republican party when asked. Don't believe me? Check the archives.

I merely realize the threat that Al Qaeda and its terrorist allies pose to the United States and the importance of fighting them in their own backyard versus doing nothing and hoping they won't strike (see Clinton Doctrine).

You have displayed the ability to be a rational person, Hal. I don't understand why you cannot grasp the reality of this threat....seriously.

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
In response to your first answer, you seem to assume that the Iraqi government is either:

A) incapable of eliminating Al Qaeda themselves (despite all the arms and training we have provided)
or
B) the Iraqi government is unwilling to be rid of Al Qaeda

Either way, the solution seems to lie in a more efficient GOVERNMENT. Not throwing more American troops in to the conflict.

As for Rush Limbaugh, I heard the show myself. And I hope that his words are not heard by any of the active military in Iraq. What a pathetic thing to say..

Well I agree that the Iraqi people do not want Al Qaeda in their country, but the fact remains that they are not yet in a position to take on AQI by themselves....they need our help. The goal has always been for the Iraqi military to "stand up," and when they are capable of taking on AQI we will shift to an oversight role.

I never said the government was unwilling....but it is unable right now.

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well I agree that the Iraqi people do not want Al Qaeda in their country, but the fact remains that they are not yet in a position to take on AQI by themselves....they need our help. The goal has always been for the Iraqi military to "stand up," and when they are capable of taking on AQI we will shift to an oversight role.

I never said the government was unwilling....but it is unable right now.

they're not even trying

mb33139

Then you agree that at present, the administration has failed to achieve the goal of a self sufficient Iraqi government capable of governing their country. I am not saying that this will not ever happen. I am only saying that to this point, the Bush administration has failed in establishing this most important goal.

Having said that, I must ask a simple question. Do you think that the lives of the American troops that have been killed have been worth the sacrifice?

If you are thinking "yes", consider for a moment that there are thousands of parents who have lost their children for the sake of a failed Iraqi government.

We do not fight "wars" for failed governments, we occupy their country until they can fend for themselves... Continuing to call Iraq a "war" makes no sense.

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
they're not even trying

Well, they aren't if you buy into the Liberal media brainwashing.

:rolleyes:

Pushing the Bad Guys Out

BAGHDAD — A year ago the area to the east of Ramadi was a haven for insurgents who attacked the city. These days much has changed in the surrounding rural lands of the east.

The once violent lands of the east are patrolled and guarded by the Abu-Bali Iraqi Police (IP) and Soldiers from Company A, 3rd Battalion, 69th Armor Regiment. Their latest mission was a joint operation, which gathered intelligence and pushed insurgents further from the city of Ramadi and its outlying towns.

“Today, we did routine clearance missions east of Ramadi,” said 1st Lt. Cory Sharbo, a platoon leader with Co. A, 3-69 Armor. “Normally we work alongside the IP, but today we’re only here to supervise.”

Sharbo, 25, from Pittsburgh, Pa., said that the area they patrol is much different than what people at home would normally expect when they think of Iraq.

“Everyone always thinks that it’s all desert,” Sharbo said. “Lots of the Soldiers look at this area we’re in with an almost Vietnam-style terrain with canals, tall grass and sweltering heat.”

During the operation, IPs scoured the surrounding countryside of Abu Waitha and began walking through neighborhoods greeting locals and asking if they needed any assistance. While they were meeting the locals, the IPs asked about terrorist activity in the area.

Sharbo said the mission was important because it served as a show of force for the IPs.

“Since we came into this area, the IP have shown lots of improvement,” he said. “They are more organized, able to do handle the different tasks required of a policeman and now handle detainees real well – they are running the show here.”

Although there is often much work associated with the IP, the Soldiers said, they don’t have much work left in order for the IP to be self-sufficient.

“Part of our duty here, outside of combat operations, is to make sure the IPs are getting paid, they are receiving fuel, and they are receiving equipment,” Sharbo said. “Right now we’re helping supply them, but it’s not a permanent thing. We are still setting them up to sustain themselves and when we leave we’re going to make sure they can support themselves.”

