Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:25:58 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun <woodswun@tepidmail.com> wrote in article
(null) :
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:26:10 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 6:26 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:06:44 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:38 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:53:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:33 am, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:26 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
How times change.
Yesterday's talking points are todays embarassments.
Reid is right -- the war is lost. Bring 'em home.
By the way, Marvin, the legality of removing Saddam from power was
addressed by Senator Reid when he voted to authorize the use of
military force in Iraq:
HARRY REID: "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that
Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in
further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass
destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal
constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and
justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Senator Harry Reid (D.
Nevada) addressing the US Senate, October 9, 2002, Congressional
Record, p. S10145
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page...
A lot of Dems voted for the war. They did so out of post 9-11 fear
and twisted intel or they just wanted to hand Bush enough rope that'd
he hang himself.
Did you notice Senator Reid addressed the legality of removing Saddam
from power?
The war is lost.
Not necessarily. There are hopeful signs for those who remain
optimistic. Of course those who were never optimistic will ignore
those signs.
Iraqi tribal chiefs forming an anti-insurgent party
By Chris Kraul, Times Staff Writer
April 20, 2007
RAMADI, IRAQ - A group of Sunni tribal leaders in beleaguered Al Anbar
province said Thursday that it intended to form a national party to
oppose insurgents such as Al Qaeda in Iraq and reengage with Iraq's
political process.
The announcement came after 200 sheiks said to represent 50 tribes met
here and agreed to form a provincial sheiks council and hold the first
convention in May of their new party, called Iraq Awakening. Sheiks
from three other provinces will attend, organizers said.
The driving force behind the new party, Sheik Abdul-Sattar abu Risha,
said in an interview that the tribal leaders would be pushing a slate
of candidates in Al Anbar provincial elections later this year, as
well as in the next round of national parliamentary balloting,
scheduled for 2009.
One purpose of the party, Sattar said, is to promote a better image of
American-led forces "to the Iraqis here." He added that the tribes
also would participate in a U.S.-backed effort to reestablish a court
system in Ramadi, the provincial capital. [end quoting]
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sheiks20apr20,1,7...
Voting to authorize it is one thing. Mismanaging it and losing it is
another.
During and after the allied invasion of France in 1944, there was a
lot of mismanagement that could have led pessimists to believe the war
was lost. The D-Day landing was a disaster for US troops. And later,
the Battle of the Bulge cost the lives of 16,000 US troops in just a
few weeks. In today's political climate, the anti-war crowd would have
been telling us the war was lost and calling for the withdrawal of our
troops.
Um .... okay. The French were the ones who were invaded, and they
had a strong ally who was willing to come to their aid. So, using that as
an analogy, Iraq's (muslim?) allies will help them to defeat the U.S.
Nice job!
Uh, I merely pointed out that mismanagement happens in all wars. That
was my comparison, not this convoluted imaginary comparison you
created.
There wasn't "a lot of mismanagement" in France. They built all their
defenses into a wall that the Germans went around, so they were completely
defenseless. That's one strategical error.
I was talking about the D-Day invasion of France, not the German
invasion of France.
So, the U.S. has a long history of mismanaging wars. Thanks for pointing
that out.
Of course you're either missing, or ignoring, the larger point. Even
with the mistakes, we didn't quit -- did we? We didn't put up the
white flag and surrender, which is what the Democrats in Congress are
trying to do right now. Thank God today's Democrats were not in charge
during World War II. They'd have surrendered.
I'm not missing anything.
Yes you are, and you're still missing it.
You think the Unites States military has a long
history of screwing up, and that invading forces should be fought
off, no matter what.
Uh, no. I said even with the mistakes, we didn't quit. Today's
Democrats would have surrender during the Battle of the Bulge (if they
hadn't already surrendered after Omaha Beach).
Seriously, none of us would ever have expected to see you turn around and
see the current situation in Iraq from the Iraqi point of view!
What are you talking about? Have you missed my posts about all the
Iraqis who voted, and then held up their purple ink stained fingers
for the world to see? I think it's you and your fringe leftist friends
who have failed to see this from the Iraqi point of view. Instead, you
focus on the terrorists and mistakenly think that's the Iraqi point of
view. The terrorists are the people who are blowing up all those
innocent Iraqis who voted for their democratic government.
.
