Conservative Group Airs Pro-Bush(War) Ad

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

My God Brain, can you be much more of a self-nullifying hypocrite pussy? You must be talking about yourself then, since your comments indicated you were little more than a troll here to "piss people off" in that thread. Try not talking out of two-sides of your ass next time.

There's no "meaningful debate" because no one can debate Republican partisan talking-points anymore, with a straight face and without being own3d severally.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Good response.

I will pray for the pitiful existence you must endure.

LOL Brian is praying that I lead a "pitiful existence." He must be experiencing karma then.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Isn't supposing that the Dems "may also have increased flexibility of dealing with Iraq" speculation as well? I mean do the terrorists divide their decisions based on American Party lines? "American" has a definition in the Middle East which could very well mean that anyone "American" might have to "save face".....(?)

In my mind "losing the war on terror" and "victory" are both perception based. Kind of like the Israel/Hezbollah battle. When each side has their own perception of win/lose then it depends on what each individual chooses to perceive as the answer.

Lots of grey area....no black and white conclusion.

Does thousands dead signify victory or loss? Depends on who's side your on doesn't it....

I don't see victory on either side in this battle. Just like the war on drugs. Terrorists keep coming and we keep coming. Back and forth like a tennis match that won't end.

Perhaps it is "speculation."

But what is not is that the Democrats are at least offering different solutions. As are many of the Congressional Republicans jumping ship from the Bush policy of "spending and bleeding" under the guise of not "cutting and running" (or taking the blame for a failed erroneous invasion).

And as for "perceptions of victory," one has no need to look further than the recent Pentagon Report which paints a bleak picture of an insurgency which is not going away despite going on four years of occupation.

Not to mention the renewed Taliban that has popped back up in Afghanistan.

[Ellyllions]

I don't think it was a mistake to go into Iraq. I just honestly believe that it didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. And I also believe the the Generals who are running this war are the ones who won't admit that there have been problems as well as not willing to change tactics even if it means withdrawing. Those 5 stars feel nice and useful on those shoulders when they're engaged in battle as opposed to sitting behind a desk pushing paperwork around... They're the ones who refer to the troops living and dying on the ground as "collateral" or "assets"

Pride is a horrible thing sometimes, especially when placed in the hands of people who are power-hungry.

I just believe that because of that, the Dems won't be any more successful in the majority than the Reps have. And it's all because of the type of battle this is mixed with the military General's desire to be "great".

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


And as for "perceptions of victory," one has no need to look further than the recent Pentagon Report which paints a bleak picture of an insurgency which is not going away despite going on four years of occupation.

Not to mention the renewed Taliban that has popped back up in Afghanistan.

Again, if the tactics don't change after that report....the General's are the one's to blame.

Me and hubby own a little company...if an artist turns in a piece of shit work, we go to that artist's superviser. Not to the artist. Same thing with the Administration and the Generals. The report comes out, they turn in an "action" report to the Administration.

Don't be shoved around by the politicians. They can promise and blame until they're blue in the face but in the end they won't micro-manage any of the battles. They'll trust the same people that have been trusted thus far, to keep them informed.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Again, if the tactics don't change after that report....the General's are the one's to blame.

How are they supposed to "change tactics" when they're given no more resources?

Second of all, some have pointed to the fact that the "Generals" get a free pass by the Rummys of the world, since NOT ONE general officer has been relieved from this shit-fest since Gen. Shinseki was pushed aside for disagreeing with Rummy's little Kool-Aide assessment of needing only a few troops to invade Iraq. That was a myth perpetuated by a former Army LTC. turned Neo Con idiot. Actually, Don was right about that, we didn't need many troops to invade Iraq, but we did to occupy and secure it!

Me and hubby own a little company...if an artist turns in a piece of shit work, we go to that artist's superviser. Not to the artist. Same thing with the Administration and the Generals. The report comes out, they turn in an "action" report to the Administration.

Don't be shoved around by the politicians. They can promise and blame until they're blue in the face but in the end they won't micro-manage any of the battles. They'll trust the same people that have been trusted thus far, to keep them informed.

Well, the book is that they trusted the wrongs ones. Gen Tommy Franks has been panned now as a fool that wanted to drive to Baghdad, then leave and write a book. Guess who hired him, along with his arch-nemesis, and equally incompetent Paul "let's disband the Iraqi-Army" Bremer.

