Surge or Surrender
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Saturday, January 20, 2007 17:03
VIEWED: 15139
PAGE 6 of 21
Quote:Wow. Define over-reaction, why don't you.
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq.
Now if I accused you of being in favor of losing then you'd be all upset. After all just disagreeing with the President does not make a person unpatriotic or a traitor. Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.
Be sure to foreward your posting to all the soldiers in Iraq and I suggest you include your home address so they can personally express their gratitude for your support.
H
Did Sarge make you angry? Rember Mal and the Operative- which one are you now?
Dr. Phil Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Notice how Hero gets all authoritarian and threatening when you disagree with him? I'll bet that man has put many innocent people in jail. He loves throwing his weight around more than being right.
Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I know you're trying to swing the arugment away from your losing point ("the world will go the hell in a handbasket") but nonetheless there are MANY parts of the world that will be unaffected by events in Iraq.
Yep. Venezuela is verging on setting a fine example: President-for-life, rule by decree, firing the vice-president (after he delivered the centerist vote) for being insufficiently committed to the revolution, nationalizing industry, thereby removing any chance of foreign investment in the future, pulling the licenses of broadcasters who disagree with the government. Let's all move there.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I haven't read Bush's speech carefully from beginning to end. But I can guarantee that Bush will tell you what he needs to in order to do what he wants to do... and the two are not the same, just as a previous administration proclaimed they would not negotiate with terrorists while secretly dealing arms with Khomeini, Bush had to toss in 9/11 and al Qaida for a gloss of consistency.
So.... What's really going on here? Who gets what?
The big winners are.... the Sunnis. They get oil revenues. De-Baathification is reversed. Sadr City gets stomped, and Fallujah and all those other insurgent Sunni cities get left in peace. There is probably a Sunni leader somewhere behind the scenes who has given this his blessing.
Altho they lose some oil revenue, the Kurds get big brother's protection on the Turkish border.
The Shiites- who are made up of a number of diverse and competing groups- get the south, altho they also lose some oil revenue. It'll prolly go to some guy named Hakkim, who gets his main rival (al Sadr) stomped on.
The big loser is al Sadr. The other potential loser is Maliki himself. For the life of me, I can't figure out how they got Maliki's concurrence on this. Maybe he got to keep his head? But as far as I can tell, it means that internal security will be split three ways, and that Baghdad- the one major place where a lot of Shias and Sunnis live together- will go to the Sunnis. It could work. It means that Iran does not get to dominate all of Iraq- one of the things we didn't want happening. It also means that if native Sunnnia leaders are allowed to rise, they will displace al Qaida.
But I'm not sure what the additional 21,000 troops are for. To wrest control of Bahgdad from the Shiite death squads?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Whether troop drawdown in Iraq is surrender or not is really dependent upon the reasons why it’s being done.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'll bet that man has put many innocent people in jail.
Naturally. Anybody can convict the guilty. Only a master prosecutor can convict the innocent. Just look at the Duke case. I'd have had those boys in jail six months ago, then charged the accuser for making false statements and convicted her too.
I did that once. DV case. Lady admitted in court she lied to the cops. I still convicted her boyfriend then charged her with Falsification (my theory was she either lied to the police or under oath).
What does any of this have to do with a Traitor advocating the military defeat of his nation?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You CAN'T like Firefly- I refuse to believe it. There are too many greys- you demand black and white. To word it so that one wants to lose technically to preserve AMERICAN lives is not the act of a traitor.
Originally posted by Hero:
What does any of this have to do with a Traitor advocating the military defeat of his nation?
It must be worse than I thought.
You must be a fruitcake.
Friuty oaty Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Here is why we should leave. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Why not? If the enemy is there and we are there why should we not fight them there? And who cares about the 'first place' how can we retreat in the face of the enemy today...not 2003...today.
I note for the record that sometimes wars are fought in places where neither side was when the war started. For example, we invaded Africa to fight Germans in WW2. We had no business in Africa, no pre-war interests, nothing. All Africa had to offer us was Germans (and a few Italians), so we went there and took it from them.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
To word it so that one wants to lose technically to preserve AMERICAN lives is not the act of a traitor.
Traitor
1 : one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
Treason
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies
*********************
Seems your arguing for an affirmative defense. Its all about having "a good reason". Good luck with that one at trial.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME