| Author |
Message |
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
 Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:46 pm Official Iraq Troop Withdrawal Thread |
|
| Quote: | Bush to outline 'strategy for victory'
By Newsday
Nov 30, 2005 - 12:13:06 am PST
http://www.tdn.com/content/articles/2005/11/30/nation_world/news01.jpg
Photo by Associated Press
Jenny Flemming, 16, a student at South High School in Denver, joins hundreds of protesters on Tuesday outside the Brown Palace Hotel where President Bush was speaking.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush will outline his "strategy for victory" in Iraq on Wednesday, and senior advisers signaled that it boils down to this: trying to bring home some U.S. troops as soon as possible, but not too soon.
Bush's speech, scheduled at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., is the first of several designed to confront public discontent over the war and respond to congressional pressure to better explain his plan for getting American troops out of Iraq.
But anyone looking for a new strategy or dramatic change in course is likely to be disappointed, aides suggested Tuesday.
Instead, Bush is expected to say, as he has in the past, that improved Iraqi security forces are the ticket home for U.S. troops.
He will offer a more upbeat outlook on the capability of Iraqi forces to take over security duties and free up an unspecified number of U.S. troops to start coming home based on the recommendations of U.S. commanders, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Bush will continue to argue against setting arbitrary timetables or making a sudden withdrawal, McClellan said.
And it appeared unlikely that Bush would endorse specific suggestions by some U.S. commanders in Iraq that a fairly substantial number of U.S. troops could come home next year, possibly enough to bring U.S. troop levels below 100,000 by the end of 2006.
Still, McClellan and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signaled Tuesday that the time was fast approaching for U.S. troops to turn over more and more responsibilities to Iraqi forces, now numbering 212,000 troops.
"In 2006, I think you know, the expectation is that conditions will be changing on the ground," McClellan told reporters. "As the Iraqi forces are able to take control of more territory and the political process moves forward, then we'll be able to lower the number of troops we have in Iraq."
Bush, answering questions from reporters, said Tuesday he would rely on those very commanders to give him advice.
"I want to defeat the terrorists. And I want our troops to come home," the president said. "But I don't want them to come home without having achieved victory."
Bush also said it would be a "terrible mistake" to pull out troops too soon. That sentiment was echoed by Rumsfeld, who said, "Quitting is not an exit strategy."
About 157,000 American troops are in Iraq, a higher-than-usual number to provide security for the Dec. 15 elections. Already, the Pentagon has said it plans to reduce that number back to the usual level of 138,000.
But in the past two weeks, the Bush administration has shifted its tone on Iraq noticeably amid congressional worries over the 2006 elections -- from a seemingly open-ended commitment to Iraq to one suggesting that U.S. troops won't have to stay at the same levels "very much longer," as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said last week.
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/11/30/nation_world/news01.txt |
I'm happy just knowing that our people will be comming home in the near future. BTW, who thinks the girl in the image above looks like Neve Campbell from the Scream Movies?
[Edited off image tags. No hotlinking. - Puck]
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:01 pm |
|
"Make Love... Not War"
So, is that what Saddam was trying to do in his Rape-Room. 
|
|
|
borgslayer
Rear Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 2646
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:26 pm |
|
Sometimes war is the only solution if no other solution will work. But I guess thats how the world works everytime a dictator takes power.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:38 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | "Make Love... Not War"
So, is that what Saddam was trying to do in his Rape-Room. |
Rape Room? huh? I never even heard of that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:57 pm |
|
The rape rooms and torture chambers? You've NEVER heard of what Saddam did during his Reign of Terror? Wow.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:05 am |
|
And it's very basic. And so I agree with what his ideas were. His speech was fantastic. I now have regained my faith in Bush and the Republicans. They're improving a lot better.
