Good news in Iraq is bad news for dems - Page 3

Hard-Driver · #21 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 08:19 PM

The right wing loves the straw man.

Let me claim you said something, then argue against the ficticious thing I made up.

The vast majority of Democrats have not hoped for anything but success for Iraq, but have differed in how to acheive it. Remember, it is political success needed in Iraq, not a military suppresion of violence.

Let, let me actually quote you what President Bush said in his speech announcing the surge.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070110-7.html

Quote:

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Notice that not a single one of these things has occured... Not one. Yet all the war mongers on here are claiming that the surge accomplished something...

Well the violence is down, but is that because of the surge or because, as president Bush said in the same speech:

Quote:

Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda.

Or maybe:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305598,00.html

Quote:

Al-Sadr's call for a six-month cease-fire has been credited with a sharp drop in the number of bullet-riddled bodies that turn up on the streets of Iraq and are believed to be victims of Shiite death squads.

But not according to the war mongers on here,
Not achieving your stated goals, and a drop in violence because sunni tribal leaders and the Mahdi Army decided to turn against violence is some victory that should be credited to Bush and his surge.. NEWSFLASH, Bush didn't achieve anything other than to sacrafice lives and money while Iraq ran it's natural course.

Rebellion · #22 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 08:29 PM

When should we expect to hear an apology from Hillary and the moveon.org extreme left for calling a current member of the armed forces a liar simply because he had the nerve to tell the truth? Truth they didn't want to hear cause it hurts their cause.

Daybreaker · #23 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p=&quot

Give me some examples of people saying that they wanted to lose.

I think you just get upset when you want to declare victory every five minutes and we don't go along. 'Cause we've heard you guys declare victory before. It's always premature. You start wars, you make huge messes, you get thousands upon thousands of people killed, and then you expect us to genuflect every time some heavily-armed American kid manages to kill the somewhat less heavily-armed Iraqi kid whose neighborhood you sent him to invade? Please.

Show me some results. Show me some winning. And then you will get your pat on the back. Do not accuse me of being defeatist simply because you can't come up with a compelling strategy or even motive for this war that you so desperately, deliberately, have.

Even if you win, all you've won is more war.

Show me something I can believe in. Stop trying to cover up your strategic failures by accusing me of wanting you to fail. I really, really, really want you to succeed. I need you to succeed. My economy depends on it.

You just can't.

I think it's that you don't know what success looks like. Success, my friend, is when the fighting stops. Accomplish that and you can have all the power in the world and no one will stop you. They'll cheer for you. They will greet you with the roses and candy that you inexplicably believe they will bring you as tribute after you've kicked their asses.

Show me. Make the fighting stop. Then you'll get the credit you believe you're due. Not until.

...our troop supporting democrats;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html

FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

Here's a fine example of liberal thinking, it's not about our nation winning, it's about the democrats losing, how pathetic.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0112-22.htm

How Republicans Win if We Lose in Iraq

Okay, first, it doesn't say that anybody wants to lose, it just says that one-fifth of democrats say the world would be better off if they did -- whatever that means, exactly. Not to mention that this is a Fox poll, which means it's probably a bunch of crap designed to make you hate Democrats.

Second, even if what they said is true, that's only 20%. One fifth. If one fifth of some demographic says something, I don't think it makes much sense to blame the entire group. I once saw statistics indicating that 22% of Americans thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote -- does that mean that Americans think women shouldn't vote?

I wonder what percentage of Republicans thinks that black people shouldn't vote. Or are against interracial marriage. Or they think that just being homosexual should be a crime in and of itself. Bet it's higher than 20%.

Some Democrats think we should lose, but we also know that some Republicans do as well. It's not really a matter of party. These are just Fox statistics designed to inflame you. You're being manipulated.

DuH2 · #24 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 01:01 AM

Oh please...

Democrats have had* a vested interest in bad news out of Iraq since it started....and have for the past 4 years been pushing a pack up and run away(aka losing on earth) policy of appeasment and betryal.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4
"No one wants us to succeed in Iraq more than the Democrats. We've proven that time and time again since this war started more than four years ago. We take a back seat to no one in supporting our troops, and we will never abandon our troops in a time of war.
-Reid
http://ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CART...oon112607a.gif

Hard-Driver · #25 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 03:51 AM

The republicans don't know what "Support" is. Supporting our troops DOES NOT equal leaving them in a foreign land where the general population does not want them to act as the police force and occupational force with a mission that is not clear cut, or even without a definiton of winning.

Bush claims:

Quote:

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070110-7.html

The fact that victory can not be defined by this administration is the problem. Victory was already acheived years ago. And you can not claim that our troops have achieved the goals stated above. WHY, because those goals are goals for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.

As I stated above, the Iraqi government had a list of benchmarks they were supposed to achieve during this "surge". Not a single one has been achieved. So why is this a "success".

The only way to acheive "victory" as defined by Bush himself is to LEAVE IRAQ. Then Iraq can defend it's territory, uphold the rule of law, respect fundamental human liberties (which BUsh himself does not do) and answer to it's people. Our troops can not do this for the Iraqi people, they need to do it for themselves.

