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

What Happens After the Surge?

MoGal

Well-known member
I guess we pay them $800,000 per day to not attack US soldiers so we can claim "the surge is working"

---------------http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19384.htm

It is impossible to keep up with all the Bush regime’s lies. There are simply too many. Among the recent crop, one of the biggest is that the “surge” is working.

Launched last year, the "surge" was the extra 20,000-30,000 U.S. troops sent to Iraq. These few extra troops, Americans were told, would finally supply the necessary forces to pacify Iraq.

This claim never made any sense. The extra troops didn't raise the total number of U.S. soldiers to more than one-third the number every expert has said is necessary in order to successfully occupy Iraq.

The real purpose of the "surge" was to hide another deception. The Bush regime is paying Sunni insurgents $800,000 a day not to attack U.S. forces. That's right, 80,000 members of an "Awakening group," the "Sons of Iraq," a newly formed "U.S.-allied security force" consisting of Sunni insurgents, are being paid $10 a day each not to attack U.S. troops. Allegedly, the Sons of Iraq are now at work fighting al-Qaeda.

This is a much cheaper way to fight a war. We can only wonder why Bush didn't figure it out sooner.

The "surge" was also timed to take account of the near completion of neighborhood cleansing. Most of the violence in Iraq during the past five years has resulted from Sunnis and Shi'ites driving each other out of mixed neighborhoods. Had the two groups been capable of uniting against the U.S. troops, the U.S. would have been driven out of Iraq long ago. Instead, the Iraqis slaughtered each other and fought the Americans in their spare time.

In other words, the "surge" has had nothing to do with any decline in violence.

With the Sunni insurgents now on Uncle Sam's payroll, with neighborhoods segregated, and with Sadr's militia standing down, it is unclear who is still responsible for ongoing violence other than U.S. troops themselves. Somebody must still be fighting, however, because the U.S. is still conducting air strikes and is still unable to tell friend from foe.

On Feb. 16, the Los Angeles Times reported that a U.S. air strike managed to kill nine Iraqi civilians and three Sons of Iraq.

The Sunnis are abandoning their posts in protest, demanding an end to "errant" U.S. air strikes. Obviously, the Sunnis see an opportunity to increase their daily pay for not attacking Americans. Soon they will have consultants advising them how much they can demand in bribes before it pays the Americans to begin fighting the war under the old terms. If Sunnis are smart, they will split the gains. Currently, the Sunnis are getting shafted. They are only collecting $800,000 of the $275,000,000 it costs the U.S. to fight the war for one day. That's only about three-tenths of one percent, too much of a one-sided deal for the Americans.

If the Sunnis negotiate their cut to between one-quarter and one-half of the daily cost to the U.S. of the war, the Sunnis won’t need to share in the oil revenues, thus helping the three factions to get back together as a country. Even 20 percent of the daily cost of the war would be a good deal for the Sunnis. A long-term contract in this range would be expensive for Uncle Sam, but a great deal cheaper than John McCain’s commitment to a 100-year Iraqi war.

If Bush's war turns out to be as big a boon for the Sunnis as it has for Tony Blair, we might have a modern-day version of The Mouse That Roared – a movie about an impoverished country that attacked the U.S. in order to be defeated and receive foreign aid – only this time the money comes as a payoff for not fighting the occupiers.

As the world now knows, Blair's "dodgy dossier" about the threat allegedly posed by Iraq was a contrivance that allowed Blair to put British troops at the service of Bush's aggression in the Middle East. Now that Blair is out of his prime minister job, he has been rewarded with millions of dollars in sinecures from financial firms such as JP Morgan and millions more in speaking engagements. As part of the payoff, the Bush Republicans have even put Mrs. Blair on the lucrative lecture circuit.

Ask yourself, do you really think Blair knows enough high finance to be of any value as an adviser to JP Morgan, or enough about climate change to advise Zurich Financial on the subject? Do you really believe that after hearing all the vacuous speeches Blair has delivered in those many years in office anyone now wants to pay him huge fees to hear him give a speech? Even when it was free, people were sick of it.

Blair is simply collecting his payoff for selling out his country and sending British troops to die for American hegemony.

The Sunnis seem inclined to do the same thing if Bush will pay them enough.

