| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
kingofpawns 01-Sep-06, 15:23 |
 Why do they always lie?cannot hide the real military situation, yet we here repeatedly told by them that things are slowly starting to get better, when exactly the opposite is happening. At this point, I can't say what the best solution is for Iraq, but a huge step towards solving this horrible war is to get rid of the Bush crime family. It is clear that Bush and his crime family are so dumb, that whatever decisions they make will be in the worst interest of the US and the world and in the best interests of the terrorists. How can anyone have made such a mess? The first step is this November. It is essential that republican fascist control of congress be ended. The next step can then proceed to the investigations by congress of the criminal activities of the Bush crime family. Here is an article on the latest situation in Iraq: Pentagon Releases Grim Report on Iraq MICHAEL R. GORDON Published: September 1, 2006 WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — Iraqi casualties soared by more than 50 percent during the roughly three-month period ending in early August, the product of spiraling sectarian clashes and a Sunni-based insurgency that remains “potent and viable,” the Pentagon noted today in an comprehensive assessment of security in Iraq. In a grim 63-page report, the Pentagon chronicled bad news on a variety of fronts. One telling indicator was the number of weekly attacks, which reached an all-time high in July. [get the full report here 20060901_military_report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" class=ext>graphics.nytimes.com" target="_blank">-> graphics.nytimes.com (graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/ 20060901_military_report.pdf)] The American-led coalition suffered the brunt of the attacks, but an increasing number are being directed against civilians. In Baghdad, for example, civilian targets accounted for 22 percent of all the attacks, up from 15 percent in April. And the attacks on Iraqi troops and civilians caused many more deaths than did those on American troops. “Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife, with Sunni and Shia extremists each portraying themselves as the defenders of their respective sectarian groups,” the report noted. “The Sunni Arab insurgence remains potent and viable.” The Pentagon report on “Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq” is mandated by Congress and issued quarterly. It covers a broad range of subjects, ranging from the economy to public attitudes to the training of Iraqi security forces. This time, the study has been the focus of special interest because of increasing fears that Iraq is sliding into civil war. And its grimmer notes, echoing recent Congressional testimony by military commanders, come at a time when President Bush and members of his cabinet have been trying to present a strong case in support of the war, in the face of vehement criticism from Democrats. Addressing that scenario, the report notes: “Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi population has increased in recent months.” As a consequence of the rising violence, the number of Iraqi casualties — civilian and well as military — jumped to almost 120 a day. Further, the confidence of Iraqis in the future has diminished, according to public opinion surveys cited in the Pentagon report. Still, the study asserts that the fighting in Iraq does not meet the “strict” legal definition of a civil war. The period of the study does not cover either a surge in bloody attacks during the past week nor a relatively low number of civilian casualties earlier in the month; a joint American-Iraqi security campaign in Baghdad is expected to contribute to a relatively low civilian death toll for all of August. The assessment provides bad news on a variety of fronts. It said that Al Qaeda is active despite the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, because of the group’s “cellular structure,” that the Sunni insurgency is strong and that militias are undiminished. The Pentagon distributed the report on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend, a common time for government officials to put out bad news. A Pentagon officials denied that this was the intent and said the report was issued when it completed. |
||||||
|
eldude 01-Sep-06, 22:28 |
Bush is so Lets hope his son or grandson doesnt become president. It suprises me that 50% of the Americans think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction! No wonder people think Americans are stupid. They cant even see through their own president!!!!!! |
||||||
|
they this ties into my earlier post re donald dumsfeld and his comment regarding dissenters being akin to nazu appeasers. |
||||||
|
great unbiased |
||||||