BroncoBilly · #26 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

The republicans don't know what "Support" is. Supporting our troops DOES NOT equal leaving them in a foreign land where the general population does not want them to act as the police force and occupational force with a mission that is not clear cut, or even without a definiton of winning.

Bush claims:

Quote:

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world -- a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070110-7.html

The fact that victory can not be defined by this administration is the problem. Victory was already acheived years ago. And you can not claim that our troops have achieved the goals stated above. WHY, because those goals are goals for the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.

As I stated above, the Iraqi government had a list of benchmarks they were supposed to achieve during this "surge". Not a single one has been achieved. So why is this a "success".

The only way to acheive "victory" as defined by Bush himself is to LEAVE IRAQ. Then Iraq can defend it's territory, uphold the rule of law, respect fundamental human liberties (which BUsh himself does not do) and answer to it's people. Our troops can not do this for the Iraqi people, they need to do it for themselves.

The surge is working, and many democrats hammered Bush that it wouldn't.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/...raq/index.html

Now because your time table for the Iraqi government isn't fitting in with your arm chair quarter backing, as you parrot your left wing talking points, Bush has shown bold determination not to listen to you Monday morning quarterbacks. He is concerned only for the stability of Iraq, and not some the left wing loony accusations, "it's all about the oil", it's Bush getting revenge for his father". Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...594388,00.html

Our soldiers and nation have sacrificed a great deal to stabilize Iraq, and frankly with minimal to zero help from democrats. This region must be stable, and most of the ME countries agree on that point.

al qaeda and iran have been the major cause of violence in the last 4 years, and it has made stabilization almost impossible for the Iraqis. They have a long way to go, as did Japan and Germany, but it will happen. The most phony thing that will occur in the future, is your whining will stop when a democrat gets elected, as nothing, if any will change on their watch.

BroncoBilly · #27 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBilly";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p=&quot

Give me some examples of people saying that they wanted to lose.

I think you just get upset when you want to declare victory every five minutes and we don't go along. 'Cause we've heard you guys declare victory before. It's always premature. You start wars, you make huge messes, you get thousands upon thousands of people killed, and then you expect us to genuflect every time some heavily-armed American kid manages to kill the somewhat less heavily-armed Iraqi kid whose neighborhood you sent him to invade? Please.

Show me some results. Show me some winning. And then you will get your pat on the back. Do not accuse me of being defeatist simply because you can't come up with a compelling strategy or even motive for this war that you so desperately, deliberately, have.

Even if you win, all you've won is more war.

Show me something I can believe in. Stop trying to cover up your strategic failures by accusing me of wanting you to fail. I really, really, really want you to succeed. I need you to succeed. My economy depends on it.

You just can't.

I think it's that you don't know what success looks like. Success, my friend, is when the fighting stops. Accomplish that and you can have all the power in the world and no one will stop you. They'll cheer for you. They will greet you with the roses and candy that you inexplicably believe they will bring you as tribute after you've kicked their asses.

Show me. Make the fighting stop. Then you'll get the credit you believe you're due. Not until.

...our troop supporting democrats;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html

FOX News Poll: Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War

Here's a fine example of liberal thinking, it's not about our nation winning, it's about the democrats losing, how pathetic.

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0112-22.htm

How Republicans Win if We Lose in Iraq

Okay, first, it doesn't say that anybody wants to lose, it just says that one-fifth of democrats say the world would be better off if they did -- whatever that means, exactly. Not to mention that this is a Fox poll, which means it's probably a bunch of crap designed to make you hate Democrats.

Second, even if what they said is true, that's only 20%. One fifth. If one fifth of some demographic says something, I don't think it makes much sense to blame the entire group. I once saw statistics indicating that 22% of Americans thought women shouldn't be allowed to vote -- does that mean that Americans think women shouldn't vote?

I wonder what percentage of Republicans thinks that black people shouldn't vote. Or are against interracial marriage. Or they think that just being homosexual should be a crime in and of itself. Bet it's higher than 20%.

Some Democrats think we should lose, but we also know that some Republicans do as well. It's not really a matter of party. These are just Fox statistics designed to inflame you. You're being manipulated.

Because it's a Fox poll that you don't agree with, you emote with skepticism. No one is being manipulated, you and the rest of the Bush hating liberals are just naive. Instead of listening to the soldiers in Iraq, you know, the voice of those that serve and have been there, you listen to Bill Mahre, or Keith Olbermann, who have never been there, or even those arm chair quarterbacking every move Bush makes. Failure is in your interest.

Please name any republicans that think we should lose.

crestwood33 · #28 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 05:19 AM

Who knows Bush may speak again, he is a slow learner.

BroncoBilly · #29 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crestwood33";p=&quot

Who knows Bush may speak again, he is a slow learner.

Do you have anymore of your parrot talking points, or are the left loon sites you visit running out of them.

Nice contribution to the topic, Polly want a cracker?

justabubba · #30 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Because it's a Fox poll that you don't agree with, you emote with skepticism.

even the faux station acknowledges its polls are "just for fun" and have no basis in fact as they addressed when Ron Paul repeatedly topped their polls after the republiCON debates. so if faux news doesn't ascribe credibility to its own poll why should we?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode