Surge or Surrender

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 1 of 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HERO

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 2:39 PM

I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.

OR

I say it aint worth it. I want the soldiers home so I can use that money to fund gay stem cell wedding research to feed to poor polar bears and sponsor El Nino's global warming TV commericals to end smoking and promote legalized drugs.

Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).

There's also a small third party called the Whiners (in favor of complaining about the war) and to them I note the following:
* A chicken can travel up to 9 mph.

* The world's largest chicken egg weighed 12 ounces and was 121/4 inches around.

* Chickens experience REM sleep.

* Alektorophobia is fear of chickens.

* There are more chickens on earth than people.

* Each year Americans eat 80 pounds of chicken each.

H

GEEZER

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 4:39 PM

Surge against the Sunni militias in Baghdad to free up Iraqi forces to move on Shi'a militias as part of PM Maliki's plan to shut down all illegal armed groups. If, after a while, the Iraqi government can't, or won't, shut down the Shi'a, start removing US combat forces.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SHINYED

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:01 PM

It's like trying to kill off cockroaches...they just hide deep inside the walls...you never get 'em all.

Surge...smurge...ain't really gonna matter.

All that really matters is preventing future American & coalition deaths.

Let's put the billions we're spending in Iraq into securing our own borders and strengthen our intelligence to root out sleeper cells & terror threats here in America.

Iraq's had their chance to be free....they've blown it .

RUE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:17 PM

Surge or surrender - another false dilemma. It's not as if a surge is going to 'win' the war. The choice is surge now then withdraw later, or withdraw now. Kinda changes the perspective.

STORYMARK

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 5:59 PM

So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

How long exactly does it take you to wash the taste of Bush out of your mouth?

I'm guessing you're totally in agreement with Kevin Klein's character in "A fish called Wanda".

"We didn't loose Vietnam! It was a tie!"

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 6:18 PM

That's funny. I could have sworn the war ended back in 2003. Didn't bush declare victory some time in May that year?

Personal opinion of someone not in the US - you've already lost. You went looking for weapons that weren't there and didn't find them. You united every faction against you, soured relations with allies and adversaries, provided more material than your enemies know what to do with and lost more people than you lost when the twin towers fell. And worst of all, now you're in a mess you can't get out, so it's likely you'll lose more people than were lost during all the 9/11 attacks combined.

All this for a country that had nothing to do with those attacks in the first place.

On the plus side you did end the regime of a genocidal maniac.

You want to push? Go ahead and push. It won’t make a difference. You can’t colonize a country that hates you. It just means the targets are within walking distance.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
Blog available at http://desktophippie.blogspot.com

HERO

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject. I just outlined the three sides this seems to have. The Winners (cause they wanna win and this is how they do it), the Losers (because 'go-homers' gets confusing with the new Simpsons movie coming out), and the Whiners (because complaining is all they do...for example complaining that there isn't a draft, proposing a draft, and then complaining that we might have a draft).

Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already). Use the surge to cover a troop deployment with another objective...like launching a strike on Iran. I was going say it, then I saw the bombing of the AQ fellas in Somalia and thought...maybe not Iran.

I kinda liked the idea that, instead of bombing Iranian nuclear plants, we drop a division on them. Hole up for awhile and the engineer folks can dismantle, destroy, or remove everything safely, and then we fly away leaving behind a liberal dosing of salt. There's no piece of ground in Iran we can't take and hold for a few days with a unit like the 101st. After that we send them to Arizona to kick ass on those Mexican folk who made our National Guard unit retreat the other week. I say if Mexico wont get them, then we do it just like the old days with Black Jack...

H

STORYMARK

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject.
H

Bullshit. You're wording made it perfectly clear what your opinion was.

Not that we all didn't know it in the first place.

Wipe your chin, Hero, still got some president left on you.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.

Yeah, if nothing else the rest of the world can watch you turn it in to Vietnam 2: A failiure too far.

Quote:
Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already).

Just not 'doing it yourself'

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.

Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).

Hero- this is the poisonous flaw in your logic that prevents you from freeing your mind from years of subconscious conditioning, which may have unwittingly turned you into a closet neoNazi. for starters THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR! if you mean Osama bin laden.. the FBI doesnt have evidence that links him to 9/11. if you mean Alqaeda.. no one can prove that its a physical organisation, and they most certainly had no ties to 9/11 or Saddam. if it were not for the CIAs boogeyman Alqaeda, and the governments OWN orchestration of 9.11, the public would never have supported a war on terror, or rather any pretenses to have gone into Iraq.

when you talk about "winning", you mean the American military completing its mission or agenda successfully- but you wrongly assume that a political or military success is a benefit to everyday americans; im not sure you understand the nature of government, but you need to realize that the 'agenda' is a wholly homogeonized global government, with the elite masters atop a fascist plantation of indentured servants. this provocation with the middle east was predestined, read the CFR and PNAC documents.. its there in print-google them.

i get the impression that your one of these people like Rush and Hannity and Beck, who essentially believe what the CIA and pentagon and white house neocons tell them.. because they are part of the establishment, it sounds official and so it makes the news. (the irony is when Fox does a segment on conspiracy theorists, they claim we're in it for the money). look some of us know better, anyone who has actually looked at the scientific facts of 9/11 for instance...and we know not to put faith in any idealogy or plan hatched in the bowels the the most satanic building in AMerica- the Pentagon. you take the side of the globalists and internationalists who are literally subjugating and murdering a world populace into global monetary submission and regulation and an eventual global government.. and like the patriotic germans of the 30's you goosestep right alongside skull and bones Bush and his ss officers... right into WW3 and an AMerican union. ultimately you must share the same mindset as these people, using all means neccessary to establish as Bush sr stated forthrightly, a "NEW WORLD ORDER". well youre getting it.. but its not what they promised us is it?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE