More great news from Iraq - 7/13/07

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Another nomative statement by kallend

And another completely vacuous response with an invented, nonexistent word by rushmc.

Synonyms: airheaded*, bare, birdbrain, blank, clear, dorky, drained, dull, dumb, dumb bunny, dumbbell, dumdum, emptied, foolish, half-baked*, inane, lamebrain, menus, nerdy, nobody home, nothing upstairs, nutty, shallow, silly*, stark, stupid, superficial, uncomprehending, unfilled, unintelligent, unreasoning, vacant, void

Which one of these fits your response hhmmm?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,063]

> It is war, nothing changes that.

Wars can be ended. That changes it.

>The discussion of wether we should be there or not is over. We are there.

Agreed. We are there. So now we have to figure out where to go from here. Stay longer as the situation deteriorates, more US troops die and Al Qaeda continues to gain strength? Or leave the Iraqis to their own devices and use our troops to defend our country? There's actually no good answer, just several bad options. I think the least bad is to follow the recommendations of the ISG, which is the best guidance we have so far.

>You demonstrate in your agruments to me that you do not have an
>understanding of what is at stake in the this conflict.

We know very well what's at stake. The lives of thousands of US troops, the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, the stability of the Middle East (not the democratization of the Middle East) and the viability of Al Qaeda. We have so far seen that the war decreases stability and strengthens Al Qaeda. What will pulling out do? Again, hard to say. But if there are two outcomes - one bad outcome involving 12,000 dead US troops, and one bad outcome involving 3500 dead US troops, which one would you choose?

>The generals are seeing a positive change.

I'd agree - but that's because Bush has ousted any generals who disagree with him. To use an analogy you'd understand, it's like listening to Harry Reid's staff tell you about medicare reform. Will you trust what they say?

So what do generals that have NOT been cherry-picked by Bush say?

---------
LONDON, July 18 –Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.
----------
WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- A former senior U.S. combat general in Iraq Wednesday slammed GOP senators for opposing legislation to evacuate U.S. forces there.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former division commanding general in Iraq, said he was "disappointed" in the way most Republican senators voted to oppose the Democrat-backed legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week. President George W. Bush is expected to veto the measure.

"As a lifelong Republican, I am disappointed with the minority in the Senate," said Batiste, who serves on the board of VoteVets.org, an anti-Iraq war activist organization. "Without a real diplomatic, economic, and political surge in Iraq, the President is continuing to sacrifice American blood and dollars on a conflict that cannot be militarily resolved, and most Republicans have just voted to rubber-stamp that. "
----------

>My opinion but it is base on principle not polls and certinly not the
>retoric and lies levied against this president.

Sounds like you have an ideology that will not change no matter what all those facts, figures and numbers show.

>Do I think he has fucked up? Yes, I do in a major ways.

You were one of the people beating the drum most loudly for the invasion for as long as I've seen you post on this forum. You ridiculed people who thought we should wait for inspections to complete, who claimed we weren't ready, who claimed there might not be WMD's, who claimed that we wouldn't be greeted as liberators.

Yet all your positions on those topics were as wrong as the man you supported. Is it just possible that you are wrong now as well, and that your support of Bush will be as fruitless as it has been in the past? How many bad decisions does someone get before you start thinking "hmm, maybe his next decision will be bad as well?"

>But saying he is the leader of an evil money grubbing constitution
>desrtorying monarcky is pure bull shit.

I don't think that.

>September too long to wait? The senate did not think so when they
>confirmed the last general. Now they are hearing of progress. Got to
>find a way to stop that.

Time to abandon that particular charade. We've been hearing "in six months . . ." "by fall . . " "by September . . ." "Just wait until . . ." for FOUR YEARS now.

After you cry wolf twice people start to wonder. After you call it thousands of times over the course of four years, people start to think you don't know what you're talking about.

>So, It is now Time to bow to moveon.org and the rest of the radicals
>(who by the way are supported by a non US citizen Mr Soros. Ever
>looked at what this nut case is saying???)

Yep. It's as nuts as the Coulters, Malkins etc of the world. Should we bow down to them - people who want to kill all the muslim leaders and forcibly convert everyone to christianity? Heck, there are people here who would support that.

>Ya, I am not in todays reality. IF your reality is all there is I don't want it.

Suit yourself. But reality has a way of biting you in the butt if you try to ignore it for too long.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> It is war, nothing changes that.

Wars can be ended. That changes it.

>The discussion of wether we should be there or not is over. We are there.

Agreed. We are there. So now we have to figure out where to go from here. Stay longer as the situation deteriorates,not happening more US troops die and Al Qaeda continues to gain strength? Or leave the Iraqis to their own devices and use our troops to defend our country? If this country wouldnot be used by al Queda I would agree but that is not the case There's actually no good answer, just several bad options.You are wrong. Winning is the answer and before you say define winning, that has been done way more than once I think the least bad is to follow the recommendations of the ISG, which is the best guidance we have so far.

>You demonstrate in your agruments to me that you do not have an
>understanding of what is at stake in the this conflict.

We know very well what's at stake. The lives of thousands of US troops, the lives of tens of thousands of civilians, the stability of the Middle East (not the democratization of the Middle East) and the viability of Al Qaeda. We have so far seen that the war decreases stability and strengthens Al Qaeda. What will pulling out do? Again, hard to say. But if there are two outcomes - one bad outcome involving 12,000 dead US troops, and one bad outcome involving 3500 dead US troops, which one would you choose?You can frame the question so your point cant be debated if you choose. I will not answer it that way. There is an answer. It has been posted for you. You dont believe or like it, I do not now which, but the answer is there and we may be headed that way today

>The generals are seeing a positive change.

I'd agree - but that's because Bush has ousted any generals who disagree with him.bullshit, just a talking point. To use an analogy you'd understand, it's like listening to Harry Reid's staff tell you about medicare reform. Will you trust what they say?

So what do generals that have NOT been cherry-picked by Bush say?many agree with him, they just dont make your favorite media outlets

---------
LONDON, July 18 –Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.
----------
WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- A former senior U.S. combat general in Iraq Wednesday slammed GOP senators for opposing legislation to evacuate U.S. forces there.

Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, former division commanding general in Iraq, said he was "disappointed" in the way most Republican senators voted to oppose the Democrat-backed legislation that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week. President George W. Bush is expected to veto the measure.

"As a lifelong Republican, I am disappointed with the minority in the Senate," said Batiste, who serves on the board of VoteVets.org, an anti-Iraq war activist organization. "Without a real diplomatic, economic, and political surge in Iraq, the President is continuing to sacrifice American blood and dollars on a conflict that cannot be militarily resolved, and most Republicans have just voted to rubber-stamp that. "
----------

>My opinion but it is base on principle not polls and certinly not the
>retoric and lies levied against this president.

Sounds like you have an ideology that will not change no matter what all those facts, figures and numbers show.

>Do I think he has fucked up? Yes, I do in a major ways.

You were one of the people beating the drum most loudly for the invasion for as long as I've seen you post on this forum. this has not changed and I have not even idicated that here. Why do you post this in this context??? You ridiculed people who thought we should wait for inspections to complete,if we had went if quicker we would have found the WMDs that I still think exist. but we had to play the political bs. Bushs fuck up number 1 who claimed we weren't ready, who claimed there might not be WMD's, who claimed that we wouldn't be greeted as liberators.We are acepted over there. You just will not acept that

Yet all your positions on those topics were as wrong as the man you supported. your opinion only. anothere normative statement Is it just possible that you are wrong now as well, and that your support of Bush will be as fruitless as it has been in the past? And if you are wrong? Or are you convinced you cant be wrong??How many bad decisions does someone get before you start thinking "hmm, maybe his next decision will be bad as well?"

>But saying he is the leader of an evil money grubbing constitution
>desrtorying monarcky is pure bull shit.

I don't think that.

>September too long to wait? The senate did not think so when they
>confirmed the last general. Now they are hearing of progress. Got to
>find a way to stop that.

Time to abandon that particular charade. We've been hearing "in six months . . ." "by fall . . " "by September . . ." "Just wait until . . ." for FOUR YEARS now.

After you cry wolf twice people start to wonder. After you call it thousands of times over the course of four years, people start to think you don't know what you're talking about.

>So, It is now Time to bow to moveon.org and the rest of the radicals
>(who by the way are supported by a non US citizen Mr Soros. Ever
>looked at what this nut case is saying???)

Yep. It's as nuts as the Coulters, Malkins etc of the world. Should we bow down to them - people who want to kill all the muslim leaders and forcibly convert everyone to christianity? Heck, there are people here who would support that. Are you really willing to compare Coulter to Soros? Wow, you are in a strange place

>Ya, I am not in todays reality. IF your reality is all there is I don't want it.

Suit yourself. But reality has a way of biting you in the butt if you try to ignore it for too long.

Yes is does. Better be wearing your leathers. It might not hurt as bad

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,063]

>not happening

US deaths are up, Iraqi deaths are up, and our own government recently gave the war in Iraq a failing grade. I imagine Bill O'Reilly thinks we're winning the war, but that's easy to do from a TV studio.

>If this country wouldnot be used by al Queda I would agree but that is not the case

It IS being used by Al Qaeda. We CREATED a place for them to train. The war is INCREASING the number of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.

>You are wrong. Winning is the answer . . . .

Just like we "won" the Cold War by nuking the USSR? I am glad the leaders who dealt with the Cold War did not have "WE MUST WIN!" blinders on. We ended up winning it by not fighting it. I'm sure you'd consider such people cowards, but we are all alive today because JFK, Reagan etc were "cowards."

>I will not answer it that way. There is an answer.

Ah. Then I have a reply for you. I will not reply.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>not happening

US deaths are up, Iraqi deaths are up, and our own government recently gave the war in Iraq a failing grade. I imagine Bill O'Reilly thinks we're winning the war, but that's easy to do from a TV studio.

>If this country wouldnot be used by al Queda I would agree but that is not the case

It IS being used by Al Qaeda. We CREATED a place for them to train. The war is INCREASING the number of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.They may be moving to Iraq and there may be more of them. But, that is what happens in war. This"fact"( cause nobody knows for sure) does not change the fact that we need to go into Iraq

>You are wrong. Winning is the answer . . . .

Just like we "won" the Cold War by nuking the USSR? I am glad the leaders who dealt with the Cold War did not have "WE MUST WIN!" blinders on. We ended up winning it by not fighting it. I'm sure you'd consider such people cowards, but we are all alive today because JFK, Reagan etc were "cowards."a real screwy point of view from you here

>I will not answer it that way. There is an answer.

Ah. Then I have a reply for you. I will not reply.

Cause you cant in the proper context

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

airheaded*, bare, birdbrain, blank, drained, dull, dumb, dumb bunny, dumbbell, dumdum, emptied, foolish, half-baked*, inane, lamebrain, nobody home, nothing upstairs, nutty, shallow, silly*, stupid, superficial, uncomprehending, unfilled, unintelligent, unreasoning, vacant, void

All are perfect descriptions of your posts. All one needs to do is refer to your obstinateness, mangled logic and busted spelling to make the connection.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Another nomative statement by kallend

"Sorry, no definition found for "nomative".

WTF are you trying to say?

Your posts today seem to be rather more confused than normal.

Thy this my sly friend "normative"

"Thy this"? WTF does that mean?

It is apparent that you do not know the definition of "normative".

Your posts today are become more and more like gibberish.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,063]

>They may be moving to Iraq and there may be more of them. But, that
>is what happens in war.

So war creates more terrorists that threaten the US?