Is the next phase of the Iraq war going to be a U.S.-Sunni alliance against the Shi'ites?


----------------------------

but don't worry, we won't run out of wars anytime soon.......

Reports circulating in the Kremlin today are stating that the United States President Bush and his Israeli counterpart Prime Minister Olmert [both pictured top left], are preparing for the ‘immanent’ outbreak of Total World War by the launching of invasions in both Syria and Lebanon in order to topple their governments and seize control of their vital oil pipelines.

Most extraordinary, however, about these reports, according to their FSB Middle East sources, is that this new warning was issued to Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during his historic visit to Iraq, by the United States Top Military Commander, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen [pictured 2nd left], who made an ‘unannounced’ emergency trip to Baghdad to meet the Iranian leader.

Coinciding with these new warnings of World War was the United States abrupt order to the Germans this past week to remove their Naval Forces from off the coast of Lebanon, and where they had been stationed in a peacekeeping role after the Second Israeli-Lebanon War.

Germany complied with the US order to remove its ships and handed over control of its naval mission off the Lebanon coast to the European Command that includes Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, all of which were thwarted in their missions, however, by the United States, and as we can read as reported by the AntiWar News Service:

"The USS Cole isn't engaged in a sightseeing tour of the Eastern Mediterranean: its sudden deployment just "over the horizon" near Lebanon – in tandem with two other warships – is a clear sign that the Americans are preparing for something big.

That's what the Arab world seems to believe, anyway, if you listen to al-Jazeera and the chatter coming from other Arab news outlets. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and the government of Bahrain have all warned their citizens to get out of Lebanon, pronto.

What's curious, however, is that, while it's big news in the Arab world, this "visit" by a guided-missile destroyer and accompanying flotilla has received scant attention in the U.S. news media."

Russian Military Analysts point out in these reports that neither Israel, nor its US ally, wanted a European presence prior to the expanding of their Middle East War as German Naval Forces had reported that they had been fired upon by Israeli Fighter Jets, and which Israel’s Prime Minister had previously ‘apologized’ to Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel for.

AFP News Services further reports that "Hezbollah slammed Washington's dispatch of the USS Cole to waters off Lebanon as military interference, as the Western-backed government said it did not ask for the warship to be sent.", while China’s National News Service is reporting, "Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on Saturday accused the United States of worsening the political crisis in Lebanon by sending a warship off the Lebanese coast."

Most horrifying, though, of the contents of these reports are the detailing of the extreme damage being done to the United States by the total collapse of its dollar, and which Iran has now joined Russia, Venezuela and Kuwait as oil producing Nations that are no longer accepting US dollar payments, and as we can read as reported by Iran’s Press TV News Service:

"Deputy head of the National Iranian Oil Company for international affairs says Iran has completely dropped dollar in its oil sales. “We issue invoices in dollars and agree with clients that the letters of credit and other means of payment will have a non-dollar basis,” he said.

In an interview with The Financial Times, Hojjatollah Ghanimifard said that over the past three months, Iran has received 75 percent of the proceeds from its oil sales in euros and the remaining 25 percent in the Japanese currency, yen."

Not being understood by the American people, and done so deliberately by their propaganda media organs, are that the record high prices being reported for gold, silver, oil, wheat, dairy products, and virtually all other vital commodities, are only in relation to the US dollar as it continues it plunge into they abyss of other such like failed currencies, and which, according to the International Herald Tribune, no rescue is foreseen:

"Currencies will be in full focus on financial markets this week, following the dollar's drubbing of recent days, yet anyone hoping for help from policy makers to shore up the ailing U.S. currency is likely to be disappointed.

Crucial meetings of European Union finance ministers and those who set interest rates for the European Central Bank are expected to do little to shift the status quo, while the U.S. Federal Reserve Board appears set on cutting rates again this month. "I don't see a major change in trend," said Lex Hoogduin, chief economist at Robeco, an asset management firm in the Netherlands."

The vital necessity of the United States, Israel, and their Western Allies, in the destruction of both Lebanon and Syria, amidst the collapse of the US dollar, lies in their strategic decision to abandon their Persian Gulf oil sources for those of the Caspian Sea basin, and as we can read:

"The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has already been contemplated by US and Israeli military planners. This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.

