 n2sooners says: Seriously, I don't care how much you hate Bush, how can so many Americans actually want us to fail or be unsure about wanting us to succeed? As much as I disliked Clinton when he was in office, I never wished for any type of failure for America just because he was president. What do the other 17% want? It's called Bush Derangement Syndrome for a reason, Mr Sooners I just didn't think the derangement would extend to wanting America to lose. It just amazes me that someone can be unsure if they want us to succeed, and I just can't comprehend those who want us to lose. Those who have read some of the leaked details of the plan probably are inclined not to want the plan to succeed. The USA troops plan to break into homes door to door in entire neighborhoods, individual homes chosen indiscriminately if they are situated in certain hot spots. The likely result is the loss of considerable innocent life. In fact, it's likely that the atrocities the US engaged in in Fallujah will seem like kindnesses compared to what will result from the "surge." I've read through the entire list of questions that the pollsters asked. Have you ever answered those questions? I bet that by the time they got through a portion of those questions people stopped listening. Hey, I heard DanaGarrett likes to kill small inocent children and burn small puppies alive... just for laughs. After words, the burning of crosses in front of black peoples houses..!! You see how I did that. Pretty cool huh. See how easy it is to LIE about anything I choose too? Atrocities you say huh? Well. From what I read about you burning puppies and slaughtering children Dana, you no room to talk. Or. We can BOTH stop talking out out butts, STOP lying about things and people we DON'T know. And loose the hell-bent political agenda YOU must have to use words like ATROCITIES. Beheading Nick Burg was an atrocity. A few doors... we until the door tells me how it feels... go ahead. The title is misleading asshat. Try posting an accurate title. Yes, It should be More than 1/3 democrats want failure in Iraq, 51% want success. 16% want to surrender to Sharia Law. Get with it n2sooners, accuracy is everything. I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone would mind me rounding down the percent in those two numbers in order to make the title shorter. And don't get me wrong. Even though I picked on the democrats because they are overwhelmingly insane in this case, I still don't understand that 1/3(ish) of independents and 1/5(ish) of republicans who aren't sure they want us to win either. I could understand it being slightly short of 100% just because of a few asshats and idiots who don't understand the question, but I can't believe that number is below 95% or so. I've never heard the term asshat before! I'm cracking up here. hey wurdzgurl, i left you a present under "new Clips" I'd kind of like to see the president's plan fail in the sense of fail to get implemented. If it does get implemented, against the advice of everybody who seems to know anything, I sure as hell hope it succeeds ... but I think it's unlikely. Okay freepers, Please define "succeed" in terms of this surge. Does succeed mean kill even more Iraqi's? Or does succeed mean kill every single Iraqi, until there is not one left that disagrees with having a foreign power creating and controlling their puppet government, and occupying their supposedly sovereign nation, against the will of the Iraqi people? If that is the case I believe we need to institute a draft right now, so we can have all you young hawks out there putting your lives blood where your mouths are. I'm sending a letter to that effect to my buddy Nancy Pelsosi right now. Succeed means driving out the people who are killing Iraqis EVERY SINGLE DAY. And if you don't think a surge will work, then why not protest the surge LA plans to drive out gangs? And don't give me some crap about serving. I am a 100% disabled veteran who served in the first gulf war. I am not some liberal piss ant who loathes the military, I am one who has put my ass on the line and knows what the hell I am talking about. I don't know 100% if this surge will work, but I damn sure know what won't work, and that is retreat. Retreat will 100% guarantee failure. Which I can only assume is what at least 1/3 to 1/2 of democrats want. i guess the other 17% is too busy getting high, having gay marriages, burning down churches, aborting babies, and looking at porn to notice iraq There's a slight problem w/ your "lie" example, Steve. Whereas there are no photographs of the puppies I allegedly burned alive, there are ample photographs of the children and elderly adults that the USA burned to death w/ their phosphorous weapons in Fallujah, not to mention the eye witness testimonies of the atrocities and the EVENTUAL admission by the Pentagon that these weapons were used. But there I go dealing in the realm of fact again--when you...well, you have patriotism, and facts are simply irrelevant to the patriotic except to the extent they can be distorted to provide a veneer of credibility to the patriot's laughably preposterous loyalties. Word to the wise: You are out of your league, son. I don't understand why people like you hate America so much and try to make it out like we are the bad guys. You see, there are a few huge differences between us and them. For one, we don't intentionally target civilians. For another, when our people commit atrocities intentionally, we punish them, not reward them. If you can't see the difference between us and them and how we hold ourselves to a much higher standard, then you have some serious problems. Sounds to me, n2sooners, like DanaGarrett is one of the ones doing the "holding to a higher standard." A democratic commitment to human rights requires watchdogs, even if people find them annoying and distasteful. If you can't see that we do indeed hold ourselves to a higher standard then you have some serious hatred of America issues. Watchdog my ass. More like a dog that bites the hand that feeds it. When a sane person thinks of Falujah they recall subhuman wretches dragging the bodies of contractors through the street, setting them on fire, and hanging them from light posts. What does Mr Garrett fret and concern himself with? Our response. Makes me sick. So sad. You think using phosphorus and depleted uranium in areas of high civilian population density is OK? And you talk about high standards? Okay, I need to start finding time to check these things more than once a week........ First, Greenman.... I just got out of the military after spending the better part of the last Decade serving. (9 Years 1 month). So, try to be more specific about who you are talking about. Also, N2Sooners, thank you for your service. And as for watchdogs..... well, lets just be thankfull they didn't exist in WWI and WWII. I would like to know however where the self-appointed "watchdogs" get thier standards from (And please don't say the U.N.) It sure as hell isn't from watching our enemy. As for the depleted uranium and phosphorus... well, if the people making the decisions (the generals and commande... You may want to do a little research on depleted uranium. Its use is extremely widespread (as armor and armor-penetrating munitions) due to its high density and its low cost. Its health effects are unknown but there is mounting evidence to suggest that U.S. veterans who have been exposed to DU dust are suffering some pretty catastrophic consequences. Check out this clip. I think it's also pretty well established that the U.S. military used white phosphorus bombs in Fallujah and that its effects were broadly felt by the civilian population -- that's what I remember from the time -- but I'm not going to do the legwork to dig up proper links right now. Maybe later. I understand full well the use of depleted uranium and as you said, it is largely use for armor killing. Since the insurgents and militia don't use heavy armor I don't see why we would have used such things in this particular battle. I understand DU's use is widespread in warfare, but in this particular case, not necessary. If it was used, again I say, if the commanders needed to use it, then I trust them. As for the phosphorus, well, I don't have a problem with the agent or its use in general. If it was used improperly and civilians were killed, that's unfortunate. I don't think we can chalk this one up to the same level as firebombing Dresden in WWII. We DON'T intentionally target civilians unlike our enemy. |
View the Top Clips from January 19, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