Remember when you claimed that war would ELIMINATE terrorists? I wonder what you will claim in another few years. Perhaps "well, war results in terrorist attacks on the US. That's what happens in war." The mind boggles.

>This"fact"( cause nobody knows for sure) does not change the fact that we
>need to go into Iraq . . .

This is after you said that Bush made lots of mistakes. Perhaps you meant "Bush made a lot of mistakes but not on anything I supported him on." So why did we need to go into Iraq? Why Iraq and not a country that harbors Al Qaeda? Why Iraq instead of a place where genocide is going on? Why go into Iraq and pull troops out of Afghanistan, where the Taliban is now making a comeback?

Is it safety from Al Qaeda? Nope, the threat is worse than it was before we invaded. Is it to remove a dictator? Perhaps - but we did that, so if that's your cause, time to leave. Is it to impose our form of government on them? If so, then we should be honest about our intentions; will make the resistance a lot easier to mop up.

>a real screwy point of view from you here

I knew you would think so! The area between black and white can really mess with your mind.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>They may be moving to Iraq and there may be more of them. But, that
>is what happens in war.

So war creates more terrorists that threaten the US?

Remember when you claimed that war would ELIMINATE terrorists? I wonder what you will claim in another few years. Perhaps "well, war results in terrorist attacks on the US. That's what happens in war." The mind boggles.

>This"fact"( cause nobody knows for sure) does not change the fact that we
>need to go into Iraq . . .

This is after you said that Bush made lots of mistakes. Perhaps you meant "Bush made a lot of mistakes but not on anything I supported him on." So why did we need to go into Iraq? Why Iraq and not a country that harbors Al Qaeda? Why Iraq instead of a place where genocide is going on? Why go into Iraq and pull troops out of Afghanistan, where the Taliban is now making a comeback?

Is it safety from Al Qaeda? Nope, the threat is worse than it was before we invaded. Is it to remove a dictator? Perhaps - but we did that, so if that's your cause, time to leave. Is it to impose our form of government on them? If so, then we should be honest about our intentions; will make the resistance a lot easier to mop up.

>a real screwy point of view from you here

I knew you would think so! The area between black and white can really mess with your mind.

I am getting sick of you scewing with words, messing with context and dancing around the edges. It is tireing because it is a waste of time.

We are in Iraq, get used to it, we need to be there, open your mind and learn why, but to do that you need to understand a bigger picture. I dont see that happening

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

We are in Iraq, get used to it,

I, my friend, will not get used to it, and will continue to do what I can to make sure we get the hell out of there.

Get used to it.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

>They may be moving to Iraq and there may be more of them. But, that
>is what happens in war.

So war creates more terrorists that threaten the US?

Remember when you claimed that war would ELIMINATE terrorists? I wonder what you will claim in another few years. Perhaps "well, war results in terrorist attacks on the US. That's what happens in war." The mind boggles.

>This"fact"( cause nobody knows for sure) does not change the fact that we
>need to go into Iraq . . .

This is after you said that Bush made lots of mistakes. Perhaps you meant "Bush made a lot of mistakes but not on anything I supported him on." So why did we need to go into Iraq? Why Iraq and not a country that harbors Al Qaeda? Why Iraq instead of a place where genocide is going on? Why go into Iraq and pull troops out of Afghanistan, where the Taliban is now making a comeback?

Is it safety from Al Qaeda? Nope, the threat is worse than it was before we invaded. Is it to remove a dictator? Perhaps - but we did that, so if that's your cause, time to leave. Is it to impose our form of government on them? If so, then we should be honest about our intentions; will make the resistance a lot easier to mop up.

>a real screwy point of view from you here

I knew you would think so! The area between black and white can really mess with your mind.

I am getting sick of you scewing with words, messing with context and dancing around the edges. It is tireing because it is a waste of time.

That is your standard response when confronted with evidence that contradicts your opinions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

We are in Iraq, get used to it,

I, my friend, will not get used to it, and will continue to do what I can to make sure we get the hell out of there.