The one that needs to be fired is Ronald Dumsfeld, and the Admin that hired him.

[Ellyllions]

Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

[FORD]

There is no "war on terrorism" It's just another useless slogan from the same people who brought you the "war on drugs".

Funny how both came from the biggest drug dealers and terrorists on the planet, the Bush Criminal Empire.

Though last month's events in London turned out to be highly exaggerated in terms of an actual "terrorist" threat, they DID prove one thing once and for all. Troops on the ground in foreign countries do NOT stop terrorists, good old fashioned police work does.

Just as it captured and convicted the guys who hit the WTC the first time.

Just as it captured and convicted that asshole who crossed over the border on the Port Angeles ferry, with plans to light up the entire West Coast for New Years 1990.

Just as it captured, tried, and executed Tim McVeigh. Using Chimpy's logic, we would have invaded Michigan, because McVeigh had militia training there, and then bombed the fucking shit out of Wisconsin, just because they were next door.

It's time to end this fucking lie, and let the police and intelligence agencies do their jobs. And that does NOT mean tapping the phone lines of American citizens.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

Well, unfortunately there are already Washington lobbyists and PACs hiring ex-Democratic insiders in anticipation. But hopefully the corruption scandals will force most to keep their pocketbooks in good order.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
There's no harm in participating in such a thread.

This forum has turned to crap...since a few certain people joined and no noting of engaging in meaningful debate.

No "harm" was implied. Baby Warharm complained in your thread which is in the feedback to the webmaster forum.

You bring no "meaningful debate" to this forum, Cap'n Spam-a-lot. Your goal is to antagonize. If I am mistaken please provide a link to some of your "meaningful debate."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by FORD
There is no "war on terrorism" It's just another useless slogan from the same people who brought you the "war on drugs".

Funny how both came from the biggest drug dealers and terrorists on the planet, the Bush Criminal Empire.

Though last month's events in London turned out to be highly exaggerated in terms of an actual "terrorist" threat, they DID prove one thing once and for all. Troops on the ground in foreign countries do NOT stop terrorists, good old fashioned police work does.

Just as it captured and convicted the guys who hit the WTC the first time.

Just as it captured and convicted that asshole who crossed over the border on the Port Angeles ferry, with plans to light up the entire West Coast for New Years 1990.

Just as it captured, tried, and executed Tim McVeigh. Using Chimpy's logic, we would have invaded Michigan, because McVeigh had militia training there, and then bombed the fucking shit out of Wisconsin, just because they were next door.

It's time to end this fucking lie, and let the police and intelligence agencies do their jobs. And that does NOT mean tapping the phone lines of American citizens.

Excellent post.

I'm trying to find some hard documentation on this, but I heard a counter-terrorist analyst on the radio a few months back. He said he had heard that Rummy has sent his little groups of special operations ninjas out hunting for "Islamofascists" all over the world, essentially giving them free reign. He was thinking they would uncover huge organizations. For the most part, they found actual Islamic Jihadists that want to attack America to be very few and far between, and that most had been wiped out shortly after 9/11 in Afghanistan.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Again, you participated in the feedback to webmaster thread about this forum turning to shit.

Yes, I thought my feedback was conductive to getting this forum back on the right track.

There was no 'whining' on my part in that thread.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Both good points.

But I'm afraid that if the Dems win the majority, no matter what they say now...you'll see them fall into the same decisions....into the same mistakes....because while we're actually worried about our world, they're having drinks together tonight or playing golf together right now....

If the Dems win back the majority, be afraid...be very afraid.

[Warham]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
No "harm" was implied. Baby Warharm complained in your thread which is in the feedback to the webmaster forum.

You bring no "meaningful debate" to this forum, Cap'n Spam-a-lot. Your goal is to antagonize. If I am mistaken please provide a link to some of your "meaningful debate."

Your goal apparently is to be antagonized.

If Brian bothers you so much, ignore him.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
If the Dems win back the majority, be afraid...be very afraid.

Yeah, be afraid that maybe, after a few years (when we get the White House back as well) we could restore this country to where it was before Bush & PNAC shit all over it.

Be very afraid. If NOT living under fascism scares you.