What did you think of the speech?

[Lemon law]

After some thought and a good nights sleep---I do have two thoughts.

1. I recently had a friend that had gotten sick and had to be hospitalized. While in the hospital they put him on enforced bed rest and a restricted diet---and ran some tests---after about a week he felt better and was released and went home---a few days later he was sick again--had to be hospitalized--with the same result. And after a few days at home---back in the hospital again. The third time the doctors finally found the CAUSE for him getting sick---and armed with that they treated the cause and he went home---and he did not get sick again------but first they had to find the test that found the cause.

But can we say GWB understands the cause of the problems in Iraq---or is he just demonizing AL-Quida, Iran, and Syria---and trying massive force targeted in the wrong direction?

2. Unlike some who just advocate cutting and running like we did in Vietnam, I am profoundly worried that would be sure to ignite a wider war also.

So given that we must stay and see it through---its going to take a sound plan and a long term commitment---with the Congress now holding what amounts to a veto by purse strings.

I know that if I were trying to sell an unpopular plan certain to contain pain and sacrifice---I would be certainly be talking long and hard to congress first---and respecting their inputs and possibly accepting many of their inputs.---because if congress helps write the plan---congress then buys into that plan.

Instead GWB went demagoguing straight to the American people with a vague and half baked plan. Totally by-passing congress. Thereby kiting the probability that congress will pull the plug as the setbacks and difficulties start to happen.

Is that what a wise leader does when he needs to obtain a long term commitment?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
After some thought and a good nights sleep---I do have two thoughts.

1. I recently had a friend that had gotten sick and had to be hospitalized. While in the hospital they put him on enforced bed rest and a restricted diet---and ran some tests---after about a week he felt better and was released and went home---a few days later he was sick again--had to be hospitalized--with the same result. And after a few days at home---back in the hospital again. The third time the doctors finally found the CAUSE for him getting sick---and armed with that they treated the cause and he went home---and he did not get sick again------but first they had to find the test that found the cause.

But can we say GWB understands the cause of the problems in Iraq---or is he just demonizing AL-Quida, Iran, and Syria---and trying massive force targeted in the wrong direction?

2. Unlike some who just advocate cutting and running like we did in Vietnam, I am profoundly worried that would be sure to ignite a wider war also.

So given that we must stay and see it through---its going to take a sound plan and a long term commitment---with the Congress now holding what amounts to a veto by purse strings.

I know that if I were trying to sell an unpopular plan certain to contain pain and sacrifice---I would be certainly be talking long and hard to congress first---and respecting their inputs and possibly accepting many of their inputs.---because if congress helps write the plan---congress then buys into that plan.

Instead GWB went demagoguing straight to the American people with a vague and half baked plan. Totally by-passing congress. Thereby kiting the probability that congress will pull the plug as the setbacks and difficulties start to happen.

Is that what a wise leader does when he needs to obtain a long term commitment?

Lemon law. I thought Bush went to congress with details of the plan and also told them that the door was open for suggestions?

The problem with your ?consult? congress idea is that congress has no real ideas, besides bitch about what Bush does or bring them home now. Sort of like the people on P&N.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: dbk

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

I agree with all 6 except 7 I'm not going to keep paying for this war but I still stay firmly with my believe this won't stop terrorist just because we converter IRAQ to democracy(if we could).. instead come home and protect our own asses.. like someone said they could get nuke well who stupid enough sell it to them? if they do that mean end of world for all us because U.S won't sit back get nuked.. if you want to be world police than do with your money and your follower leave my tax money alone and instead spend on my country and have gun ready if some power hungry wanna mess with us.

I'm happy that at least one person, for the most part, believes my plan isn't complete rubbish. (This is the first time I have posted about my plan so no one else has had the chance. But posting around you guys who know so much more about world politics than I do is hard to do)

To each is own on that one, but just know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. Also know that if a government is set up in Iraq, and order is at least partially restored, the terrorist will have a WHOLE HELLUVA lot harder time setting up camp there (By setting up camp I mean Base of operations, corrupting government, launching attacks etc...).

-Kevin

I thought they were no terrorists there before we attacked Iraq. Didn't they only come over after we started our operation? I guess the media is lying about that.

Are you kidding? Iraq was riddled with terrorists and insurgents. Thousands of terrorists didn't suddenly migrate (All undetected) into the country while we were attacking.

-Kevin

What in the hell? No, there were no terrrorist ties grom SH's Iraq to any terrorist groups (unless you count the money that they gave to fallen palestinians families, one out of a thousand of those fallen were suicide bombers, on the other hand, the US gave them among others support too, so has the rest of the world so this is a non issue)

The ONLY terrorists that were inside Iraq were Al Sadr who was an enemy of SH and resided in an area controlled by.... wait for it.... the US OF A!

Any sane person on this earth knows that SH did not have any WMD's and did not have any terrorist connections (that would be like kim jong il being cosy with GW.)

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
After some thought and a good nights sleep---I do have two thoughts.

1. I recently had a friend that had gotten sick and had to be hospitalized. While in the hospital they put him on enforced bed rest and a restricted diet---and ran some tests---after about a week he felt better and was released and went home---a few days later he was sick again--had to be hospitalized--with the same result. And after a few days at home---back in the hospital again. The third time the doctors finally found the CAUSE for him getting sick---and armed with that they treated the cause and he went home---and he did not get sick again------but first they had to find the test that found the cause.

But can we say GWB understands the cause of the problems in Iraq---or is he just demonizing AL-Quida, Iran, and Syria---and trying massive force targeted in the wrong direction?

2. Unlike some who just advocate cutting and running like we did in Vietnam, I am profoundly worried that would be sure to ignite a wider war also.

So given that we must stay and see it through---its going to take a sound plan and a long term commitment---with the Congress now holding what amounts to a veto by purse strings.

I know that if I were trying to sell an unpopular plan certain to contain pain and sacrifice---I would be certainly be talking long and hard to congress first---and respecting their inputs and possibly accepting many of their inputs.---because if congress helps write the plan---congress then buys into that plan.

Instead GWB went demagoguing straight to the American people with a vague and half baked plan. Totally by-passing congress. Thereby kiting the probability that congress will pull the plug as the setbacks and difficulties start to happen.

Is that what a wise leader does when he needs to obtain a long term commitment?

Lemon law. I thought Bush went to congress with details of the plan and also told them that the door was open for suggestions?

The problem with your ?consult? congress idea is that congress has no real ideas, besides bitch about what Bush does or bring them home now. Sort of like the people on P&N.

As if Bush has good ideas. I think where we are speaks to that.

 

[M11293]

Immediately leaving Iraq would make the situation even worse. The Iraqi security forces aren't capable of maintaining control over the region. Who would then take over in Iraq?

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ok, a little early, but I wanted to start a fresh thread to talk about the Bush speech.

So any comments on the speech?

"Stay the course"

More troops to Iraq

"Stay the course"

Terror must not win

"Stay the course"

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: M11293
Immediately leaving Iraq would make the situation even worse. The Iraqi security forces aren't capable of maintaining control over the region. Who would then take over in Iraq?

Look, there is a point in a battle where cutting your losses becomes more important and that is when you realize that you are not going to win.

The US CANNOT win this because of what it would take.

If an insurgent rises you kill not only him, not only his family, you do what Saddam did, you clean out the entire village, that is what it takes.

And the US does not have the guts to admit that what SH did was neccessary to keep the peace so they can never win this war.

The only question that remains is how much they are willing to sacrifice to keep the lie going, i'd say they will do it just so someone else has to admit failure in '09.

I'd say that is what this is about. Winning has not been an option for three years.

 

[Gamingphreek]

If an insurgent rises you kill not only him, not only his family, you do what Saddam did, you clean out the entire village, that is what it takes.

No it doesn't. If the soldiers were not attacked by any of the family they have no reason and would not kill them. Where id you get that information from?

And the US does not have the guts to admit that what SH did was neccessary to keep the peace so they can never win this war.

You are saying that Saddam's genocide and mass killings were necessary to instill a false peace in the Iraqi's. So you are supporting Saddam's method of control?

I'd say that is what this is about. Winning has not been an option for three years.

Yet people who bash this administration, who do not have a plan (Unlike many of the people in this thread who simply disagree and have their own plan of action) fall back to whining on a regular basis.

-Kevin

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

That's what it was, and I still bet most American's don't care about Iraqi's and I'll stand by that, as I've said time and time gain. American's care about American pride, to think most care for the Iraqi's is delusional thinking.

I am not so naieve to believe that most American's do care that much, but not all of us are as heartless as you have made it out to be.

Vietnam was the same, we have to swallow our pride, this war is unwinable, you can't win the WoT because terrorism itself is a tatic, an idea, a way to instill an idealogy, you can't defeat an idea or idealogy. We can supress it however, and the terrorists in Iraq will follow the U.S. wherever it goes, so let's move out of Iraq and finish up what we were doing in Afghanistan which I supported. Enough of this fake humanitarianism, and nationbuilding crap. If I appear heartless in any of this then so be it, I am just saying what many people I know fear to say.

I agree with your first half. The second half however, is where I have to disagree. Terrorism will follow anyone who is against their views. The individual terrorists do not pick up and follow our country's armed forces. Those who are in Iraq fighting us right now will be there if we were to leave ready and waiting to begin the downward spiral of a developing nation.

Uhhh it's a well known fact many families have had to buy body armor for their loved ones in harms way. In fact I remember seeing a story on CNN.com I believe that said the Pentagon was voicing disapproval and sending out an official memo because of this. Mentioning reasoning like, it wasn't right the kind of body armor or something, it was awhile ago, however any body armor is better than no body armor at all.

Im sorry, but I have to say that is a weak argument. If you have evidence (CNN may be liberal but they cannot outright lie) by all means post it and I will most certainly offer you my apologies and add that to my list of mistakes with the war.

No, but intent does not negate the fact that it happened. This war would have my support and most of the countries if it was somehow justified, but it isn't. What do you say to the man who lost his son because he was caught in a crossfire? A man whose country was invaded their sovereign leader deposed and his world turned upside down. And American's wonder why today we are so hated throughout the world.

Well it is justified from my point of view. I'm not naieve enough to believe that our intentions were 100% pure over there (ie: There was some economic goals) but Saddam, while not allies with Saddam was harboring terrorists in his country. He had already proven to be unstable (Invasion of Iraq), he was guilty of Genocide (Kurds)...he needed to be removed. The same could be said about other leaders in the nations yes and something needs to be done about them (**Note: I am in no way suggesting military action be taken**)

The man who lost his son...Well I am deeply sorry. We can only be so careful over there. Simply ceasing fire in the middle of a gun fight will get not only them killed but ourselves as well. If there were a way where we could destroy the insurgents without hurting the innocent civilians I am certain we would use it.

As for the sovereign country. You cannot accurately, IMO say that Iraq was sovereign. Yes it had a "government" (If you want to call it that) however that government was unstable and was led by a leader whose faults I addressed in my previous point.

The American hate is a vast generalization. If we are so hated, then why are so many people immigrating here. People hate war, they hate evil; When the process of fighting that is next door, it is natural for someone to hate it. As I said it is a vast generalization and a vast majority of people respect the US, even though they do not always agree with the leaders' decisions.

-Kevin

Well in a democracy and especially with the U.S. you cannot win wars without the support of the people, so I guess we have already lost, because I do not ever see this war gaining more support. Most American's don't care about Iraqi's, that may be heartless but that's the fact, deal with it.

And give me a break about terrorists not moving with our forces, the commanders on the ground have said so before and it's been reported several times, that the terrorists will move where the U.S. forces are. Why do you think this is an insurgency? When our forces leave, the insurgents will move with us.

Body armor links

Body Armor Story
Even the Christian Science Monitor reports on it
msnbc
FAUX NEWS

That should be enough evidence for you, I was wrong about it being CNN, but I am sure if I googled, "Buying body armor for troops" and dug around long enough I'd find it, those are the first few links on page 1.

No no, those articles only stated that they were buying body armor. They did not say they were inadequately supplied. In the "Body Armor Story" the major specifically said those who need the armor have it, and those who did not have it (Also did not need it) now have the armor.

Maybe they are buying armor because they didn't have it. Why would the U.S. military hold back body armor when it is in supply? The only reasonable answer is that they must have ran out. I've seen families on the news interviewed about this saying they had to buy armor for their loved ones because they were not supplied it, when they had already been deployed... I am inclined to believe the families first, than anything the administration lackeys say.

Rumsfeld: "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

As for your second point, as I said the insurgents do not pick up and move. We would notice a mass migration of ME men. It is a terror network, they have people in other countries. Additionally, if we go by your theory about them following us everywhere, why then would we want them to come home immediately. Would that not mean that they are going to start attacking US immediately?

Or maybe we should have finished up what we were doing in Afghanistan.

Cheney, IIRC had a total of 5 deferments...the last was his wife conveniently getting pregnent just as he was going to have to serve.