The Democrats' response, though, to the speech today is just pitiful.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:00 pm |
|
So what's his strategy? I must be missing something. People are demanding a plan and all he can give us is a stupid speech on how quitting isn't an exit strategy?! People are losing their lives. The insurgancy is being fueled by US presence. The "terrorists" are just people who want the US to leave. I mean, once we leave, do you think they'll be as violant? Honestly. We've done enough damage to Iraq and it's people. We lessened their population nicely and have helped to leave their cities in shambles. I'm not saying that we leave immediately, but it's time to stop. It was built on a lie because of a grudge. And yes, I sincerely believe that. A powerful government (or formerly) shouldn't start a war based on "false information"! I mean, come on! They let everyone down. The US is in the dumps and it's continuing to sink further. The president is an idiot. Everything he's ever touched has crumbled. Everything he's done has been a big sham. I'm disgusted.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:48 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | So what's his strategy? I must be missing something. People are demanding a plan and all he can give us is a stupid speech on how quitting isn't an exit strategy?! People are losing their lives. The insurgancy is being fueled by US presence. The "terrorists" are just people who want the US to leave. I mean, once we leave, do you think they'll be as violant? Honestly. We've done enough damage to Iraq and it's people. We lessened their population nicely and have helped to leave their cities in shambles. I'm not saying that we leave immediately, but it's time to stop. It was built on a lie because of a grudge. And yes, I sincerely believe that. A powerful government (or formerly) shouldn't start a war based on "false information"! I mean, come on! They let everyone down. The US is in the dumps and it's continuing to sink further. The president is an idiot. Everything he's ever touched has crumbled. Everything he's done has been a big sham. I'm disgusted. |
All you want to do is pull out. I just don't get it. I don't think it's right. Surrender is not the answer. Only cowards surrender.
The strategy, as I said in the Lieberman topic, is VICTORY. Victory in Iraq. That means a stable government, successful elections, the Iraqi army ready to take on their responsibilities without American support (which only one battallion can do as of now), and just Iraq able to defend itself against the terrorists, which would hopefully be few remaining at the time we leave, and the Iraqis able to do the job themselves.
"When the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." He's been consistent on his exit strategy. It's just not the one you want to hear.
Should the president lay out the specific goals that we wish to accomplish and what he hopes to do to go about them? Sure. But he shouldn't develop a timetable or say, "Yeah, we're gonna be outta there in two years or so." NEVER happened. Ever. I don't see you liberals crying about Clinton not having an exit strategy and our troops still being in Bosnia and Kosovo. I don't see you liberals complaining about how we still have troops in Germany after 50 years. Again, we've NEVER had an exit strategy in the entire time for the US. Only in Vietnam did we, and that had a horrendous result.
And I just don't get how you think 3 years is enough to remake a country and create an army.
It took us how long to get our Constitution ratified? A lot longer than Iraq.
The terrorists ARE TERRORISTS. They are NOT ordinary Iraqis but people who DON'T want the US to succeed there and the US to be seen as a failure and the Iraqis not to have a [stable] democracy. They want Iraq to either go back into the hands of the Ba'athist party or become a terrorist state. How do you not see that!? What are you subscribing to? Michael Moore Magazine? Next you're gonna call the terrorists "Minutemen" like Mike did.
Yes, it WILL be as violent, if not more violent, because they will be striking out of nowhere, killing Iraqis left and right in attempts to take over. And the Iraqis would be forced to give in. Do you really think that the terrorists will stop and the violence will go away if we left? Honestly. We've done enough good to Iraq and its people. Just read Lieberman's Op-Ed piece. He was there, unlike Murtha, and saw the good things that we have done. And we HAVE done good things. Let's list it, shall we?
-Iraqis have control of their own government now (democracy)
-No longer are there rape rooms
-No longer are there torture chambers and plastic body shredders
-No longer are people not talking about assassinated family members because of worries of Saddam killing them
-No longer are the mass graves being filled
-No longer is an evil, murderous dictator in power. Instead, he's facing justice in a court run BY THE IRAQIS
-No longer are Uday and Qusay (sp?) running around Iraq. Instead, they're dead
-No longer do women have virtually no rights. Woman can now do things they only DREAMED of under Saddam
-No longer is Saddam a face of terror in the world
-One less dictator is on Earth
-The Iraqis now have cleaner water and schools are in better condition, with students having more materials, etc and actual DRINKING WATER, not water from the ground, which is what they had to use in the past
-Oppression in Iraq has ended
-Freedom is on the march
There. I just listed to you TONS of good things we've done. Now what are we doing? Helping to secure those accomplishments and improve upon them. Helping to make Iraq a stable country and democracy. Helping the Iraqis to build an army to be safe and secure. We're helping kids to get toys and different things that they couldn't otherwise get. We're protecting the kids. We're doing SO MANY good things in Iraq, and have done so many good things. But of course you don't get that because the media just doesn't show it. Only Fox News, which shows both the good and the bad fairly and evenly, has actually shown the good. Or if the other stations and networks have, they hardly have, because I have almost never seen it.
Wake up and smell the coffee. The American troops are doing great things in Iraq and Iraq--and the world--are better off without Saddam's tyrannical regime.