In this context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the Caspian sea basin: "[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel,”

Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia."

It is interesting to note, too, that the Western Nations are also planning for their failure to control the Middle East by their continued destruction of the former nation of Yugoslavia into small nation-states controlled by their puppet governments, like Kosovo, friendly to the US and EU, and which allows the West a further access to Caspian Sea oil through the Balkans to the Adriatic Sea.

Also to be noted are the vast oil pipelines being constructed in Afghanistan as a further conduit of Caspian Sea oil to the Western Powers.

In their quest to control the oil resources of the World through war and conquest, the American people have spent, so far, over $3 Trillion, while at the same time having lost over $2 Trillion in the value of their homes, and in a Nation where 1 out of every 99 US Citizens are imprisoned, one cannot fail to see that these once great people are, indeed, doomed to become nothing more than slaves to their brutal war making leaders.

May God have mercy on them.
 

Steve

Well-known member
MoGal
and in a Nation where 1 out of every 99 US Citizens are imprisoned,

nice rambling blame everything in the world that is wrong on Bush and the Iraq war...

Maybe you could explain how the Iraq war and Bush is to blame for Criminals being behind bars where they belong.. ..

Unless your new plan is to deport them to Iraq then surrender leaving the criminals there.. :wink:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Texan said:
I guess it doesn't fit into the Bush-bash agenda to admit that the Bush Administration has done something that works?
Ok, the violence is down. But the "surge" was to allow the Iraqi government time to consolidate and meet certain benchmarks of self-governance.

Name me a few of the benchmarks they have met..........

If none have been met, explain to me how we can afford to keep our troops at the current levels, explain to me where we are going to get the troops, and explain to me just WHEN Iraq will meet the self-governance benchmarks.
Goodpasture, I'm not surprised that you toe the liberal line and claim that the only purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi's time to get their sht together. Funny how you liberals kept saying that the surge wasn't working because it hadn't reduced the violence - until it starting reducing the violence. Then you changed gears and wanted to make it all about giving their government a chance to get set up.

Granted, that was a big part of the reason. But President Bush was very clear in the speech he made prior to the beginning of the surge. When he ordered 4,000 troops to Anbar, it was because of the violence that was tied to Al Qaeda. He articulated quite clearly that our troops were to help the Iraqi troops get that violence under control.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason I supported the surge was to make it safer for our kids. In that respect, it has done what I hoped for.

Strange thing about you liberals - you think you are the only ones that want our kids home safely. The rest of us want the same thing - all of our kids home as soon as possible - safely. If it takes more troops to ensure their safety, I say they need to have them.

I'm not satisfied with the progress made by the Iraqi government, either. On that we can agree. And I'm not sure how much more time to give them. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.

But one thing's for damn sure - we're a helluva lot better off with George W. Bush making that decision than we are with any of the liberal Democrats making it.

You freakin' liberals can't even decide who won your primaries in Michigan and Florida. How the hell would you know when it's time to leave Iraq?
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
This thing in Iraq would have been over long ago had you wimpy-a$$ libs not been hollering to get our troops out.

Many true old conservatives think we should never have been there in the first place...
Do you remember any of those names, OT? I'm having trouble finding any. Be sure they're on record objecting to it PRIOR to the beginning of the war, please. It's real easy for a lot of people to claim now that they were against it all along.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Red Robin said:
Goodpasture said:
Your Lieutenant is a moron.......
No sir, he isn't.
In fact, he is.....probably why he got out of the army as a Lt instead of getting promoted to Captain.
No sir, he in fact isn't.


Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division for their deployment to Iraq from 2005-2006. Pete served as an infantry Platoon Leader in Baghdad during the nationwide elections in October and December 2005, and as a Civil-Military Operations officer in Samarra. He also served in Guantanamo Bay for a year on a security mission with his National Guard unit and currently serves in the 1-69 Infantry, New York Army National Guard as a Captain. Pete holds the Bronze Star for his time in Iraq. He is a Minnesota native and graduate of Princeton University. He lives with his wife in New York City.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
This thing in Iraq would have been over long ago had you wimpy-a$$ libs not been hollering to get our troops out.