|
water_lilly 03-Sep-06, 15:08 |
Wait... |
||||||
|
Wow!... "They lie because they can get away with it and it serves their purposes. as joseph goebbels said “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Crime Boss Willie (I didn't stain no dress) Clinton took that one right outta Herr Goebbels play book. My, my, my. Never heard any complaints from the left back then, guess it suited their purpose, the lying and all. Now all they do is cry, cry, cry. Then eldude writes... " suprises me that 50% of the Americans think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction! No wonder people think Americans are stupid. They cant even see through their own president!!!!!!" Well, its no wonder, thats what Crime Boss Willie (Hey dar girl can I get yo number) Clinton kept saying for the 8 years he was da Prez. If ya cant truss the Willie da Prez, who can ya truss? |
||||||
|
water_lilly 03-Sep-06, 15:50 |
??? Also, try pointing to things Clinton lied about involving... oh, I don't know... domestic or foreign policy? I'm not even a Clinton fan, but whining about his sexploits is not the way to attack his presidency. |
||||||
|
crackers and (again, thanks to lily) please ditch the pseudo accent...it reflects poorly on you, does nothing to enhance your argument, and is just plain annoying! |
||||||
|
annoying...hehehehe...truth by another language... You all act like its W and all the Rebubs that are the worse thing in the world when all you have to do is look into the mirror and see who U put into power. Mirror, mirror on the wall... |
||||||
|
well... |
||||||
|
excuse the poor grammar... |
||||||
|
alexwilson 03-Sep-06, 19:49 |
|
||||||
|
water_lilly 04-Sep-06, 00:45 |
No "(Hey dar girl can I get yo number)" "da Prez" "If ya cant truss the Willie da Prez, who can ya truss?" It was to this that I was referring, flcracker, and I seriously doubt that typing "da" for "the" has anything to do with a lack of formal education. If you actually spoke this way and I was critisizing that, then it would be appropriate (perhaps) to accuse me of holding a lack of education against you. As it is... not really. You can call Bill Clinton "Willie da Prez" if you like, and I will continue to think it's stupid. Bill Clinton did nothing because he had a Republican congress. Thank god. If only Bush had to deal with a Democratic one... "water_lilly, been around to many college students that have been educated in public schools. My mistake for listening to our future leaders. Just picked up the lingo by accident, I guess." No one who intentionally talks like that is going to be a future leader. I for one have been educated entirely in public schools, and yet I don't believe the world is only 7,000 years old, I don't believe "ask" is pronounced "ax", I don't believe everything I'm told, I don't pray for up front parking spaces, or so that my favorite sports team can win, and I don't choose to talk as if I were less intelligent than I actually am. What college, exactly, are these students from? |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 00:46 |
alex... |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 01:00 |
stinky... >forgot we caught number 2 guy in iraq. americans dumb? that comment would bother most americans. not >jeff and kop though, terrorist sympathizers they are. The number 1 guy, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed earlier, he was replaced and the situation got worse. In fact, our crime boss Bush said in a recent new conference when pressed by a reporter that Saddam had nothing to do with 911. There were no terrorists in Iraq until Bush made them. Since you reflexively support Bush, I can only conclude that you stinky are the terrorist sympathizer here. |
||||||
|
kementari 04-Sep-06, 01:08 |
water_lily *applause, followed by wolf-whistles and a giant smooch* I'd ask you if you would marry me, but a) I'm already married, and b) it wouldn't be legal in this country. Life is unfair. |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 01:11 |
flcrackers... Bush 1 and 2 did. Explain to me how past lies by any past president justify the constant lies of Bush? Let's take the latest lie. If we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them here. How are they going to get here? Why don't they just come now? It should be easy for them to do it now why we are preoccupied with the civil war in Iraq. Anyone who is still fooled by his lies must be a fool. |
||||||
|
water_lilly 04-Sep-06, 01:22 |
Kementari Oh, and I doubt your husband would mind very much. |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 04-Sep-06, 02:40 |
water_lilly... Nothing turns me on more than a grammatically well-constructed argument. Sound logic is also very attractive. |
||||||
|
water_lilly 04-Sep-06, 02:45 |
Oh yeah... |
||||||
|
bush kills |
||||||
|