Ashcroft had his share of deferments (7total) as well. It's pretty commonly realised that Bush got into the guard by his Father's military ties.

Check out your fine republican leaders service here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0434,robbins,56166,1.html

THey are student or occupational deferments. They were in college or had a critical job over here as it was, and the Army deemed that they should stay. I know if I were called to serve (Unless it is an extreme national crisis) I would claim that I am in college right now (Which I am). You cannot fault them for going to school.

Uhhhh, yes they are quite capable of being armored....

Armored Humvees

There are a very small portion of Armored HMMVV's as it says. They are not supposed to be armored and are not made that way. Any one that is armored has received special treatment. If the APC's suddenly weren't armored then they would have something.

You said yourself they are unable of being armored perhaps you should word what you say better, regardless of how many are actually being armored.

I suggest you check out Bob Woodward's first book on this administration, "Plan of Attack".

link
link 2
Where it all started, 60 Minutes Bob Woodward interview

He says he feels this is what God would say if he were able to talk with them. He does not say that God instructed him to do this. Technicality, but he had reason outside religion to do these as he demonstrates when he says "Peace in the Middle East".

Now you're just splitting hairs, this guy is a nutjob and most people nowadays are waking up. He specifically said when asked if he consulted his father before invading Iraq he said, "I consulted a higher power". Now that's a load of sh!t. GWB didn't want to speak with GHWB because he knew his daddy would say no. This is all a game with GWB, how he can upstage his daddy for something he didn't do, and he is gambling with American lives.

I'm sorry but I can't continue to argue this often in this thread. Stuff's gotta be done before I head back to college, so any argument directed at me will be answered as soon as I get a chance.

-Kevin

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

If an insurgent rises you kill not only him, not only his family, you do what Saddam did, you clean out the entire village, that is what it takes.

No it doesn't. If the soldiers were not attacked by any of the family they have no reason and would not kill them. Where id you get that information from?

And the US does not have the guts to admit that what SH did was neccessary to keep the peace so they can never win this war.

You are saying that Saddam's genocide and mass killings were necessary to instill a false peace in the Iraqi's. So you are supporting Saddam's method of control?

I'd say that is what this is about. Winning has not been an option for three years.

Yet people who bash this administration, who do not have a plan (Unlike many of the people in this thread who simply disagree and have their own plan of action) fall back to whining on a regular basis.

-Kevin

You wanted a recepie for peace, i handed one to you, and you discard it.

I'm telling you that it is what it will take, you will not magically shift the oil to the Sunni arieas and the Shiites are not going to share, so that is what it takes, i am getting sick and tired about hearing about sectarian bullshit when EVERYONE who owns a map can see that this is not about Shiites VS Sunnies, it's about OIL vs NO OIL.

Yet all of the US are crazed with the uh, duh, fighting because of beliefs, uh, i think.

I love your use of "a false peace" how does that work with peace in your world, in mine, it's either peace or it's not but in your world you have "false peace" how does that work?

And no, i don't give a damn about what others peoples opinions of me or anyone is, i gave you a solution, the ONLY feasable solution and you shun that.

Good luck with the failure because without absolute control that is what this nice little adventure is, a failure.

 

[Robor]

I didn't listen to it because it doesn't matter. The cowboy went in on lies and an agenda and it blew up in his face. Sadly, it's egg on the nation rather than just him. I can't believe how one man could turn a world of sympathy against us so quickly. Anyone else notice how many fewer 'W' stickers you see on cars these days (Edit - yes I realize it's 2 years later but the recent 'wear and tear' seems a little unnatural) ...? Too bad they didn't have a clue in 2004.

Worst. President. Ever.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Robor
I didn't listen to it because it doesn't matter. The cowboy went in on lies and an agenda and it blew up in his face. Sadly, it's egg on the nation rather than just him. I can't believe how one man could turn a world of sympathy against us so quickly. Anyone else notice how many fewer 'W' stickers you see on cars these days (Edit - yes I realize it's 2 years later but the recent 'wear and tear' seems a little unnatural) ...? Too bad they didn't have a clue in 2004.

Worst. President. Ever.

While you should have listened to it, your summary is correct.

Nothing much you can do about it though? Well you could make your congressman know how much you DON'T want to support this wars expansion.

I think many forget that but you do have the means to a direct democracy it you need it.

