20 Jul 07
Isn't it ironic that people like Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, who criticized then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan of entering Iraq with too few troops, are the very same people who now want to remove troops from Iraq? How does that help complete the mission successfully? Is the irony lost on them?
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHit hard and fast with overwhelming force, accomplish the mission, and pull out quickly so the slow moving, low tech enemy can't respond easily.
Isn't it ironic that people like Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, who criticized then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan of entering Iraq with too few troops, are the very same people who now want to remove troops from Iraq? How does that help complete the mission successfully? Is the irony lost on them?
Apparently these people think we didn't have enough overwhelming force and didn't pull out quickly enough. I agree with the latter, but we took out Hussein so I think we had plenty troops for the job.
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo. It's not the least bit ironic. It's perfectly logical. You neocons have been arguing in this way for years - red herrings, post hoc fallacies, and ad hominem attacks to substitute for facts, because the facts clearly aren't on your side. But hey - what do I know? I'm part of the 'reality-based community'.
Isn't it ironic that people like Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, who criticized then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan of entering Iraq with too few troops, are the very same people who now want to remove troops from Iraq? How does that help complete the mission successfully? Is the irony lost on them?
20 Jul 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterReid's a dolt. It doesn't take a genuis to recognize that a time table withdraway isn't a wise decision.
Isn't it ironic that people like Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, who criticized then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plan of entering Iraq with too few troops, are the very same people who now want to remove troops from Iraq? How does that help complete the mission successfully? Is the irony lost on them?
On the other hand, the time is quickly coming when we need to start drawing down so the Shia/Sunni thing can run it's course.
Personally, I don't care if it's a democracy or another boot on their necks, as long as the boot works with us, it's the same as far as I'm concerned. If Bush wants a democracy, fine. Lets just let it be a Shia democracy instead of trying to prevent it. Let the Kurds have Kurdistan and let the Shia move out the Sunni.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'll give you a fact: About the only thing Harry Reid is fit to preside over is a slumber party!
No. It's not the least bit ironic. It's perfectly logical. You neocons have been arguing in this way for years - red herrings, post hoc fallacies, and ad hominem attacks to substitute for facts, because the facts clearly aren't on your side. But hey - what do I know? I'm part of the 'reality-based community'.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by MerkIf anyone has any doubts about what we're doing in Iraq, they should ask themselves: Were we better off with a stable government in Iraq that was openly hostile to the United States or do we prefer one that is shaky, but pro-U.S.?
Reid's a dolt. It doesn't take a genuis to recognize that a time table withdraway isn't a wise decision.
On the other hand, the time is quickly coming when we need to start drawing down so the Shia/Sunni thing can run it's course.
Personally, I don't care if it's a democracy or another boot on their necks, as long as the boot works with us, it's the same ...[text shortened]... trying to prevent it. Let the Kurds have Kurdistan and let the Shia move out the Sunni.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI prefer the one that the Iraqi people want.
If anyone has any doubts about what we're doing in Iraq, they should ask themselves: Were we better off with a stable government in Iraq that was openly hostile to the United States or do we prefer one that is shaky, but pro-U.S.?
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritteropenly hostile?? What did Iraq ever do to the US?? Nothing.
If anyone has any doubts about what we're doing in Iraq, they should ask themselves: Were we better off with a stable government in Iraq that was openly hostile to the United States or do we prefer one that is shaky, but pro-U.S.?
They threatened some oil fields in Kuwait and promised to sell more of it to China and give the French and Russia rights to the oil production contracts.
But I can't recall Iraq threatening to attack the US. I remember Bush and his cronies saying they would attack with WMD's and the like but we all know how that turned out....600,000 Iraqi's killed and not a single WMD to be found.
Oh, right this was about US citizens "feeling" safer...my mistake. Well hopefully enough Iraqi's have been blown apart to make you guys feel safer.