kementari 05-Sep-06, 14:23 |
kop True enough. Rigorous experimentation has proven to me that geeks are better lovers. <<Sound logic is also very attractive.>> I'll drink to that. |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 05-Sep-06, 17:04 |
stinky... He has killed a few but there are a lot more after he attacked Iraq than before. >kop your reasoning as usual is way out of whack. Ok, let's see what you have to say. >to simply take my statements and say , i know you are but what am i doesnt cut it. you say i reflexively >support bush? damn right i support bush but not reflexively. You said a little over a year ago that you had your doubts about the war in Iraq and that we should get out as soon as possible. As I see it, you were thinking then, but now you seem to be reflexively following Bush. I'm just saying that that is what it appear like to me. > i have no pity whatsoever that he kills terrorist. I don't think anyone on either side of the political debate has any pitty for terrorists. So, you are beating a straw man here. >does fighting drugs make drugs worse? Now, that is an interesting question worthy of its own thread. There certainly are ways that fighting drugs makes drugs worse and the drug problem worse. You are well-aware from first hand knowledge that about the only thing accomplished by fighting drugs is to fill up the prisons. Maybe it is time to take a closer look at the Netherlands. By the way, Afganistan is now the leading supplier of heroin, and they just had a bumper crop. >your theory is to throw our hands up and cave in. No, that isn't my theory. And I have never read anyone on anyside of this debate propose throwing up their hands. The goal is to reduce terrorism not increase it as Bush has done. You know full well that Bush never argued (before the war) that the war in Iraq was to fight terrorists. The reason he gave was that Iraq had WMD that was going to be used on the US. Of course, we now know that there was no WMD and that Bush knew there wasn't any. So, now he rewrites history and says Iraq is where the war on terrorism is centered even though Iraq had nothing to do with 911 (Bush's own words). The bottom line is that Iraq was simply a neo-con grab for oil, nothing more and nothing less. But, now it is a mess. >kop do you understand that terrorist can target our troops and americans in the middle east (in iraq) >they dont have to come here now. this makes their day. If you would take the time to investitage it, you would find that our military's own estimate is that only 4% to 10% of the fighters in Iraq are foreigners to Iraq. It is Iraqi insurgents fighting a civil war who are killing our troops. We are not fighting a war on terror, are troops are being killed 2, 3, 4, 10 a day in a civil war. >who were we fighting when osama planned this 9-11 things? no one! We had troops in Saudi Arabia where Osama Bin Laden and most of the 911 terrorists came from. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia? Could it be the Bush families long-time ties with the house of Saud and the Bin Laden family? I also agree, that Bush was doing absolutely nothing to prevent any terrorist attack. He paid not attention to a memo entitle "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US". >idle time will give them time to plan. Bush gave them plenty of time and now he is helping to recruit more terrorists and train them against our own troops. Just so you don't misinterpret the previous sentence. This is not Bush's intent, but a consequence of his complete incompetence. >you can bet your bottom that when we pull out of iraq and things calm down the u.s. will be hit. Stinky, it doesn't matter one way or the other. We are going to be hit and the probability that we will be hit is much greater the longer Bush is president. In part, this is because his administration is so incompetent. But, these terrorists never forget. They will be seeking vengence for our attacking Iraq for generations to come. >of course you bleeding heart liberals wont blame the murderers you will blame bush. even if its twenty >years from now. Again, you resort to attacking a straw man. Everyone blames murderers, but Bush's incompetence and failure to adequately deal with terrorism will also be to blame. Stinky, what scares me the most about Bush is his incompetence. I have never seen any one who so consistently makes the wrong decision. Oh there have been other presidents who were not that bright, but what really makes Bush standout is that he picks equally incompetent people at all levels of government. >how can you like a good sound argument so much when all your arguments start off like a bitter hateful >old man? You see, my arguments are so logical that I like to spice them up. >if you really want to discuss something kop why start off with comments that make the argument so >polarized? bush crime family, liars, traitors? comments like that are excatly why your party lost the last >two elections. "Bush crime family" and certainly "liars" are fair terms to use. "Traitors" may be a bit unfair without further investigation. The reasons the last two elections were lost were in 2000 the US supreme court, which did not allow a recount, which we now know Gore would have won. In 2006, the elections were simply rigged. >bitterness and hate. hopefully someone like you will run for office for the dems. your our best weapon! No, I'm not going to run for any office, but I will make a donation to the democratic national party in your honor for $250 |
