• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

and for MP

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
from the same link. Proof that the American people have turned their back on this war:

"The survey also showed that 59% considered it a mistake to have sent U.S. forces to Iraq, up from fewer than half during the summer. And 63% said the troops should be partially or completely withdrawn, up 10 percentage points from August. Just 21% of those surveyed believed U.S. forces would win the war, while 34% said they considered the conflict unwinnable."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq1oct01,0,7766978.story?coll=la-home-headlines

My emphasis.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
I agree the situation doesn't look good. Bush was less competent than I and other people gave him credit for in planning for this occupation. Some conservatives are questioning his freewheeling attitude toward spending as well.

That said, this is hardly the time to just give up and say that making things right in Iraq is pointless. Just because the divides between the different ethnic and religious groups are growing doesn't mean we can't still salvage the situation by creating a loose confederate government there, which works in the United Arab Emirates. America is my adopted country, and I've always wanted to believe that it's the most powerful country on earth because of a solid backbone and a willingness not to give up. There were some dark days during the American Revolution as well, and had poll numbers been around back then, there probably would have been a good deal of wavering as well.

But let's assume you're right: Americans have given up, and there's no way we can win. I hardly think this is something for you to be gloating about. You are after all an American, and as much as you hate the GOP, conservatives, and everybody else involved in starting the war, a loss in Iraq would be a loss for you as well.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
I agree the situation doesn't look good. Bush was less competent than I and other people gave him credit for in planning for this occupation. Some conservatives are questioning his freewheeling attitude toward spending as well.

The post was in response to your assertion that even though Americans don't think Bush is a good job, that doesn't mean they've turned their back on the Iraqi war. This polls and many others, show they have turned their back on the war. They don't support it. They think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. The percentage that think we should get out now is growing.

That said, this is hardly the time to just give up and say that making things right in Iraq is pointless.

Good point. So tell me exactly what time will be the time to give up and say the continual deaths of Americans in Iraq is pointless. I say today, before an other American dies. But you support this war, you tell me what has to happen in Iraq for you to say "get out."

Just because the divides between the different ethnic and religious groups are growing doesn't mean we can't still salvage the situation by creating a loose confederate government there, which works in the United Arab Emirates.

Please link me to an article discussing how successful the UAE is.

America is my adopted country, and I've always wanted to believe that it's the most powerful country on earth because of a solid backbone and a willingness not to give up. There were some dark days during the American Revolution as well, and had poll numbers been around back then, there probably would have been a good deal of wavering as well.

America is my native country and I do believe it's the most powerful country on earth. I've lived in other countries and believe we're the best country in the world. I believe we're the most honest country in the world. And I believe we're a people that, given the truth and a choice, will do the right thing. That's one reason I'm so angry that Bush has taken us down this road by lies and deciet. We're not doing the right thing in Iraq. When Saddam went into Kuwait, the world had a fit and the US lead a group to run him back to Iraq. When Bush chose to invade Iraq for no reason, there was no outcry from the world. But that doesn't make it right. Thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens are dead, the country is falling apart, $billions of your taxes have been stolen, and for what?

But let's assume you're right: Americans have given up, and there's no way we can win. I hardly think this is something for you to be gloating about. You are after all an American, and as much as you hate the GOP, conservatives, and everybody else involved in starting the war, a loss in Iraq would be a loss for you as well.

Oh, I'm not gloating. The fact that almost 2,000 young Americans have died in an unnecessary war is not cause for joy. I don't hate anyone. Hate is harder on the hater than the target. I hate what this bunch has done to my country and to the US Army. But this war is wrong. Bush used his authority to launch a war on a small, sovereign country that posed no threat to the US. Spin all you want, find all the excuses you want, but that's the truth. I believe people are turning away from the war because they realize they were mislead about Saddam's connection to 9-11 and the president's refusal to answer the question that I just asked you: what will have to happen before our troops come home? He is telling us "trust me" and more and more people don't trust him.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
The only time we can leave Iraq is when its self-government is, if not successful, then at least stable and the Iraqi military is able to provide security. Is this feasible? It remains to be seen. However:

What do you think would happen in Iraq if we just took off right now?