So do that.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

If an insurgent rises you kill not only him, not only his family, you do what Saddam did, you clean out the entire village, that is what it takes.

No it doesn't. If the soldiers were not attacked by any of the family they have no reason and would not kill them. Where id you get that information from?

And the US does not have the guts to admit that what SH did was neccessary to keep the peace so they can never win this war.

You are saying that Saddam's genocide and mass killings were necessary to instill a false peace in the Iraqi's. So you are supporting Saddam's method of control?

I'd say that is what this is about. Winning has not been an option for three years.

Yet people who bash this administration, who do not have a plan (Unlike many of the people in this thread who simply disagree and have their own plan of action) fall back to whining on a regular basis.

-Kevin

You wanted a recepie for peace, i handed one to you, and you discard it.

I'm telling you that it is what it will take, you will not magically shift the oil to the Sunni arieas and the Shiites are not going to share, so that is what it takes, i am getting sick and tired about hearing about sectarian bullshit when EVERYONE who owns a map can see that this is not about Shiites VS Sunnies, it's about OIL vs NO OIL.

Yet all of the US are crazed with the uh, duh, fighting because of beliefs, uh, i think.

I love your use of "a false peace" how does that work with peace in your world, in mine, it's either peace or it's not but in your world you have "false peace" how does that work?

And no, i don't give a damn about what others peoples opinions of me or anyone is, i gave you a solution, the ONLY feasable solution and you shun that.

Good luck with the failure because without absolute control that is what this nice little adventure is, a failure.

SO answer my question. YOu support the tactics Saddam used to enstill his "peace" (Peace being meant sarcastically because thousands were dying with his use of Chemical Weapons (Kurds) etc...)

-Kevin

 

[OrByte]

Saddam kept Iraq and Iraqis in check.

it doesnt matter if we liked how he did it or not...more importantly:

that is NOT the reason why we entered into this war in the first place.

-Kevin, buy a clue son. How old are you? Ive been reading your arguments this whole thread and you need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.

The same goes for the rest of you GOP kool aid drinkers. Here is the cold hard fact that NONE of you seem willing to admit because you all think the US can still "WIN"

Any faction that prevails in Iraq will have done so with an ANTI-AMERICAN platform. The majority of Iraqis dont want the US there. Hell the majority of the Middle east does not want a western presence there.

and yet you all still think the US can still "WIN??" that is about as stupid a notion as you can get.

the US lost this little adventure the moment we opened up on Iraq...it was such a fantasy to think the West can bring peace to centuries old fighting between these people.

If you want answers -Kevin, if you are looking for a better option, then you need look no further than what was already said a thousand times in this forum. Committ no more troops, begin withdrawals and leave Iraq within the next 18 24 months, work with the middle east powers to restore stability any which way you can.

There is no "Win" for America in Iraq.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

If an insurgent rises you kill not only him, not only his family, you do what Saddam did, you clean out the entire village, that is what it takes.

No it doesn't. If the soldiers were not attacked by any of the family they have no reason and would not kill them. Where id you get that information from?

And the US does not have the guts to admit that what SH did was neccessary to keep the peace so they can never win this war.

You are saying that Saddam's genocide and mass killings were necessary to instill a false peace in the Iraqi's. So you are supporting Saddam's method of control?

I'd say that is what this is about. Winning has not been an option for three years.

Yet people who bash this administration, who do not have a plan (Unlike many of the people in this thread who simply disagree and have their own plan of action) fall back to whining on a regular basis.

-Kevin

You wanted a recepie for peace, i handed one to you, and you discard it.

I'm telling you that it is what it will take, you will not magically shift the oil to the Sunni arieas and the Shiites are not going to share, so that is what it takes, i am getting sick and tired about hearing about sectarian bullshit when EVERYONE who owns a map can see that this is not about Shiites VS Sunnies, it's about OIL vs NO OIL.

Yet all of the US are crazed with the uh, duh, fighting because of beliefs, uh, i think.

I love your use of "a false peace" how does that work with peace in your world, in mine, it's either peace or it's not but in your world you have "false peace" how does that work?

And no, i don't give a damn about what others peoples opinions of me or anyone is, i gave you a solution, the ONLY feasable solution and you shun that.

Good luck with the failure because without absolute control that is what this nice little adventure is, a failure.

SO answer my question. YOu support the tactics Saddam used to enstill his "peace" (Peace being meant sarcastically because thousands were dying with his use of Chemical Weapons (Kurds) etc...)