And what the hell? It was built on a lie because of a grudge? What EVIDENCE do you have of this? No WMD's, it looks like, even though I'm not convinced that that's so? That's NOTHING. That doesn't show anything. I guess Clinton had a grudge and lied to us when he sent missile strikes against Iraq. I guess Clinton, Gore, Albright, and Berger--who were NOT given intelligence from the President--lied and had grudges as well when they encouraged and supported action against Iraq. And not just when Clinton sent missile strikes but in the leadup to the war and after it started. And Kerry and Reid and everyone said that they had WMDs even BEFORE Bush was in office. And then they got intelligence that seemed correct at the time during Bush's term as well. The WORLD thought that he had WMDs. Bush didn't pretend that that was so.
The Un, which initiated Resolution 1441 and yet didn't act on their threats, said that they had it. Resolution 1441 proves it. The same goes to France, Russia, and China--who all had oil interests via Oil for Food (as did the Un). AND it goes to the UK, Australia, Jordan, Egypt, and a host of other countries. To say that it was a "lie based on a grudge" is in and of itself baseless and simply wrong, plain and simple. And if it was, then EVERYONE did it too.
What are you going to say if (and perhaps when) WMDs that are from Iraq DO show up, huh?
And finally, I just don't understand you. We shouldn't go to war when we see an imminent threat? We should wait until Chicago's up in smoke to defend ourselves? We should GIVE IN to the terrorists by not taking the fight to them? We shouldn't defend ourselves JUST BECAUSE the intelligence leading to going to war may have been wrong? So it looks like we may have been wrong. Yeah, so was the world. But we HAD to do it, at least at the time it was perceived that way, and we may have been wrong, but still. Defending this state before we're attacked is IMPORTANT. We can no longer submit to the will of the terrorists, like we did under Clinton. We have to take the fight to the terrorists, and actually defend ourselves. We must take the fight to THEM. We cannot have the war on our own soil. The best defense is a good offense. If we can rack up the touchdowns and keep pushing towards the field goal, we'll sure as heck be able to slow the touchdowns of the opposing team. That's the philosophy our great president--the perfect wartime president for this war (at this time--Reagan would be better). Essentially a good offense is a good defense.
And how in the world can you say "or formerly"? We are STILL the most powerful country in the world, NO question about it. If we see intelligence that shows that we're in danger and diplomacy's failed and we are able, we must air on the side of defense. This is a new kind of war, and we can't be fighting it here. That's why we need to take the fight to the terrorists and defend our borders better.
We're in the dumps? We're sinking further? The President's an idiot? Everything he's ever touched has crumbled? Everything he's done is a big sham? My, oh, my, sir, you are filled with hatred that has, from what I see, blinded you from the truth. You sure as heck don't live in the same America I do.
Last edited by Republican_Man on Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:55 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
You know what's disgusting? That paragraph. And other liberals like you, when it comes to Iraq. All you want to do is pull out. Surrender is not the answer. Only cowards surrender.
And finally, you are either sincerely misguided, on something, insane, subscribing to liberal propaganda, or SOMETHING, because this is just insane. |
^That was unnecessary. If you can't post without including this crap, then don't.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:04 pm |
|
^You're right, sir. My apologies. I made editing changes to make it kinder, deleting virtually all of that. Sorry, Oberon. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:56 pm |
|
I went ahead and made this our official Iraq Troop Withdrawal News Thread. As RM pointed out in another thread, we have several on this topic. In the future, please post any new articles regarding this issue, and any comments, opinions, or arguments here. Thanks.
[Puck]
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:33 pm |
|
Is there a chance that you could merge the Lieberman topic with this, because there's a good debate there as well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:55 pm |
|
Finally. Fox's got a documentary about Iraq--in a good light--on Sunday. "Iraq: The Untold Story." Wanna hear things directly from Iraqis glad about US presence? Wanna hear about the good things in Iraq--what we've done for the Iraqis? Well, some of you don't, but if you want to for once get the other side, check it out. It'll show, I expect, that we really can't abandon the Iraqis and the success we've given them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:19 pm |
|
I just thought of this. The United States was in a Revolution back in the 1700s, and we relied greatly on French assistance. What if the French pulled out because it was a "wrongful war" and they "had no reason to be there"? The United States wouldn't be here, that's what. The world would be remarkably different--for the worse. It's a similar situation with Iraq. We can't abandon the Iraqis now. Just imagine if the French abandoned us back in the 1770s.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:18 am |
|
The French did it mostly just because they didn't like the British either. But I don't know if you want to compare America to the French, since they had a revolution about 6 years later.  Besides, the French didn't land troops, and they certainly didn't stick around fighting insurgents. 
