Pelosi Is Pissed !

[Guest Patriot]

Pelosi is really pissed !! The latest reports out of Iraq show we have turned the corner. Attacks are down, american deaths are down, IED bombings are way down. So what does Pelosi do ? She introduces legislaton to get our troops out now. God forbid we win this thing and give Bush credit.

This shows the true colors of the defeatocrats, their hatred of Bush is more important than winning a war and honoring our troops.

[Guest Guest]

Pelosi is really pissed !!  The latest reports out of Iraq show we have turned the corner.  Attacks are down, american deaths are down, IED bombings are way down. So what does Pelosi do ?  She introduces legislaton to get our troops out now. God forbid we win this thing and give Bush credit.

  This shows the true colors of the defeatocrats, their hatred of Bush is more important than winning a war  and honoring our troops.

74244[/snapback]

Pelosi's P.O.ed and PatRat's STILL a nitwit.

Years after we were told major combat operations had ended 2007 has already become the deadliest year yet for American troops in Iraq and we have a month and a half to go. And when all is said and done we will have gained nothing but fresh graves and debt while still not having addressed the problem of those who attacked us.

You can by all the White House spin you want, it's still a load of crap lapped up by REMF nitwits like you.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

Pelosi is really pissed !!  The latest reports out of Iraq show we have turned the corner.  Attacks are down, american deaths are down, IED bombings are way down. So what does Pelosi do ?  She introduces legislaton to get our troops out now. God forbid we win this thing and give Bush credit.

  This shows the true colors of the defeatocrats, their hatred of Bush is more important than winning a war  and honoring our troops.

74244[/snapback]

Would "winning" this war make it any less illegal? "Winning" this war would not make me feel any better about it. Violence is down for the past few months and that is definately something to be encouraged about, yet for the year 2007 has still been the deadliest year of all. Go figure. Three soldiers killed this weekend by a suicide bomber while handing out toys. Yep, we are well on the way to changing thier minds.

What many fail to understand is that we invaded them. It stands to reason that a great deal of people are going to fight back whether we were "right" or not.

What would you do if the U.S. were invaded? Would you stop to think or even consider if the invading force had the right or not? I doubt that neither of us would care, we would probably do anything in our power to try and rid our land of the these forces.

Don't worry about Bush. He'll get every bit of "credit" that he has coming to him.

[Guest Guest]

Would "winning" this war make it any less illegal? "Winning" this war would not make me feel any better about it. Violence is down for the past few months and that is definately something to be encouraged about, yet for the year 2007 has still been the deadliest year of all. Go figure. Three soldiers killed this weekend by a suicide bomber while handing out toys. Yep, we are well on the way to changing thier minds.

    What many fail to understand is that we invaded them. It stands to reason that a great deal of people are going to fight back whether we were "right" or not.

What would you do if the U.S. were invaded? Would you stop to think or even consider if the invading force had the right or not? I doubt that neither of us would care, we would probably do anything in our power to try and rid our land of the these forces.

    Don't worry about Bush. He'll get every bit of "credit" that he has coming to him.

74267[/snapback]

Did you ever stop to think that the majority of enemy combatants are not from Iraq?

[Bryan]

Would "winning" this war make it any less illegal?

What makes you think it's not legal, Keith?

You're aware that Iraq broke a ceasefire agreement, right?

"Winning" this war would not make me feel any better about it. Violence is down for the past few months and that is definately something to be encouraged about, yet for the year 2007 has still been the deadliest year of all. Go figure.

It's not hard to figure if you're truly interested. The U.S. has engaged in very aggressive confrontation of AQI and has witnessed excellent success. When military units perform more combat, casualties tend to increase. It's not much of a mystery. Now that AQI has been routed from many key areas of Iraq, casualties of all types should continue to experience a gradual decline (unless the Democrats step in to save the day for AQI).

Three soldiers killed this weekend by a suicide bomber while handing out toys. Yep, we are well on the way to changing thier minds.

The suicide bomber will never do that again, and public opinion in Iraq is swinging to support of the central government. That's what we want (if we're not stupid).

What many fail to understand is that we invaded them. It stands to reason that a great deal of people are going to fight back whether we were "right" or not.

What many don't understand is that regardless of the U.S. invading Iraq, the U.S. has allied with Iraqis at the tribal level, even with groups who used to shoot at us. There's an alliance against destabilizing forces with the understanding that Iraq takes over its own security when it can.

That's what we want (if we're not stupid).

What would you do if the U.S. were invaded? Would you stop to think or even consider if the invading force had the right or not?

Should I consider the regime in power at the time or any other relevant factors, or ignore the relevant factors for the sake of this exercise?

I doubt that neither of us would care, we would probably do anything in our power to try and rid our land of the these forces.