||||||
|
stinky you want recruiting, we got recruiting! step right up, no waiting! sign up to kill the imperialist gringos who invade islamic countries and kill innocent women and children! you want to defuse terrosits? build schools and mosques, water wells and hospitals, but, and here is the kicker, you have to do it before you invade! |
||||||
|
Lost opportunity.... Here was an opportunity for the U.S to get actively involved in the middle East in a positive way. No-one had any problems I believe with the foray into Afghanistan, although sadly, even there, there were murmurings of prisoner abuse and covert renditions. However returning to the point, which I believe Jeff was making, imagine if after subduing the Taliban, the U.S., instead of pouring a billion dollars a month into a poorly thought out and poorly executed invasion of Iraq, they had spent half that on Afghanistan upgrading the infrastructure and providing education opportunities for the young people, it would have been a positive shift for the whole region. In the time it has taken this administration to turn Iraq into a hell-hole, they could have turned Afghanistan into a model state, and ally all in one stroke. Sadly I think it is too late.... |
||||||
|
bobbynox 07-Sep-06, 19:50 |
President GW Bush... This will be a fact for the history books because he is the one-and-only president who has seen fit to place our country's military resources strategically in the Islamofacist bedroom. Whether you are concerned about WMD or who lied, is immaterial. The important fact remains, that the extreme-Islamic world-dominators must be broken. We are in WWIII, if you have not noticed. It is being fought on their turf, sans 911, and we will win. It won't matter that the dems may have a president in '08 or the reps, either case the war will continue to be fought. This is a war which has its roots in the 1200s ad. It is battle-after-battle. There are distinct differences between the democratic-republic which you enjoy, and the Islamofacism which they will place upon you. Once you realise that, you will see that all the in-fighting about this president, or that statesman, are inconsequential (flcrakers, that means, 'doesn't matter'). Great Britain placed the "State" of Israel in its biblical location, circa 1920, in order to maintain a stronghold over the dying Ottoman Empire. Our efforts to create a thriving democracy in Iraq is a continuation of that stronghold. Without it, the mideast will fall under the death-grip of the Islamofacist. A word on Islam. I know a little about Islam. Its people are peaceful. But it has been hi-jacked by extremists who have a philosophy of world-domination. That does not relfect the true nature of Islam. |
||||||
|
Lies. Lies. Lies. One way or another the supporters of this grubby little invasion will pay for it, as Tony Blair is already finding out. It wont be long and it will be a willing coalition of two, Bush and John Howard....both inveterate liars... |
||||||
|
bobby you are correct in one respect...islam is not, at heart, a violent religion...at least no more so than most other world religions. i find it ironic that you absolutely correct comment about the religion being taken over by extremist is completely apropos to the us and the takeover by right wing christian fundamentalists such as bush, dumsfeld, and their ilk! greatest ever!!!??? sheesh...and you said you never used drugs!!! |
||||||
|
eldude 08-Sep-06, 18:15 |
Are |
||||||
|
bobbynox 08-Sep-06, 20:32 |
Bush, Clinton, the whole bunch... What matters is that we stop the Islamofacists in their tracks. Next week you will hear a speech given in the UN from the Pres. of Iran. He will speak about the United States (you and me) and the way-of-life here, as something to be destroyed; replaced by Islam. He willl not hesitate to attack our freedoms and our capitalist system. He will not be satified until ful-scale war is placed across the earth. He is a lunatic. Our current situation has nothing to do with who is in power, as the media shall have you believe. It has everything to with who is funding the other-side. Iran. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