How would that look to the rest off the world?

And conversely, how would that affect our long-term welfare?

Frankly, I don't think you're capable of answering these questions honestly. With all your bashing of the war, you know it would be a disaster if we just suddenly told the Iraqi government, "Screw it, I'm sick of this. Figure it out yourselves. I'm going home." You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Nobody rational, not even Kerry, advocated that radical of an approach.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
The only time we can leave Iraq is when its self-government is, if not successful, then at least stable and the Iraqi military is able to provide security. Is this feasible? It remains to be seen. However:

Ah. You actually have a plan. Gen Casey (I think) recently said most insurgencies last 7 years. At 1.5 Billion Dollars a week, tell me how much we'll be in the red after 7 years? What is "stable"? Two weeks without an insurgent attack? Only five bombs a week? :roll: Get serious and specific, please.

What do you think would happen in Iraq if we just took off right now?

I think there will be a civil war, but there is already a civil war. The US military is supporting the Shiites in the civil war. I think the Sunnis can take them and will when the US withdraws. I think if we withdraw all US troops, many of the insurgents will go home and support their tribes in establishing some sort of government.

How would that look to the rest off the world?

ROTFLMAO! Who cares? How does it look to the rest of the world that we invaded a small sovereign country for no reason at all, except George W. Bush wanted to invade them? You have got to be kidding with this question! :roll:

And conversely, how would that affect our long-term welfare?

I don't think it will have much effect on our long-term welfare. We'll stop throwing a billion dollars a week away and that could help get our budget back into reasonable shape. I think what will positively affect our standing in the world is the impeachment of George W. Bush. Many around the world see him as a war criminal.

Frankly, I don't think you're capable of answering these questions honestly. With all your bashing of the war, you know it would be a disaster if we just suddenly told the Iraqi government, "Screw it, I'm sick of this. Figure it out yourselves. I'm going home." You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. Nobody rational, not even Kerry, advocated that radical of an approach.

Oh, I can answer these questions with my eyes shut. And I'm waiting for your responses. A disaster for who if we pull out? There is already civil war in Iraq. I posted a link to the international agency that monitors civil war and they said there was civil war in Iraq. Kerry didn't advocate pulling out and few Dems in Congress will say it. But some are starting to, even some Republicans. But George W. Bush is the Commander in Chief. He's the only one who can bring our troops home. He says in speech after speech that he won't do that. Impeachment is the only alternative.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Oh, I can answer these questions with my eyes shut.

And with what little you have for a brain turned off.

Peace at any price? Appeasement? Give them what they want and they'll leave us alone?

I hate to break it to you so bluntly dis, old buddy, but what the Muslim terrorists want is for you, and all other infidels like us and our families, to be stone, cold dead. Frankly, although I find you to be a particularly loathsome specimen of humanity, I don't wish the same for you or any of the other peace-at-any-cost pacifists that would sit by and watch while they destroy us.

Israel is finding out what happens when you give in to these vermin. When they evacuated all the Jewish settlers from Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians it was to gain them peace from the hostilities, remember? In doing so, the Israelis themselves created the biggest threat to their country since they became a nation. It will be a miracle if their nation is not annihilated because of that idiotic attempt to appease Islamic terrorists.

Is annihilation what it will take to satisfy you? Just turn the other cheek and let them slaughter us off in our own country instead of taking the war to them?

Faster Horses is right; you are despicable.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Liberty Belle said:
Oh, I can answer these questions with my eyes shut.

And with what little you have for a brain turned off.

Peace at any price? Appeasement? Give them what they want and they'll leave us alone?

I hate to break it to you so bluntly dis, old buddy, but what the Muslim terrorists want is for you, and all other infidels like us and our families, to be stone, cold dead. Frankly, although I find you to be a particularly loathsome specimen of humanity, I don't wish the same for you or any of the other peace-at-any-cost pacifists that would sit by and watch while they destroy us.