    Don't worry about Bush. He'll get every bit of "credit" that he has coming to him.

74267[/snapback]

True, though it might take an extra generation just like it has with Vietnam.

[Autonomous]

This thread is a trolling thread by a troll poster. Why take the bait?

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

What makes you think it's not legal, Keith?

You're aware that Iraq broke a ceasefire agreement, right?

It's not hard to figure if you're truly interested.  The U.S. has engaged in very aggressive confrontation of AQI and has witnessed excellent success.  When military units perform more combat, casualties tend to increase.  It's not much of a mystery.  Now that AQI has been routed from many key areas of Iraq, casualties of all types should continue to experience a gradual decline (unless the Democrats step in to save the day for AQI).

The suicide bomber will never do that again, and public opinion in Iraq is swinging to support of the central government.  That's what we want (if we're not stupid).

What many don't understand is that regardless of the U.S. invading Iraq, the U.S. has allied with Iraqis at the tribal level, even with groups who used to shoot at us.  There's an alliance against destabilizing forces with the understanding that Iraq takes over its own security when it can.

That's what we want (if we're not stupid).

Should I consider the regime in power at the time or any other relevant factors, or ignore the relevant factors for the sake of this exercise?

True, though it might take an extra generation just like it has with Vietnam.

74439[/snapback]

So, it doesn't bother you that we were lied into this war? Just like Vietnam..........

[Guest Guest]

This thread is a trolling thread by a troll poster. Why take the bait?

74455[/snapback]

Because it's hard to pass up an opportunity to label PatRat the nitwit that he is?

[Bryan]

Did you ever stop to think that the majority of enemy combatants are not from Iraq?

74373[/snapback]

It's true that the majority of insurgent leaders are not Iraqis, but the rank and file are predominantly Iraqis.

Iraq's social structure remains significantly tribal. Get a tribal leader to fall in with AQI and the rest of the tribe goes along with it, generally speaking. Being an insurgent pays better than many of the currently available jobs in Iraq, which is another reason why the national government needs to ensure a willingness to hire Sunnis into the security forces.

For native Iraqis, alliance with the insurgents has more to do with short-term economic gain than anything else.

[Guest Guest]

This thread is a trolling thread by a troll poster. Why take the bait?

74455[/snapback]

What thread ??

[Strife767]

What thread ??

74578[/snapback]

The one you're posting in, obviously.

[Bryan]

So, it doesn't bother you that we were lied into this war? Just like Vietnam..........

74499[/snapback]

To whose lies do you refer?

Better intelligence would have been nice, but the emasculation of native intelligence spearheaded by Democrats in the 70s came back to bite us (assuming that Hussein really did not have any WMDs to ship off to Syria).

I'm bothered by the bad intelligence but not by the decision to go to war. With Hussein still in power there would be an arms race between Iraq and Iran with both seeking nuclear weapons. Iraqis will be better off, and so will the entire Western world if the Dems don't throw it away.

Does it bother you at all that so many Democrats pretty much accused Petraeus of lying when the facts on the ground have backed him up?

[Guest Patriot]

To whose lies do you refer?

Better intelligence would have been nice, but the emasculation of native intelligence spearheaded by Democrats in the 70s came back to bite us (assuming that Hussein really did not have any WMDs to ship off to Syria).

I'm bothered by the bad intelligence but not by the decision to go to war.  With Hussein still in power there would be an arms race between Iraq and Iran with both seeking nuclear weapons.  Iraqis will be better off, and so will the entire Western world if the Dems don't throw it away.

Does it bother you at all that so many Democrats pretty much accused Petraeus of lying when the facts on the ground have backed him up?

74748[/snapback]

It will be interesting to see the increased intensity of rhetoric by Pelosi's

Defeatocrats as conditions continue to improve in Iraq. The Defeatocrats are

in a panic thinking improving conditions will translate into Republican votes.

In their warped minds, dead american troops mean Defeatocratic votes,

so in a real sense the Defeatocrats are upset by a declining body count.

Makes you wonder who's side these Defeatocrats are on.

[Guest Guest]

To whose lies do you refer?

Better intelligence would have been nice, but the emasculation of native intelligence spearheaded by Democrats in the 70s came back to bite us (assuming that Hussein really did not have any WMDs to ship off to Syria).

I'm bothered by the bad intelligence but not by the decision to go to war.  With Hussein still in power there would be an arms race between Iraq and Iran with both seeking nuclear weapons.  Iraqis will be better off, and so will the entire Western world if the Dems don't throw it away.

74748[/snapback]

It's a rare ocurence but I agree, better intelligence would have been nic. Although in my case I believe it's better intelligence in the Oval Office is what was, is, and will be needed to get us out of the mess the nitwit Dubya and his mangy bunch of tunnel-visioned ideologues have created.

