We Support our ..oops

[sirs]

[Xavier_Onassis]

The actual losers are Juniorbush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and company.

Put the blame where it belongs.

If we had been allowed a democratic election in 2000, there would have BEEN no stupid war in Iraq.

[sirs]

The actual losers are Juniorbush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie and company.

Well, that's one far left twisted position

Put the blame where it belongs.

Blame for what?  Violence?  Terrorists not wanting to get killed?

If we had been allowed a democratic election in 2000, there would have BEEN no stupid war in Iraq.

Yea, I can play that game too.  Had we allowed Gore to completely circumvent the Constitution, we would have had 2-3 more 911's here, and the Democrat congress continuing to ask American citizens to embrace "understanding" as to why they hate us, as we all sing KumBaYa, which has replaced the Star Spangled banner as our Country's national Song, at the request of the Executive branch

[_JS]

Well, that's one far left twisted position

Why?

I've read quite a few opinions from varying sources that have indicated that Bush and Rumsfeld (specifically those two) have done an absolutely horrible job in handling the prosecution of this war. There is some evidence then that Bush and Rumsfeld at the least are "losers" (or whatever word you wish to use) at least when it comes to the Iraq War.

[sirs]

Well, that's one far left twisted position

Why?

Because there is plenty of "blame" to go around, especially when "blame" is not being specific to anything, and trying to apply it ONLY to messers Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, & "Wolfie" is simply the epitome of fringe left garbage. 

And "Losers" denotes a lost cause.  And since I'm of the mindset that what we're doing is not only moral, but acually succeeding, despite the constant effort to bring about failure, the only "losers" would be those Islamic militant terrorists/insurgents killed or taken out of play

Hope that helped

[_JS]

The problem with your reply is that you don't seem to have any problem with blaming Pelosi and Reid, nor do you have any problem using the word Loser on a US soldier and placing it in their mouths.

It smacks of hypocrisy to then turn around and tell XO that his statement was "one far left twisted position."

I think we have a duty to stay as well considering our responsibility that placed the Iraqi people in this mess in the first place, yet this is no more than crass partisan hackery on your part.

[sirs]

The problem with your reply is that you don't seem to have any problem with blaming Pelosi and Reid,

Because the current theme of this thread I initiated is regarding those who rhetorically say they support our troops, while their actions completely bely that claim.  I blame them, as the Congressional leaders, and the mainscream media for facilitating much of the discourse, polarization, and whatever demoralizing is occuring to the troops, as it relates to the Iraq war.  I blame Bush and company for poor management, for disbanding the Iraqi Army prematurely, and for not having substantive contingincy plans ready to go at a moment's notice, when insurgent activity was assessed to be much greater than anticipated.  As I said, "blame" is too vague a term to just toss around.  There have to be specifics associated with it

nor do you have any problem using the word Loser on a US soldier and placing it in their mouths.

Actions Js.....Actions.  It was Reid claiming we've lost, despite many indications on the ground that debunks that notion.  Just because things aren't going as hunky dory as some apparently think WAR is supposed to be, doesn't equate to a war lost

I think we have a duty to stay as well considering our responsibility that placed the Iraqi people in this mess in the first place, yet this is no more than crass partisan hackery on your part.

Actually, Saddam put his people in this mess "in the 1st place", and your opinion regarding my opinion is duely noted.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Actually, Saddam put his people in this mess "in the 1st place", and your opinion regarding my opinion is duely noted.

===============================

Saddam did not have a civil war raging among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Iraq has never been a unified society. It was what was left after the French pulled off Syria and Lebanon, and the Brits pulled off Kuwait, when the Ottoman Empire dissolved.

If there was an Iraqi figure that would enforce unity of Iraq and make nice to the US, the oil companies and Israel in a leadership role now, the Juniorbushies would be ecstatic, even if he waterboarded thousands in secret.
 

[sirs]

Actually, Saddam put his people in this mess "in the 1st place".
===============================
Saddam did not have a civil war raging among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Of course not....he was a dictator, he ruled over them with his military, and murdered anyone AND their families, if they even looked at him cross-eyed, much less complained about the state of things in Iraq.  Even used WMD on his own people.  Of course there wasn't any sort of "civil war"     

He did bring about the "serious consequences" to his people, by not complying with multiple UN resolutions.  Had he complied, there would have been no Iraq war, and he'd still be murdering his own citizens in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, which obviously would make you much happier, I guess

[Xavier_Onassis]

He did bring about the "serious consequences" to his people, by not complying with multiple UN resolutions.  Had he complied, there would have been no Iraq war, and he'd still be murdering his own citizens in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, which obviously would make you much happier, I guess

---------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam was a nasty fellow, but had he not been removed, thousands more Iraqis would be alive, and hundreds oif thousands would not be in exile.

It is not up to me to decide how Iraqis are governed by other Iraqis. Iraq has had a government for 6000 years, and I reckon they have enough experience to govern themselves in their own way.

Invading Iraq was a dumb idea, and it was done in an exceptionally bungling and clumsy way. And that is costing all of us tons of money and our country its reputation.

[sirs]

Saddam was a nasty fellow, but had he not been removed, thousands more Iraqis would be alive, and hundreds oif thousands would not be in exile.

FAR greater than your attempt at trying to minimize him as simply "nasty'.  And it'd only be a different set of thousands that would be dead under Saddam's rule, while the rest of the country remained under his oppressive dictatorship, UNABLE to exile, even if they wanted to

It is not up to me to decide how Iraqis are governed by other Iraqis.

Glad you're finally on the Democratic bandwagon.  Took you long enough

Invading Iraq was a dumb idea, and it was done in an exceptionally bungling and clumsy way.

Well, as I've already said, you're entiled to that rather warped opinion.  Just curious however, but what would have made the invasion "less clumsy"?

And that is costing all of us tons of money and our country its reputation.

Never can put a cost on lives saved, can we.  And thanks to our actions, the U.S. actually has some credibility for a change, where we mean what we say, and we'll support those we've said we'd support.

[Plane]

Actually, Saddam put his people in this mess "in the 1st place", and your opinion regarding my opinion is duely noted.

===============================

Saddam did not have a civil war raging among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

Yes he did.

Thousands of holes full of Kurds , Shia and Sunni piled like cord wood are evidence .