Liberals Say Iraq Is Just Like Vietnam!

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1223494' date='Mar 30 2007, 09:46 PM']I don't have much to say about the war. My brother is a Marine and you can guess how he feels about it, and from that you can imagine what I and the rest of our family think about it. [b]I just have to point out that if the Democrats were serious about ending the fighting they wouldn't have loaded up all that pork into the bill. The way they did it is a nice way to score political points, but it's rather insincere[/b] [/quote]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1223455' date='Mar 30 2007, 11:22 PM']They designed the bill to get vetoed. And yet you blame Bush. Funny.[/quote]

Heck YES! They are playing politics with a war. And they will get us all killed!

[b]This is a bill that has $25 million for spinach but nothing for the troops![/b]
our troops need a renewed budget by April 15 at the latest - yet our Democratic controlled congress chooses not to return to Washing until April 16... at the earliest.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1223165' date='Mar 30 2007, 04:04 PM']Thirteen very small colonies can gain indepence than the people of Iraq can form a stable government by themselves.[/quote]

The people of Iraq are not being given the chance to form a stable government. They are being inundated by insurgements who are there specifically to destablize. These insurgents are Shites coming from Syria and Iran. Let us not forget that Iran has sent it's elite troops into Iraq - we know this because we have caught them. On the other side, we have Sunnis coming from the rest of the Muslim world and are alined with a little group called Al Qaida, perhaps you have heard of them.

The stategic importance of this region cannot be overstated. Whether you like it or not the economy of the world is powered by oil. It goes into nearly everything that we use. It is the main ingredient in most all plastics. Try going a day without plastics. It is about so much more that just gas for our cars. An interuption in oil production would have devastating effects on the economy of every nation of the world. This is not simply about us.

Iran had long had a desire to establish a califate that would encompass the region and to include the holy sites in Saudi Arabia. Study the history of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

[Mercy me]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1222995' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:55 AM']Were they the ones to called for this war?

Were they the ones to send the boys and girls over?

Were they the ones to didn't equip those kids properly?

Are they vetoing a bill giving our troops more money?

Are they refusing to do anything to bring them home?[/quote]

Let's see...I have a few answers for this.

1. It was nearly all of Congress that called for and approved the use of force in Iraq. Some want you to forget that but go to the congressional record and read what was being said at the time.
2. #1 means that we sent our fighting men and women to war.
3. Our troops, don't call them kids, kid, are being supplied with equipment as it becomes available. It has been held up by the antics of congress. Remember Kerry's statement the he voted for an increase of funding for the troops before he voted against it.
4. Bush is threatening to veto the current bill because it is so laden with pet projects.
5. How do you stop fight the spread of radical Islam from within the US? Wars are not won on defense.

[Didymus]

keep in mind Hilary and Bill were both calling for war in Iraq even during the Clinton administration. He just didnt follow through cuz he's Clinton.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1223490' date='Mar 30 2007, 09:43 PM']I do understand the situation. You are the one who obviously doesn't understand. (Either that or you're so buried in partisanship that you're blind to reality.)

[b]Sorry but I don't belong to a political party, what I do know is that which my family thats in Iraq or is from Iraq has told me. You don't understand the situation if you think a minimal surge and keeping our troops in a hostile situation is going to help. Seriously, explain to me why you think keeping our troops there is helping the situation or is going to help the situation.[/b]

A timetabled withdrawal won't help. We'll just be piddling around until it's time to go home if we implement one.

[b]... so do you suggest that the US Troops just say in Iraq?[/b][/quote]

Edited March 31, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote]blah blah blah

Seriously, explain to me why you think keeping our troops there is helping the situation or is going to help the situation.[/quote]

Explain to me where and when I said we need to keep troops in Iraq.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1223549' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:31 PM']Explain to me where and when I said we need to keep troops in Iraq.[/quote]

[Guest T-Bone]

So you admit that I said no such thing, but am against an idiotic and artificial timetable for withdrawal?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1223556' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:34 PM']So you admit that I said no such thing, but am against an idiotic and artificial timetable for withdrawal?[/quote]

No I don't admit nothing yet... now I'm going to admit [not my last post] that I thought you were proposing that the US Troops just remain in Iraq [as believing somehow that a timetable wont work but that the war is still winnable].

Reza

[Mr.Cat]

deleted

Edited March 31, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Mercy me]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1223270' date='Mar 30 2007, 06:03 PM']C.) Saddam was put on trial for war crimes carried out during the Imposed War, in which the United States funded, gave him the weapons for, and supported every step of the way. Even after Saddam had killed the Kurds, the following year the United States restated that they were in support of Saddam and kept trading with him.[/i]

[i]A.) The Oil in Iraq would be more then able to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq [which Bush Promised before going into war but is a promise that hasn't been kept to the American People].
B.) The Oil that Haliburton and others are pumping from Iraq and the Caspian Sea would be metered [currently the oil being pumped isn't metered and so the Iraqi and American people have no idea the amount of oil being pumped out of Iraq and the Caspian Sea].
C.) American Oil products, with english rather then arabic, wouldn't be found in Iraq[/i]

Now let me get this straight: If Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly asserts that they don't, and most everyone else agrees that they don't [including the bush administration before 9-11] and we invade them and waste our military resources, and then Iran does have nuclear weapons, has repeatedly said "we got em, check us out", and we don't invade them because we don't have the resources, how is that conservative? That's everything but conservative, being a conservative means that you "conserve" your resources unless its absolutely nessessary [IE: I like to conserve or save my money in order to better protect my family].