Get used to it.

You must like banging your head against the wall cause even if you get your prefered president in 08, they will not pull out either, not unless the job is finished.

You can continue to try and redefine why we are there and what is happeining, but that does not change the reality. It only changes your perception.

Not meant as a shot or an insult. You and I have differing opinions. I don't think anything near term is going to change that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[freethefly 6]

Quote

"Thy this"? WTF does that mean?

It is apparent that you do not know the definition of "normative".

Your posts today are become more and more like gibberish.

Must be the blinders.
Helps to filter out that bothersome reality thing.
All good conservatives are required to wear them.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,063]

>they will not pull out either, not unless the job is finished.

We pulled out in Vietnam. Just do what they did - declare victory, give everyone a medal and leave. Heck, put "America won the war on terror in Iraq!" in the schoolbooks. The important thing in the real world is saving lives; if you need a politically acceptable solution, then pick one.

>You can continue to try and redefine why we are there and what is happeining . . .

Coming from a war supporter that's funny!

Do you still think we are there to take control of Saddam's WMD arsenal so he can't use them against us? Or have you redefined your position?

Do you think we will be greeted as liberators? Or have you redefined your position?

Do you think the war will take six days, six weeks, probably not six months - or have you redefined your position?

From the start I've thought this war was a bad idea and would result in a quagmire that we can't win. I still think that - whereas it's hard to keep track of your reason du jour for the war. The latest one I've heard from you - "we can't leave because then we will lose." I don't hear much about WMD's from any war supporters lately.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

>they will not pull out either, not unless the job is finished.

We pulled out in Vietnam. Just do what they did - declare victory, give everyone a medal and leave. Heck, put "America won the war on terror in Iraq!" in the schoolbooks. The important thing in the real world is saving lives; if you need a politically acceptable solution, then pick one.

>You can continue to try and redefine why we are there and what is happeining . . .

Coming from a war supporter that's funny!

Do you still think we are there to take control of Saddam's WMD arsenal so he can't use them against us? Or have you redefined your position?

Do you think we will be greeted as liberators? Or have you redefined your position?

Do you think the war will take six days, six weeks, probably not six months - or have you redefined your position?

From the start I've thought this war was a bad idea and would result in a quagmire that we can't win. I still think that - whereas it's hard to keep track of your reason du jour for the war. The latest one I've heard from you - "we can't leave because then we will lose." I don't hear much about WMD's from any war supporters lately.

You forgot about Saddam's pilotless aircraft that could attack the US in 45 minutes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Hell, Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". When I was over in Gulf War I, we were home 30 days later after we heard that.

And a 'redployment' is not a failure. We can still have troops close to deal with real threats to the USA, just get them out of harms way. No more patrols in the streets of Iraq's civil war. If we just stopped driving all over the place the casualties would drop off to nearly nothing. Pull back into the desert near Saudi Arabia, set up a base with a 10 mile perimiter, and only deply forces to deal with genuine threats, and then only deploy them by helicopter, and use armed drones when possible.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Hell, Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". When I was over in Gulf War I, we were home 30 days later after we heard that.

And a 'redployment' is not a failure. We can still have troops close to deal with real threats to the USA, just get them out of harms way. No more patrols in the streets of Iraq's civil war. If we just stopped driving all over the place the casualties would drop off to nearly nothing. Pull back into the desert near Saudi Arabia, set up a base with a 10 mile perimiter, and only deply forces to deal with genuine threats, and then only deploy them by helicopter, and use armed drones when possible.

Good idea, but you need to write an impact statement on how the plan will affect the image of our heroic "War President" and his devoted followers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Good idea, but you need to write an impact statement on how the plan will affect the image of our heroic "War President" and his devoted followers.

What is it our Beloved Heroic Leader has called those resistant to REGIME CHANGE in Iraq..... oh yeah...DEAD ENDERS

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Good idea, but you need to write an impact statement on how the plan will affect the image of our heroic "War President" and his devoted followers.