Many true old conservatives think we should never have been there in the first place...
Do you remember any of those names, OT? I'm having trouble finding any. Be sure they're on record objecting to it PRIOR to the beginning of the war, please. It's real easy for a lot of people to claim now that they were against it all along.

How about Ron Paul to start with-- can't get much more conservative..
JBS and some of the other right wing groups opposed it from day one..

Interesting to read these comments made by Republican Representatives who made these statements when they voted against the war....These comments tell me they used more wisdom in making their decisions than GW did
:shock:

Are you all saying that Col Hunt is now a flaming liberal because he says it like he sees it :???:

Republicans Who Voted Against Iraq Resolution Tell Why
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Oct. 12, 2002

In the U.S. House of Representatives six Republicans broke ranks and voted nay on the Iraq resolution. They were: Ron Paul of Texas, James A. Leach of Iowa, John N. Hostettler of Indiana, Constance A. Morella of Maryland, Amo Houghton of New York, and John J. Duncan of Tennessee.
Here are some of their reasons:


Rep. Ron Paul: "An important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the pre-emption doctrine. This should not be passed off lightly. It has been done to some degree in the past, but never been put into law that we will pre-emptively strike another nation that has not attacked us. No matter what the arguments may be, this policy is new; and it will have ramifications for our future, and it will have ramifications for the future of the world because other countries will adopt this same philosophy …
"For more than a thousand years there has been a doctrine and Christian definition of what a just war is all about. I think this effort and this plan to go to war comes up short of that doctrine. First, it says that there has to be an act of aggression; and there has not been an act of aggression against the United States. We are 6,000 miles from their shores …

"My argument is when we go to war through the back door, we are more likely to have the wars last longer and not have resolution of the wars, such as we had in Korea and Vietnam. We ought to consider this very seriously …

"Also it is said we are wrong about the act of aggression; there has been an act of aggression against us because Saddam Hussein has shot at our airplanes. The fact that he has missed every single airplane for 12 years, and tens of thousands of sorties have been flown, indicates the strength of our enemy, an impoverished, Third World nation that does not have an air force, anti-aircraft weapons, or a navy …

"There is a need for us to assume responsibility for the declaration of war, and also to prepare the American people for the taxes that will be raised and the possibility of a military draft which may well come.”



Rep. James A. Leach: "When a cornered tyrant is confronted with the use or lose option with his weapons of mass destruction and is isolated in the Arab world unless he launches a jihad against Israel, it is not hard to imagine what he will choose …
"Israel has never faced a graver challenge to its survival. The likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents, will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq. In the Gulf War, Saddam launched some 40 Scud missiles against Israel, none with biological agents. Today, he has mobile labs, tons of such agents and an assortment of means to deliver them …

"Over the last half century America's led the world in approaches expanding international law and building up international institutions. The best chance we have to defeat terrorism and the anarchy it seeks is to widen the application of law and the institutions, including international ones that make law more plausible, acceptable and, in the end, enforceable

"Today, for the first time in human history, we have a doctrine of mutually assured destruction between two smaller countries, Iraq and Israel, one with biological weapons, the other nuclear. The problem is that an American intervention could easily trigger an Iraqi biological attack on Israel, which could be met by a nuclear response. Not only would we be the potential precipitating actor but our troops would be caught in crosswinds and crossfire.”


Rep. John H. Hostettler: "A novel case is being made that the best defense is a good offense. But is this the power that the framers of the Constitution meant to pass down to their posterity when they sought to secure for us the blessings of liberty? Did they suggest that mothers and fathers would be required by this august body to give up sons and daughters because of the possibility of future aggression?
"‘Don't fire unless fired upon.’ It is a notion that is at least as old as St. Augustine's Just War thesis, and it finds agreement with the minutemen and framers of the Constitution

"We should not turn our back today on millennia of wisdom by proposing to send America's beautiful sons and daughters into harm's way for what might be.

"I must conclude that Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a pre-emptive military strike at this time.


Rep. Constance A. Morella: "As a mother who has raised nine children, I cannot help but think about this issue on a personal basis. Can I or can any parent look into the eyes of an 18-year-old boy and with a clear mind and clear conscience say that we have exhausted every other option before sending him into the perils of conflict?
"The world is watching us today as we show how the world's last remaining superpower sees fit to use its great influence. We are looked to as we set an example for the world.