I agree that we shouldn't pull out of Iraq. That would be stupid and self-defeating, because Iraq would fall apart. I do think that Iraqi security forces should be better trained, better equipped, and that a tougher stance should be taken about the insurgents. Then again, since I don't know what it's like there, I have no idea how feasible those demands are.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:10 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I just thought of this. The United States was in a Revolution back in the 1700s, and we relied greatly on French assistance. What if the French pulled out because it was a "wrongful war" and they "had no reason to be there"? The United States wouldn't be here, that's what. The world would be remarkably different--for the worse. It's a similar situation with Iraq. We can't abandon the Iraqis now. Just imagine if the French abandoned us back in the 1770s. |
Yep it would be different but i don't think it would be any worse or better. Other former British colonies haven't turned out bad, i.e Australia, New Zealand, India, Canada. If anything the british brought the world up to standards with its excellent education system.
The African colonies are another story, but most of africa is like that
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:34 am |
|
My one problem with Bush's strategy in Iraq is his claim that we will not leave until we achieve "total victory". There is no military way to keep people from adotping an ideology. And it's an ideology we are fighting.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:13 pm |
|
| Quote: | President Clinton Opposes Setting Iraq Timetable
Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said the U.S. should restructure how its troops are deployed in Iraq and begin taking some personnel out of the country without setting a firm timetable for a withdrawal.
"It seems to me the best thing to do is heed the wishes of all the leaders of Iraq, the various sectors, who say they want us to draw down our forces,'' Clinton said in a CNN interview broadcast tonight. ``We don't want to set a fixed timetable if that led to chaos.''
Clinton's remarks illustrate an emerging split in the Democratic Party over how to deal with the conflict in Iraq.
One faction, represented by Representative John Murtha, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senator Russell Feingold, are calling for President George W. Bush to begin pulling forces out of Iraq and ending a large-scale U.S. presence there by the end of next year. Other Democrats, including Senators Joseph Biden and John Kerry, are critical of Bush's policy while warning against setting any schedule or deadline for withdrawal.
Clinton made his comments in response to a question about criticism that his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, leveled against Bush on Iraq.
"Whether you were for it or against it, it seems to be you should all be praying that it succeeds,'' the former president said. ``I didn't agree with what was done when it was done, but we are where we are.''
War Debate
Hillary Clinton, a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, voted in favor of authorizing Bush to take military action in Iraq. She criticizes the administration for failing to build international support, for not letting weapons inspectors finish their work and for how the war was handled.
"I take responsibility for my vote, and I, along with a majority of Americans, expect the president and his administration to take responsibility for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of the war,'' Clinton wrote in a letter to supporters dated Nov. 29. She also opposes setting a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.
The stance of both Clintons is similar to that taken by Biden, a Delaware Democrat and potential 2008 presidential candidate, and Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who was the party's nominee for president in 2004. Like Bush, they wouldn't set a deadline for withdrawal and advocate turning more defense roles to Iraqis while U.S. troops concentrate on more specialized tasks.
`Most Effective'
"When we draw down, we want to put them in safer areas and use them where they're most effective in battle, with strike force capacity and in intelligence gathering,'' Clinton said.
Bush, in speech yesterday that his aides said was intended to clarify U.S. strategy in Iraq, said that as Iraqi forces take on more security responsibility, U.S. troops ``can concentrate on training Iraqis and hunting down high-value targets,'' such as terrorist leaders.
"Our goal is to train enough Iraq forces so they can carry the fight, and this will take time and patience,'' Bush said.
The U.S. military has plans to reduce U.S. personnel in Iraq -- now about 160,000 troops -- by 40,000 to 60,000 over the course of 2006 provided that political and military progress continues.
"The thing that was important about the president's speech was he acknowledged that we can have a draw down next year, and we should withdraw our troops into safer areas, which is what Mr. Murtha said,'' Clinton said in the CNN interview. `` And I hope that we'll reconfigure them with greater strike force capacity and greater intelligence capacity.''
Iraq Debate
Murtha stoked the Iraq debate on Nov. 17, when he said the U.S. could not win militarily in Iraq and should begin withdrawing troops. The Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran has been an advocate for military leaders in Congress.
Murtha, in a speech today in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, said the U.S. Army is "broken, worn out,'' and ``living hand to mouth,'' the Associated Press reported.