Israel is finding out what happens when you give in to these vermin. When they evacuated all the Jewish settlers from Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians it was to gain them peace from the hostilities, remember? In doing so, the Israelis themselves created the biggest threat to their country since they became a nation. It will be a miracle if their nation is not annihilated because of that idiotic attempt to appease Islamic terrorists.

Is annihilation what it will take to satisfy you? Just turn the other cheek and let them slaughter us off in our own country instead of taking the war to them?

Faster Horses is right; you are despicable.

Call names all you want, LB. But the truth is still the truth and I have a great deal of respect for the truth. You want to lie and pretend Saddam had something to do with 9-11, go ahead. It's not true. You want to lie and pretend Iraq was a hotbed of Muslim terrorist, go ahead. It's wasn't when George W. Bush chose to invade, but it is now. You want to pretend there were WMD's in Iraq, go ahead. But it's not true. You want to pretend that approving a "constitution" in Iraq will make that a free and democratic country, go ahead. It's not the truth.

Obviously the truth is not as important to you as it is to me. But poll after poll shows you're 'way out of the mainstream and so is George W. Bush.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
MP, I answered your questions. You've ignored my previous questions, so we'll see how honest you are.

1. Do you believe that when Iraqis approve the proposed constitution Saturday, peace will break out in that country?

2. What will it take for you to say bring out troops home from Iraq?
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
I believe that if the constitution is signed and ratified in two-thirds of each district it needs to be, then we will have made a huge step forward. I'm not sure peace just "breaks out" like violence breaks out. However, most of the insurgents are nationalists, and if the Shiites can reach an agreement with the nationalist Sunnis (the chances of this are, admittedly, debatable) then most of the gas will be taken out of the insurgency. Most of the suicide bombers, on the other hand, are foreign terrorists. They are certainly in cahoots with the nationalists, but since they're the ones blowing themselves up, they're probably largely viewed as little more than cannon fodder, not leaders. If the need for an insurgency dries up, they will probably turn on the Iraqis, even the nationalists, which will only further marginalize them. Until that happens, the U.S. needs to keep troops in Iraq until the foreign suicide bombers are marginalized to the point that the Iraqi military can handle them on their own.

Even if the divide between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds continues to widen, the chances of a full civil war are unlikely as long as the U.S. maintains a military presence. You claim there already is a civil war, but that is largely hyperbole. Most news organizations are reporting a growing isolation of the different communities from each other, with incidents of tit-for-tat killings. A real civil war, however, would be if the militias actually turned on each other in full-scale combat, which anybody who doesn't live in a fantasy world knows hasn't occurred yet.

Your claims that the U.S. is supporting the Shiites in a civil war just reveals a tremendous amount of either delusion or ignorance. If we'd support anyone, it would be the Kurds. The Shiites scare the crap out of us because they're so closely tied to Iran. The U.S. has every reason in the world to ensure Sunnis maintain a level of power that will keep Shiites in check, and prevent Iraq from turning into another Iran.

Despite your rather arbitrary assertion that the Sunnis could "take" the Shiites, this is highly unlikely if the U.S. actually took off and allowed a full scale civil war to occur. Iran has already infiltrated top levels of the Shiite hierarchy, and if civil war broke out then the Sunnis would be faced with Shiite army backed by a neighboring country, while they'd have no one to depend on for a similar alliance. Consequently, they'd seek out such an alliance, probably with Syria, which would elevate the conflict from a national one to a regional one. And sh*t, like snow, tends to grow exponentially when it rolls down hill. Even if it takes 7 years to quell the insurgency, this is still better than allowing a massive regional conflict that could potentially devolve into the third world war.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
I believe that if the constitution is signed and ratified in two-thirds of each district it needs to be, then we will have made a huge step forward. I'm not sure peace just "breaks out" like violence breaks out. However, most of the insurgents are nationalists, and if the Shiites can reach an agreement with the nationalist Sunnis (the chances of this are, admittedly, debatable) then most of the gas will be taken out of the insurgency. Most of the suicide bombers, on the other hand, are foreign terrorists. They are certainly in cahoots with the nationalists, but since they're the ones blowing themselves up, they're probably largely viewed as little more than cannon fodder, not leaders. If the need for an insurgency dries up, they will probably turn on the Iraqis, even the nationalists, which will only further marginalize them. Until that happens, the U.S. needs to keep troops in Iraq until the foreign suicide bombers are marginalized to the point that the Iraqi military can handle them on their own.