"As the world's last superpower, I believe that we must have a better plan for our Nation and for the world for a post-war Iraq. We must reassure those neighbors in the Middle East that we are committed first to peace and stability and second to regime change. And we must not give our friends and foes in the region more reason to distrust our sincerity and desire for peace by ignoring the world community's role in addressing this problem.”


Rep. Amo Houghton: "In 1944 I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I voted for Desert Storm. I have always felt that the first dollar of federal money should go into defense, to be able to protect our country. But I am prepared to vote against this resolution. This is a sad day for me, because I want to support my president …
"I admire him greatly. But I guess, with thousands of votes which we make over the years, I have found that conscience is probably the best thing to follow and is most honest if one is going to be true to one's self, if not always politically popular …

"Following September 11 of last year, we were told that terrorism is the enemy. We have to get rid of al-Qaeda. We have to take out Osama bin Laden. We have to eliminate the pockets who hate Americans. We have to rebuild Afghanistan. Secondly, we were told that to win the war against terrorism, our main objective, it required the cooperation of our allies around the world. And I bought that, and the president spelled it out very clearly and very eloquently.

"Saddam Hussein is bad, and some day we should deal with him. But, right now, the security of the American people is at stake, and I believe we must fight terrorism in its emerging and subtle forms…

"I met with some Arabs the other day, with a group of Israelis and Arabs who were talking about the Middle East, and they said, the Iraqis in general hate Saddam Hussein, but they hate the United States even more.

"So Iraq is now one of the only secular countries in that region. And the Sunnis and the Shiites could create such a mess following a war that we could find ourselves against a religious fundamentalist state that could develop, where that is not the case now.

"The bill says that the president ‘is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.’ Now, I have great respect for this president. He is an unusual man. And he may be right. We do not know. This is all the future that we are dealing with …

"I think we have the cart before the horse. I think the U.N. ought to do its will first. Frankly, I feel that a right decision at the wrong time is a wrong decision; and somehow we must finish our war on terrorism before we take on another fight.”


Rep. John J. Duncan: "Ever since the Gulf War ended in 1991, the U.S. has been spending about $4 million a day enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq, $4 million a day. This has been a tremendous waste of money and manpower.
"I believe almost all Americans would have preferred that this $12 or $13 billion that has been spent over these years would have been spent in almost any other good way. Most Americans have not even noticed that we have been dropping bombs and still shooting at missile sites all these years in Iraq. I remember reading a front page lengthy story about a group of Iraqi boys we accidentally killed there …

"Now there are some people here in Washington who seem to be clamoring for us to go to war against Iraq. I represent a very patriotic pro-military district in Tennessee. My people will strongly support our troops if we go to war. But I can assure you that as I go around my district I hear no clamor or even a weak desire to go to war against Iraq …

"We have been too quick to get involved in ethnic or religious disputes around the world. We have been too quick to drop bombs on people who want to be our friends. We turned NATO from a defensive organization into an offensive one in Bosnia.”
 

Steve

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Goodpasture said:
Red Robin said:
No sir, he isn't.
In fact, he is.....probably why he got out of the army as a Lt instead of getting promoted to Captain.
No sir, he in fact isn't.


Pete Hegseth served in Iraq with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division for their deployment to Iraq from 2005-2006. Pete served as an infantry Platoon Leader in Baghdad during the nationwide elections in October and December 2005, and as a Civil-Military Operations officer in Samarra. He also served in Guantanamo Bay for a year on a security mission with his National Guard unit and currently serves in the 1-69 Infantry, New York Army National Guard as a Captain. Pete holds the Bronze Star for his time in Iraq. He is a Minnesota native and graduate of Princeton University. He lives with his wife in New York City.

Liberals claim to support our troops then even after being shown that the guy bravely served our country the best GP can say is...
GoodPasture
none of which keeps him from being a neocon moron......just like you

first gp gives credit for the stabilty in Iraq to the Iranians.. now he calls an ARMY OFFICER a moron..

liberal support for our troops.. :roll: :roll: :roll: I haven't seen such support for our troops like that since SteveC melted down in a rant and was thrown off the board.. :roll: :wink:
 

MoGal

Well-known member
nice rambling blame everything in the world that is wrong on Bush and the Iraq war...