-Kevin

My personal preference does not reflect on this issue, i am sure you as well as i would like it to be happy toughts and roses, but it is not.

You offer no solution but i do, you don't like the only viable solution so you shun it, what are you left with?

Your only solution is no solution at all, eventally you will have to leave because the public demand for an exit will grow to great to ignore, and what will hyou hav achieved, have you made the world safer or have you made sure that there is a new generation of terrorists who hate you?

It's not the first time and it won't be the last, the US has been involved in every regime change in the last 30 years and is paying the price for meddling in other countris affairs, your children will pay the price for medding in Iraq.

Of couorse, you don't care, you really don't care and that is the pint i am making, you really don't gove a shiat.

 

[Gamingphreek]

My solution was offered in 8 points (on or about) earlier in this thread.

[Sarcasm]Yes, I don't care. I don't give one crap that thousands of people are dying a day. You know what I go to be and chuckle every night that people in this world are dying.[/Sarcasm] Watch out when you accuse people of being heartless- because more often than not it isn't the best way to attempt to get a point across.

-Kevin

Edit: I can't keep up with this thread anymore (I'm heading back to Second Semester of College tomorrow and have a lot to do). Best of luck to you guys, maybe someone will come through with a profound statement that works for both sides.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
My solution was offered in 8 points (on or about) earlier in this thread.

[Sarcasm]Yes, I don't care. I don't give one crap that thousands of people are dying a day. You know what I go to be and chuckle every night that people in this world are dying.[/Sarcasm] Watch out when you accuse people of being heartless- because more often than not it isn't the best way to attempt to get a point across.

-Kevin

Edit: I can't keep up with this thread anymore (I'm heading back to Second Semester of College tomorrow and have a lot to do). Best of luck to you guys, maybe someone will come through with a profound statement that works for both sides.

This is your problem.....

You are on the republican side, not America's side. There is only one side during a time of war and that is your country's. You do what is best for your country, not what is best for your party which is what Bush has been doing since 9/11 gave him a mandate, an excuse so tragic in it's implication that he and his party use it as a political platform to instill fear into the american people. I side with America and America is saying we need to get the hell out of dodge.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
My solution was offered in 8 points (on or about) earlier in this thread.

[Sarcasm]Yes, I don't care. I don't give one crap that thousands of people are dying a day. You know what I go to be and chuckle every night that people in this world are dying.[/Sarcasm] Watch out when you accuse people of being heartless- because more often than not it isn't the best way to attempt to get a point across.

-Kevin

Edit: I can't keep up with this thread anymore (I'm heading back to Second Semester of College tomorrow and have a lot to do). Best of luck to you guys, maybe someone will come through with a profound statement that works for both sides.

This is your problem.....

You are on the republican side, not America's side. There is only one side during a time of war and that is your country's. You do what is best for your country, not what is best for your party which is what Bush has been doing since 9/11 gave him a mandate, an excuse so tragic in it's implication that he and his party use it as a political platform to instill fear into the american people. I side with America and America is saying we need to get the hell out of dodge.

Don't personalize this. I am not on any "side" I want the same eventual outcome as all of you, I just have different views on the best way to get there.

-Kevin Boyd

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
My solution was offered in 8 points (on or about) earlier in this thread.

[Sarcasm]Yes, I don't care. I don't give one crap that thousands of people are dying a day. You know what I go to be and chuckle every night that people in this world are dying.[/Sarcasm] Watch out when you accuse people of being heartless- because more often than not it isn't the best way to attempt to get a point across.

-Kevin

Edit: I can't keep up with this thread anymore (I'm heading back to Second Semester of College tomorrow and have a lot to do). Best of luck to you guys, maybe someone will come through with a profound statement that works for both sides.

This is your problem.....

You are on the republican side, not America's side. There is only one side during a time of war and that is your country's. You do what is best for your country, not what is best for your party which is what Bush has been doing since 9/11 gave him a mandate, an excuse so tragic in it's implication that he and his party use it as a political platform to instill fear into the american people. I side with America and America is saying we need to get the hell out of dodge.

Don't personalize this. I am not on any "side" I want the same eventual outcome as all of you, I just have different views on the best way to get there.

-Kevin Boyd

I hope you're with the country.

 

[XtremepH]

We all need to face the truth which is countries like Iraq needs a dictator since none of the tribal groups can get along.