Although the mission failed to turn up any insurgents, the IP and Coalition forces considered their work that evening a success.

“The mission today helped a lot to cement the local support for the police and Coalition force efforts here,” Sharbo said. “The insurgents closed off all the business here and people were prisoners in their own homes. Now people can come and go as they please.”

For the Soldiers working in Abu Bali, serving with the Iraqi Security Forces and seeing the effects of their combined efforts on the people is a good feeling.

“Most of the success here is from the Iraqi Police,” said Spc. Dustin Dunckel, an infantryman with Co. A, 3-69 Armor. “They are from this area, and know the people and the land. By us building up a strong police force here, we’ve established a confidence among the IPs and the people.”

The missions the troops conduct with the Iraqi Security Forces are a far cry from the combat the troops experienced less than six months ago.

“When we first got here there were lots of improvised explosive devices, sniper and mortar fire here,” said the 26-year-old, Lansing, Mich., native. Dunckel added, “Working with the Iraqi Security Forces and patrolling the area has made this place safer now. The groups here are proud and stern Iraqis who I can trust to do their job well.”

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?o...=14287&Itemid=1

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by mb33139
Then you agree that at present, the administration has failed to achieve the goal of a self sufficient Iraqi government capable of governing their country. I am not saying that this will not ever happen. I am only saying that to this point, the Bush administration has failed in establishing this most important goal.

Having said that, I must ask a simple question. Do you think that the lives of the American troops that have been killed have been worth the sacrifice?

If you are thinking "yes", consider for a moment that there are thousands of parents who have lost their children for the sake of a failed Iraqi government.

We do not fight "wars" for failed governments, we occupy their country until they can fend for themselves... Continuing to call Iraq a "war" makes no sense.

Well, I would say that we haven't achieved that objective yet, nothing more. Wars can't be fought on a timeline.

Do I think that the war is worth it? Yes, considering that not doing anything (the course that was taken under the Clinton Administration) has proven to be a failure.
Right now we are standing the Iraqis up because it would be nothing less than a catastrophe.
As far what you would call it - we are fighting a war against Al Qaeda and other terror organizations.

armchair loan officer general strikes again :rolleyes:

VacateTheWord

Quote: Originally posted by Oz
armchair loan officer general strikes again :rolleyes:

Funny how people criticize others for voicing an opinion.

So I'm assuming that you are not a General and have never been a General - hence you have no opinion. Right?

And I'm not a "loan officer."

mr wrong

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord

Would you care to approach a family of a victim of 9/11 and explain to them that going after Al Qaeda is a "talking point?"

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02

Which began as:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord

Funny how people criticize others for voicing an opinion.

You mean like questioning their patriotism, or accusing them of hating America?

mb33139

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Well, I would say that we haven't achieved that objective yet, nothing more. Wars can't be fought on a timeline.

Do I think that the war is worth it? Yes, considering that not doing anything (the course that was taken under the Clinton Administration) has proven to be a failure.
Right now we are standing the Iraqis up because it would be nothing less than a catastrophe.
As far what you would call it - we are fighting a war against Al Qaeda and other terror organizations.

That was not the question. Specifically, I asked if the sacrifice of American soldiers lives has been worth the current gains in Iraq.

It is a simple question.

mr wrong

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Nope, I've been critical of both President Bush and the Republican party when asked. Don't believe me? Check the archives.

I'm quite confidant that any criticism you leveled at the GOP was only handled with the very best kid-gloves, and not the tired, vapid attacks you give Democrats.

Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Funny how people criticize others for voicing an opinion.

So I'm assuming that you are not a General and have never been a General - hence you have no opinion. Right?

And I'm not a "loan officer."

what? are you above being a loan officer?

Your Ad Here

Powered by: Search Engine Indexer and vBulletin v2.3.0
Copyright © 2000 - 2002, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
All code and concepts property of iMonkey Inc.

This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans.
We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.

All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.