So, you didn't think Pelosi would try for a pull-out of Iraq?

[garya505 2]

Who is still commander and chief, so what Pelosi or Murtha want doesn't really matter.

They just control the checkbook...

So you think they have the balls to cut off funding for military operations in Iraq? Then it still needs to make it through the Senate.

Ya, and while our government is wasting time fighting over this, the scumbags are planning their next attack.

My opinion is IF the Dems do the "Cut & Run", they will probably suffer BIG time in 2008!

I, for 1, wanted to see a CHANGE in our Iraq policy, after all we broke...we SHOULD fix it!

I think this is what a majority of Americans want, not complete and immediate withdrawl but a plan that will achieve progress instead of the stagnation we currently have over there!

Then again, I suppose we should wait until Jan when the new Congress meets and see what happens!

Just watch. I'll bet the Dems will cut funding to force a pull-out, then blame Bush when we lose in Iraq and make this the campaign issue for 2008. Do I have any takers?

[Alex+R 0]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

very valid questions sister alex.

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

yeap..sister alex is on her game today

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

yeap..sister alex is on her game today

when is she not?

Daniel

:energetic:

[garya505 2]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

OK, I'll take the bait.

I don't believe it's all as simple as just good vs. bad, but yes, there are some of them who are just "bad guys" and will hate us and want to kill us no matter what we do. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and go back decades, if not centuries. Our invasion didn't create them, it just brought them to a focal point (which ain't a bad thing really, as it makes it easier to find them and kill them).

We "win" if we establish a reasonably stable and politically moderate democracy that sees it's in their best interest to limit terrorist activities in their country. Ideally, this Iraq becomes an alternative to the ruthless dictators and Islamic extremist goverments. I don't believe it has to be perfect to be successful. We "lose" if we don't accomplish this, and Iraq becomes a nice training camp for terrorists and other assorted scumbags.

So, what's your plan? My guess is that you don't have one.

[Joel Halfwassen 0]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

OK, I'll take the bait.

I don't believe it's all as simple as just good vs. bad, but yes, there are some of them who are just "bad guys" and will hate us and want to kill us no matter what we do. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and go back decades, if not centuries. Our invasion didn't create them, it just brought them to a focal point (which ain't a bad thing really, as it makes it easier to find them and kill them).

We "win" if we establish a reasonably stable and politically moderate democracy that sees it's in their best interest to limit terrorist activities in their country. Ideally, this Iraq becomes an alternative to the ruthless dictators and Islamic extremist goverments. I don't believe it has to be perfect to be successful. We "lose" if we don't accomplish this, and Iraq becomes a nice training camp for terrorists and other assorted scumbags.

So, what's your plan? My guess is that you don't have one.

Amen.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

OK, I'll take the bait.

I don't believe it's all as simple as just good vs. bad, but yes, there are some of them who are just "bad guys" and will hate us and want to kill us no matter what we do. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and go back decades, if not centuries. Our invasion didn't create them, it just brought them to a focal point (which ain't a bad thing really, as it makes it easier to find them and kill them).

We "win" if we establish a reasonably stable and politically moderate democracy that sees it's in their best interest to limit terrorist activities in their country. Ideally, this Iraq becomes an alternative to the ruthless dictators and Islamic extremist goverments. I don't believe it has to be perfect to be successful. We "lose" if we don't accomplish this, and Iraq becomes a nice training camp for terrorists and other assorted scumbags.

So, what's your plan? My guess is that you don't have one.

Nice job Gary, Alex try a bigger hook. I think your using those soft lttle marshmallows.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Just watch. I'll bet the Dems will cut funding to force a pull-out, then blame Bush when we lose in Iraq and make this the campaign issue for 2008. Do I have any takers?

I have a feeling you may be right, to a point. I do think that if this is their plan then they did not understand what the American public wants, mind you this is just MY opinion.

As I said before, IF the Democrats believe an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq is what we voted them in for then they may have a HUGE surprise waiting for them in 2008. Furthermore to "blame" Bush would probably also backfire on them.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

OK, I'll take the bait.

I don't believe it's all as simple as just good vs. bad, but yes, there are some of them who are just "bad guys" and will hate us and want to kill us no matter what we do. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and go back decades, if not centuries. Our invasion didn't create them, it just brought them to a focal point (which ain't a bad thing really, as it makes it easier to find them and kill them).

We "win" if we establish a reasonably stable and politically moderate democracy that sees it's in their best interest to limit terrorist activities in their country. Ideally, this Iraq becomes an alternative to the ruthless dictators and Islamic extremist goverments. I don't believe it has to be perfect to be successful. We "lose" if we don't accomplish this, and Iraq becomes a nice training camp for terrorists and other assorted scumbags.

So, what's your plan? My guess is that you don't have one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We "win" if we establish a reasonably stable and politically moderate democracy that sees it's in their best interest to limit terrorist activities in their country

Better park your butt for a long wait then. 10+ years at the least.

You can't solve these things in 5 minutes, 5 months or 5 years. You broke it, you bought it. Sad to say.

Um, why are you guys talking about this like people who voted for Dems were tricked into this? We wanted to bring the troops home. That's the main reason I voted for Dems.

I would have voted for them merely for the novelty of change. Change being good for democracy - especially when the party in power is spending all its time trying to scare people into voting their way, on the basis of an intangible threat.

Edited November 13, 2006 by erekose

[Dean iWait 0]

Explain the phrase "lose in Iraq."

Is this all bad guys vs. good guys to you? Please explain "winning" and "losing" as you see them, Gary.

I'll give you an answer too. Cut and Run = Losing in Iraq. It is the only way we can lose there. Staying and finishing the job at hand = Winning in Iraq.

The exit polls showed the majority of american people aren't happy with the way things are going in Iraq. That doesn't mean they want us to cut and run.

[Marc and Olga 0]

The exit polls showed the majority of american people aren't happy with the way things are going in Iraq. That doesn't mean they want us to cut and run.

Exactly and I am not certain the Dems understand that...and THAT worries me!

[rclouse 0]

I don't believe it's all as simple as just good vs. bad, but yes, there are some of them who are just "bad guys" and will hate us and want to kill us no matter what we do. There are reasons for this that have nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq and go back decades, if not centuries. Our invasion didn't create them, it just brought them to a focal point (which ain't a bad thing really, as it makes it easier to find them and kill them).

Oh, but I beg to differ (and so do numerous studies, as well as statements by Al Qaeda). Our invasion does create new terrorists, and it gives them a place to attack us. The Iraq war has been a fantastic recruitment tool.

So, what's your plan? My guess is that you don't have one. whistling.gif

I thought I already spanked you with this one! Well, it's bears repeating:

[garya505 2]

The exit polls showed the majority of american people aren't happy with the way things are going in Iraq. That doesn't mean they want us to cut and run.

Exactly and I am not certain the Dems understand that...and THAT worries me!

I think some of them do and some of them don't, so they'll piss away a bunch of freakin time arguing about it. Then they'll use it for a big freakin political issue to try to defeat the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. So while our government is sitting around in a big circle-jerk, the bad guys will just keep doin what they do best.