Pelosi, of California, is the first party leader to say she backs Murtha's position. Feingold, who voted against the 2002 war resolution, has said the U.S. should plan to bring all troops out of Iraq by the end of next year.
|
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:28 pm |
|
| Quote: |
CNN.com
Powered by
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Dean: "U.S. can't win Iraq war"
GOP says Democrat leader embraces 'retreat and defeat'
(CNN) -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is drawing GOP fire after telling a Texas radio station that the idea the war in Iraq can be won is "just plain wrong."
In an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio Monday, the head of the Democratic Party drew a parallel between efforts to hand over security responsibilities to Iraqis and similar efforts during the Vietnam War to the South Vietnamese.
That side ultimately lost the war.
"Of course, the South Vietnamese couldn't manage to support their own country," Dean said. "I do not believe in making the same mistake twice. And America appears to have made the same mistake twice."
Dean said he wished President Bush "had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we had gotten in there."
"The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said.
Calling Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy," Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops within the next six months.
He said that he backed the redeployment of 20,000 troops to Afghanistan and a force in the Middle East to deal with al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but not in Iraq.
"We cannot have our troops being targets there," he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman blasted his Democratic counterpart, accusing Dean of embracing "retreat and defeat" and "predicting that America will lose the war in Iraq."
"His outrageous prediction sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections," Mehlman said in a statement. "Democrats across the nation should stand up and reject the pessimism of their chairman."
Responding to Mehlman's broadside, Dean spokeswoman Karen Finney said that Republicans were "cherry-picking" Dean's words "just like they cherry-picked the pre-war intelligence."
"We can only win if the Iraqi people are able to play a greater role in peacekeeping, and we can only win if the president gives an honest assessment of what's really happening on the ground in Iraq," Finney said.
"Staying the course and paying for good headlines are not a strategy. It's merely a bad excuse for not having a plan."
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
What a *beep*. This is my only concern with democracy is that people are stupid enough to vote for people like Dean.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:30 pm |
|
I know. He's the chairman of the Democratic Party for you. Good ol' Dean! Well THAT'S something pleasant for the troops there--that no matter what they do they'll lose. He's such a jerk. That's why I love him [as Chairman of the DNC]!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:32 pm |
|
Wow, what really scares me now is that I just voted on this in a CNN web pole, and was startled to see that 62% of the 50,000 who have voted agree that we can't ever win.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:06 pm |
|
It's an online, non-scientific web poll--and a CNN one at that. Non-scientific, and CNN, and only 50,000 people. But anyways, Democratic Strategist Bob Beckel was disgusted and knows that most Democrats don't believe this, and doesn't like having the leader of his party being like this, representing Democrats like that.
Kerry's statements on Face the Nation were disgusting as well. I mean, "terrorizing women and children in the dark of the night"--even Beckel's embarrassed by his statements.
I not only think we can win this war, but I think we're winning, too. We clearly are, just that's not being shown on TV, except for a fantastic Fox News special actually, for once, focussing on the good things going on in Iraq.
And you know, we can't judge progress simply by how many people are dying. There's a lot more than that--a LOT more, and most of it's good. It's really just the Sunni Triangle that really is getting the attacks, anyways. Not most of Iraq--especially not beautiful Kurdistan. I'd move to Kurdistan, Iraq if certain Democrats were elected, even.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:32 pm |
|
When you have the chairman of the Democratic National Committee--a former presidential candidate--saying, WHILE WE ARE AT WAR, that we are losing and cannot win, and the former Presidential nominee and Senator of Massachusetts accuses our troops of committing atrocities--when the terrorists see this, what do you think this says to the troops, and to the terrorists? Does this embolden them? Oh, I think so, very much so. It's devastating and wrong for them to be saying these things when the country is AT WAR and troops are dying. What does this say to them? The leadership of the Democratic party--Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi--are disgusting and only hurting our troops by doing what they're doing and saying what they're saying right now. Debate is fine, but undermining the war and saying what their saying? Dispicable. Nothing more. I'd be embarrassed if I was a Democrat. It's so sad seeing how far off the party's come from the great party it once was.
And did you know that FDR actually had a censorship office dealing with matters of things being CENSORED in the media about the war? You wouldn't have things like what the media's doing going on. If it did, they would be prosecuted. It's obvious why he did this, though.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:03 pm |
|
7,000 people are running in tonight's elections,, WHICH HAVE BEGUN!
Freedom is on the march, as they vote on their leaders under THEIR constitution which THEY developed.
And some of you want us to pull out now, if not in the next couple months? I think not!
That's like baking a cake and stopping it in mid-way, not even thinking about putting the icing on.
Yeah, look at what's going on today. I hope it's a success, and suspect it to be as such. Let's watch democracy in action, my friends! It's a good day for freedom!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