Not good enough. The Constitution is printed. The Sunnis say they will not support it. So you're spinning here when you start with that premise. Do you seriously think the US is keeping the suicide bombers from blowing up whatever and whenever they want? :roll: So cut the spin and tell me, if you can, what it will take for you to say bring the troops home. I gave you straightforward answers, are you honest enough to give me straight answers?

Even if the divide between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds continues to widen, the chances of a full civil war are unlikely as long as the U.S. maintains a military presence. You claim there already is a civil war, but that is largely hyperbole. Most news organizations are reporting a growing isolation of the different communities from each other, with incidents of tit-for-tat killings. A real civil war, however, would be if the militias actually turned on each other in full-scale combat, which anybody who doesn't live in a fantasy world knows hasn't occurred yet.

No, it's not hyperbole. The international agency that monitors civil wars has a criteria for civil war. They released a statement that the number of Sunnis being killed by Shiites and vice versa has reached the level of a civil war. They're not tit for tat killings. The Iraqi government has goon squads that kill mostly Sunnis. Virtually every day there's a report of finding 10-20-30 bodies, bound, gagged, blindfolded found killed somewhere in Iraq. The cleric Al Sadar's militia has had direct conflict with other Shiite milita in he British controlled regions. It doesn't take full scale combat to have a civil war. You claim to be a journalist, look it up.

Your claims that the U.S. is supporting the Shiites in a civil war just reveals a tremendous amount of either delusion or ignorance. If we'd support anyone, it would be the Kurds. The Shiites scare the crap out of us because they're so closely tied to Iran. The U.S. has every reason in the world to ensure Sunnis maintain a level of power that will keep Shiites in check, and prevent Iraq from turning into another Iran.

Of course we're supporting the Shiites. They are the largest community. Their part of the country has the most oil. And we want to keep them from falling completely into Iran's camp. The Sunnis have no oil and they're the smallest population. The Bush Bunch will ignore them as much as they can and that's one reason for the insurgency. They feel complely left out.

Despite your rather arbitrary assertion that the Sunnis could "take" the Shiites, this is highly unlikely if the U.S. actually took off and allowed a full scale civil war to occur. Iran has already infiltrated top levels of the Shiite hierarchy, and if civil war broke out then the Sunnis would be faced with Shiite army backed by a neighboring country, while they'd have no one to depend on for a similar alliance. Consequently, they'd seek out such an alliance, probably with Syria, which would elevate the conflict from a national one to a regional one. And sh*t, like snow, tends to grow exponentially when it rolls down hill. Even if it takes 7 years to quell the insurgency, this is still better than allowing a massive regional conflict that could potentially devolve into the third world war.

It's not arbitrary. Why do you think the Sunnis got in control to start with? Your scenero where the Shiites throw in with Iran and the Sunnis throw in with Syria is possible. That's what Iraq's other neighbors fear and why they're not getting involved in this thing. You didn't tell me what it will cost the American taxpayer to support a seven year war in Iraq at 1.1 billion dollars a week. Do you seriously think that the American public will support that?
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
How much do you think it will cost if the whole Middle East becomes a war zone?

And just because some agency whose name you don't even know said it's a civil war doesn't make it so. Not every definition of civil war includes full-scale combat, but that's definitely what we'll have if we leave Iraq.
 

SDSteve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
Liberty Belle said:
Oh, I can answer these questions with my eyes shut.

And with what little you have for a brain turned off.

Peace at any price? Appeasement? Give them what they want and they'll leave us alone?

I hate to break it to you so bluntly dis, old buddy, but what the Muslim terrorists want is for you, and all other infidels like us and our families, to be stone, cold dead. Frankly, although I find you to be a particularly loathsome specimen of humanity, I don't wish the same for you or any of the other peace-at-any-cost pacifists that would sit by and watch while they destroy us.