What is it our Beloved Heroic Leader has called those resistant to REGIME CHANGE in Iraq..... oh yeah...DEAD ENDERS

Did he say that before or after his speech where he said the US Army should not be used for nation building?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Hell, Bush already declared "Mission Accomplished". When I was over in Gulf War I, we were home 30 days later after we heard that.

And a 'redployment' is not a failure. We can still have troops close to deal with real threats to the USA, just get them out of harms way. No more patrols in the streets of Iraq's civil war. If we just stopped driving all over the place the casualties would drop off to nearly nothing. Pull back into the desert near Saudi Arabia, set up a base with a 10 mile perimiter, and only deply forces to deal with genuine threats, and then only deploy them by helicopter, and use armed drones when possible.

Good idea, but you need to write an impact statement on how the plan will affect the image of our heroic "War President" and his devoted followers.

My fellow Americans......

The war on terror is very real and very important to the safety of our nation, the future of our children, and the freedoms we have all come to know and love. In the past, I have said many times that Iraq is central to the war on terror, and I still believe that to be true. However, over the course of the past year, it has become apparent to myself, my Gererals, congress, and the American people that in addition to the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq that we need to defeat, there is also a battle raging between sectarian factions. Unlike our fight with Al Qaeda, the fight betweeen Sunni and Shiite is not our battle to wage, and indeed, we cannot win that fight. That fight must be fought by the parties involved, either in the halls of Iraqi parliament, as it should be, or, as it unfortunately is now, on the streets of Iraq.

We have been working toward a political solution to this crisis for some time now, as we felt that it was important to the people of Iraq, the region, and the world. Many American lives have been lost, and many dollars spent to help Iraq get to its feet. Unfortunately, the learders in Iraq have, to this point, failed to take hold of these great opportunities in the aftermath of the downfall of the terrible dictator Saddam. Instead, they have resorted to terrible violence, and our troops are often caught in the middle.

Our fight is not with Iraqi - Sunni or Shia. Our fight is with Al Qaeda.

Therefore, effective immediately I am announcing a phased redeployment of troops to the perimeter of Iraqi territory. US troops will cease to patrol the streets, and iraqi forces will immediately be required to take over in their place. A presence in Iraq of US forces will continue, however, they will remain out of harms way, and will only be deployed for tactical strikes on Al Qaeda operatives as necessary.

Additionally, forces no longer needed in Iraq will redeploy to Afghanistan to patrol the border region with Pakistan and put down the Taliban and Al Qaeda there, once and for all.

At the beginning I told you that this war would be tough, and long, and indeed it has been. We will be required to adapt to changes in enemy tactics and redeploy troops when needed. This is but another step in this long struggle, but I think a necessary one, and one that you, the American people, fully understand as such.

God bess the Unted States of America.

Should I apply as speechwriter?

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Fuck - it took a while to write all that. Somebody either call me a genius or idiot or I wasted my time!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,063]

You wrote all that? You could have had a V-8.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

You wrote all that? You could have had a V-8.

I'll take that to mean "Idiot."

Yes, I did write it. I was showing a way that Bush could change course in Iraq that made a bit of sense and didn't declare defeat.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

You wrote all that? You could have had a V-8.

I'll take that to mean "Idiot."

Yes, I did write it. I was showing a way that Bush could change course in Iraq that made a bit of sense and didn't declare defeat.

You forgot the sentence about giving medals to all the particpants. Otherwise meets expectations.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You wrote all that? You could have had a V-8.

I'll take that to mean "Idiot."

Yes, I did write it. I was showing a way that Bush could change course in Iraq that made a bit of sense and didn't declare defeat.

You forgot the sentence about giving medals to all the particpants. Otherwise meets expectations.

Bush already handed out a bunch of medals to undeserving douchebags. As far as the troops go, yes, they deserve some medals. I never did get my Liberation of Kuwait medal, by the way. They said they ran out!!!

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.