Reza[/quote]

What?

Let me start with Saddam Hussein's trial. He was not tried with war crimes. He as charged with crimes against humanity stemming from the slaughter of thousands of Shites in Southern Iraq who rose against him in the aftermath of the Gulf War. There were other crimes that he would have been charged with but they went with these first. He didn't survive to face the next set of charges.

What does oil in the former Soviet Union have to do with Iraq? The oil infrastructure is being rebuilt in Iraq. They are not yet exporting to their potential. Halliburton provides services to the energy industry. The countries of the Middle East do not produce the highly technical equipment used in the recovery of oil. Nearly all of this equipment is imported. By and large most equipment is labeled in English as it is becoming the language of commerce.

Prove that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. First, the Bush administration prior to 9-11 did not say they a Iraq did not have them. Prior to the war the only one saying that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein. Remember that he kicked the UN arms inspectors out of the country.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1223566' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:41 PM']What?

Let me start with Saddam Hussein's trial. He was not tried with war crimes. He as charged with crimes against humanity stemming from the slaughter of thousands of Shites in Southern Iraq who rose against him in the aftermath of the Gulf War. There were other crimes that he would have been charged with but they went with these first. He didn't survive to face the next set of charges.

[b]Those "Crimes against humanity" was/is war crimes. That which was read at his trial [if I remember correctly] was "war crimes and other crimes against humanity". You're right though it wasn't the Kurds [that was to be included later] but the Shiites in Dujail [who subsequently pretty much control the government now].[/b]

What does oil in the former Soviet Union have to do with Iraq? The oil infrastructure is being rebuilt in Iraq. They are not yet exporting to their potential. Halliburton provides services to the energy industry. The countries of the Middle East do not produce the highly technical equipment used in the recovery of oil. Nearly all of this equipment is imported. By and large most equipment is labeled in English as it is becoming the language of commerce.

[b]I never said anything about the former soviet union, what I did say is taking oil from the caspian sea [probably the world's largest oil reserve]. Since you seem to not believe Halliburton is taking oil from Iraq, why do you think that it is, that the oil isn't being metered and that the oil hasn't even come close to paying for the reconstruction of Iraq?[/b]

Prove that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. First, the Bush administration prior to 9-11 did not say they a Iraq did not have them. Prior to the war the only one saying that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction was Saddam Hussein. Remember that he kicked the UN arms inspectors out of the country.

[b]It's a fact, even Mr. Bush said that he knows as a fact Iraq didn't have WMD. In regards to the Bush Admin, Condi Rice and Colin Powell said that Iraq didn't have WMD [just a few months before 9-11]. To respond to your comment that Saddam was the only one saying that he didn't have WMD, that isn't true, there were lots of sources saying that, just none that the Bush admin considered "credible".[/b][/quote]

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1223505' date='Mar 30 2007, 11:52 PM']our troops need a renewed budget by April 15 at the latest - yet our Democratic controlled congress chooses not to return to Washing until April 16... at the earliest.[/quote]

Well then Bush can't veto it

[Maggyie]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1223601' date='Mar 31 2007, 02:11 AM']Well then Bush can't veto it[/quote]

You mean the "bring the troops home" bill? Is there a time-table thing? My ignorance of the way the game is played is showing.

I think Lounge Daddy was referring to the federal budget and how Congress is taking its own sweet time about it. Although I have to point out that it took long enough when the GOP was in charge, too.

[Guest T-Bone]

There's a bill for military funding that the Demos loaded with pork and a moronic and artificial timetable. The majority party in congress submitted and passed such a bill for the express purpose of making Bush look bad.

The original funding bill, without the added pork or the timetable, would have funded our troops. Certain parties feel more like playing games with our troops than making actual decisions.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=760"]SOURCE THE NO-WMDs LIE[/url]

[url="http://www.floppingaces.net/2006/07/01/the-magic-list-of-wmds-in-iraq/"]Other proof[/url]

[quote]Did you know WMDs have been found in Iraq?
* 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium (Aug. 1, 2006 Note: link has moved; updated with saved text from original)
* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents (also updated with saved text from original)
* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas) (May 7, 2006 Note: link has moved; will update with saved text shortly; May 8 - fixed)
* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and “conventional” sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet, Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is… WHY do they believe this (”No WMD”) lie?[/quote]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1223601' date='Mar 31 2007, 12:11 AM']Well then Bush can't veto it[/quote]

Elected Liberals have betrayed the Troops by using them for politics.

[KnightofChrist]

This debate will be truly interesting to see the opinions of Libs after the next terrorist attack, will libs still be full of hate of Bush or Americanism, and blame us? Or will they wake up and see that we can not run from the enemy.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1223457' date='Mar 30 2007, 10:23 PM']Bush is the one one who is vetoing the troops[/quote]

Bush warned Dems that if they put a timetable in the bill he would be force to veto it, the dems betrayed the troops, and wasted tax payer dollars by passing a bill they new would not become law.


And you dishonor you brothers and sisters in arms, they are not boys and girls. You are a boy, they are your elders.