Israel is finding out what happens when you give in to these vermin. When they evacuated all the Jewish settlers from Gaza and turned it over to the Palestinians it was to gain them peace from the hostilities, remember? In doing so, the Israelis themselves created the biggest threat to their country since they became a nation. It will be a miracle if their nation is not annihilated because of that idiotic attempt to appease Islamic terrorists.

Is annihilation what it will take to satisfy you? Just turn the other cheek and let them slaughter us off in our own country instead of taking the war to them?

Faster Horses is right; you are despicable.
You are just plain nasty LB. I bet your husband has to be half-lit all the time just to be able to stand you.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
SD Steve: You are just plain nasty LB. I bet your husband has to be half-lit all the time just to be able to stand you.
SD Steve – Pay attention here. I WAS NOT talking to you. My comments were directed solely to disagreeable, but if you want to become one with he/she/it, hop to it. By the way, that poor old husband you are worried about has been able to stand me pretty well for over forty years without having to dull his senses on a regular basis.

From another post - SD Steve: I could care less what Clinton said. At least he had brains enough to stay the hell out of Iraq. Only room temperature I.Q. folks are still standing behind Bush.
I note that you are pretty quick to slam anyone who doesn’t agree with your liberal views as ignorant sub-humans. Why are you so defensive and quick to take offense? Was it an unhappy childhood or have you just got your panty hose in a knot?

If you can’t add anything but insults to the political discourse on this board, why don’t you sign off and go back to your original discussion board:
http://forums.backpage.com/showthread.php?t=255&page=2
 

katrina

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
8,773
Reaction score
2
Location
East north east of Soapweed
So SD Steve, What are we wearing today for nylons?? Support or no support. :???: :???: What must your little women be, with YOU wearing nylons??? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

passin thru

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
2,603
Reaction score
0
Let's just hope SDSteve doesn't enter the photocontest
pablue1.gif
 

SDSteve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
Liberty Belle said:
SD Steve: You are just plain nasty LB. I bet your husband has to be half-lit all the time just to be able to stand you.
SD Steve – Pay attention here. I WAS NOT talking to you. My comments were directed solely to disagreeable, but if you want to become one with he/she/it, hop to it. By the way, that poor old husband you are worried about has been able to stand me pretty well for over forty years without having to dull his senses on a regular basis.

From another post - SD Steve: I could care less what Clinton said. At least he had brains enough to stay the hell out of Iraq. Only room temperature I.Q. folks are still standing behind Bush.
I note that you are pretty quick to slam anyone who doesn’t agree with your liberal views as ignorant sub-humans. Why are you so defensive and quick to take offense? Was it an unhappy childhood or have you just got your panty hose in a knot?

If you can’t add anything but insults to the political discourse on this board, why don’t you sign off and go back to your original discussion board:
http://forums.backpage.com/showthread.php?t=255&page=2
You the queen of insults has the nerve to tell me not to insult you. You are one right-wing nut job if there ever was one. When I see someone as nasty as you I like to throw a little back at you.
I stand by my room temperature I.Q. for you die-hard Bushies. You haven't proven any intelligence yet. I voted for Bush the first go-around. I saw the light. You are too dumb to ever pull your head out enough to see the light.
For the last time I am not the guy in Sandiego. I am a native South Dakotan and I am ashamed that a hateful spiteful person such as you LibertyBelle lives in the same state that I do.
 

SDSteve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Location
South Dakota
katrina said:
So SD Steve, What are we wearing today for nylons?? Support or no support. :???: :???: What must your little women be, with YOU wearing nylons??? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Judging by what you look like I doubt that I could look any worse in pantyhose then you would.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,909
Reaction score
7
Sic'em SD Steve.....you are right...these women folks here are one mean bunch. Must've missed their estrogen dose for the day!!!

And you're right about the Bush Bunch....they're NUTZ!! But I am afraid this Bush Family is turning into the Bush Dynasty cause they've bred like rabbits and there are more in the wings just waiting for their turn to be elected to something!!
 

Latest posts

Top