Maybe you could explain how the Iraq war and Bush is to blame for Criminals being behind bars where they belong.. ..

Unless your new plan is to deport them to Iraq then surrender leaving the criminals there..

Steve, I would much rather see them send prisoners to China and have them keep them than outsource jobs to China/India. I bet the Chinese could really save us some money.

I was reading cuttingedge.org the other day and it was an older article about the depleted uranium and how its causing our military to have shortened lives and also causing their children born to have deformities .......... they don't have to drag this war out........ every single one of us has a loved one or a neighbor kid/friend of the family, etc. over there ....... its time to bring em home....... Congress should have made laws years ago to have vehicles with better gas mileage but that would have cut out some profit. I'm sick and tired of these greedy corporates who want to run this country at the expense of everyone else.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
none of which keeps him from being a neocon moron......just like you
Your moron accusation seems repetitive. Here are some more quotes you can use about our soldiers.

"Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -- Warren County Community College adjunct English professor, John Daly

"In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn't happening now, but I will tell you, there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq." -- Seymour Hersh

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." -- John Kerry, in what he later claimed was a botched joke.

"There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing its job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor." -- Liberal ABC reporter, Terry Moran

"Do our government's poorly paid contract killers deserve our 'support' for blindly following orders?" -- Ted Rall

"If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq." -- Charles Rangel
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Many true old conservatives think we should never have been there in the first place...
Do you remember any of those names, OT? I'm having trouble finding any. Be sure they're on record objecting to it PRIOR to the beginning of the war, please. It's real easy for a lot of people to claim now that they were against it all along.

How about Ron Paul to start with-- can't get much more conservative..
JBS and some of the other right wing groups opposed it from day one..


Well, Ron Paul is only one. I agree that he's an old conservative. but you said there were "many" so I just wondered who else you were thinking about.



Oldtimer said:
Interesting to read these comments made by Republican Representatives who made these statements when they voted against the war....These comments tell me they used more wisdom in making their decisions than GW did
Oldtimer said:

That list of Republican Congressmen you gave in the article isn't all conservatives. Besides Paul, only a couple of them are really conservatives. Unless you like to label people and think just because they've got an "R" by their name it automatically makes them a conservative. :lol:



Oldtimer said:
Are you all saying that Col Hunt is now a flaming liberal because he says it like he sees it :???:

Who said that?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Texan said:
Do you remember any of those names, OT? I'm having trouble finding any. Be sure they're on record objecting to it PRIOR to the beginning of the war, please. It's real easy for a lot of people to claim now that they were against it all along.

How about Ron Paul to start with-- can't get much more conservative..
JBS and some of the other right wing groups opposed it from day one..


Well, Ron Paul is only one. I agree that he's an old conservative. but you said there were "many" so I just wondered who else you were thinking about.

Must be a few folks that agree with him- as he ended up the top delegate winner in Montana after Rumney backed out...And he had the heaviest military individuals donation support of all candidates....



Oldtimer said:
Interesting to read these comments made by Republican Representatives who made these statements when they voted against the war....These comments tell me they used more wisdom in making their decisions than GW did
Oldtimer said:

That list of Republican Congressmen you gave in the article isn't all conservatives. Besides Paul, only a couple of them are really conservatives. Unless you like to label people and think just because they've got an "R" by their name it automatically makes them a conservative. :lol:

I'll agree-That "R" definitely doesn't make conservatives - but you won't get much more conservative than Paul or Duncan or the JBS....



Oldtimer said:
Are you all saying that Col Hunt is now a flaming liberal because he says it like he sees it :???:

Who said that?

Well thats become the GW and neocon tactic- to label anyone who has anything negative to say about Iraq as "Liberals" or "nonpatriots" :roll:

Code:
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Goring- Nuremberg
 

Steve

Well-known member
OldTimer
Are you all saying that Col Hunt is now a flaming liberal because he says it like he sees it

No, I said Col Hunt doesn't seem to like the Generals that clinton nominated.. :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top