[WilliamK]

With Hussein still in power there would be an arms race between Iraq and Iran with both seeking nuclear weapons.

74748[/snapback]

It rather looks to me like Iran's nuclear intentions have not abated in the absence of Hussein.

[Guest Guest]

It will be interesting to see the increased intensity of rhetoric by Pelosi's

  Defeatocrats as conditions continue to improve in Iraq. The Defeatocrats are

  in a panic thinking improving conditions will translate into Republican votes.

      In their warped minds, dead american troops mean Defeatocratic votes,

  so in a real sense the Defeatocrats are upset by a declining body count.

      Makes you wonder who's side these Defeatocrats are on.

74810[/snapback]

You're a nitwit, creating violence and then patting youself on the back for bringing it under control is like rewarding an arsonist for putting out the fire, neither accomplishes anything.

[Guest Veteran]

Too bad the incompetents in the White House and Dept of Defense (Rumsfeld) didn't listen to the Army Chief of Staff in 2003 when he told them it would take years and many more troops than they were projecting. He was balls on and would have save countless lives and billions of $$. Of course Bush did come around to General Shinseki's thinking - 4 years later. Brilliant idea George Wussein Bush, just a little slow in your decision making.

[Guest Guest]

Too bad the incompetents in the White House and Dept of Defense (Rumsfeld) didn't listen to the Army Chief of Staff in 2003 when he told them it would take years and many more troops than they were projecting.  He was balls on and would have save countless lives and billions of $$. Of course Bush did come around to General Shinseki's thinking - 4 years later.  Brilliant idea George Wussein Bush, just a little slow in your decision making.

74998[/snapback]

I guess the Jim Beam damage is permanent and causes slow reaction to reality

[Guest 2smart4u]

It will be interesting to see the increased intensity of rhetoric by Pelosi's

  Defeatocrats as conditions continue to improve in Iraq. The Defeatocrats are

  in a panic thinking improving conditions will translate into Republican votes.

      In their warped minds, dead american troops mean Defeatocratic votes,

  so in a real sense the Defeatocrats are upset by a declining body count.

      Makes you wonder who's side these Defeatocrats are on.

74810[/snapback]

Excellent post, Patriot. It's so accurate and to the point that not one Kool-

aider touched it. Can't argue with the truth.

[Guest Guest]

To whose lies do you refer?

Better intelligence would have been nice, but the emasculation of native intelligence spearheaded by Democrats in the 70s came back to bite us (assuming that Hussein really did not have any WMDs to ship off to Syria).

I'm bothered by the bad intelligence but not by the decision to go to war.  With Hussein still in power there would be an arms race between Iraq and Iran with both seeking nuclear weapons.  Iraqis will be better off, and so will the entire Western world if the Dems don't throw it away.

Does it bother you at all that so many Democrats pretty much accused Petraeus of lying when the facts on the ground have backed him up?

74748[/snapback]

Gulf of Tonken- That was a lie. What else do you need to know?

[Guest Kearny Senior]

It will be interesting to see the increased intensity of rhetoric by Pelosi's

  Defeatocrats as conditions continue to improve in Iraq. The Defeatocrats are

  in a panic thinking improving conditions will translate into Republican votes.

      In their warped minds, dead american troops mean Defeatocratic votes,

  so in a real sense the Defeatocrats are upset by a declining body count.

      Makes you wonder who's side these Defeatocrats are on.

74810[/snapback]

Every day on TV I'm seeing improving conditions in Iraq. What I'm not

seeing is Pelosi, Reed, Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha or any other democrat

commenting on the good news... I think you're right, and it's mind boggling.

Members of the U.S. Congress not cheering about improving conditions

in a war zone and fewer american soldiers dying just seems incomprehensible

to me and I'm sure to every american (except Paul) who loves america.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Gulf of Tonken- That was a lie. What else do you need to know?

75343[/snapback]

Kool-aid alert !!

[Guest Guest]

Excellent  post, Patriot.  It's so accurate and to the point that not one Kool-

  aider touched it.  Can't argue with the truth.

75260[/snapback]

Spoken like a true War Monger.

[Guest Veteran]

Because it should never have gotten to this point. The "splurge" should have been part of the original plan - not some add on 4 years later when the Republican'ts finally admitted they screwed it up. Professional military told them these additional troops were required from day one. Wussein Bush chose not to support the troops with the resources they needed until 4 years later. Cheer for that.

[Guest Guest]

Kool-aid alert !!

75866[/snapback]

Ahhhhhhhhh..............your usual response to FACT, Kool-Aid alert

Gu4lkf of Tonkin was nothing more than an (very)off-Broadway production.

What a WANKER!