Liberals secretly Support/Love Bush, please come Answer a question

Look, I just have to get this off my chest after reading the New York Times piece, "Obama's Iraq Inheritance", where Thomas Freedman advises democrats that we are WINNING in Iraq...and Democrats would be WISE to stay there until we WIN, if you don't wanna read it all, just jump down and answer my question please. Liberals please.

"If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic Party’s national security credentials than that."

Isn't that something. Liberals honestly do want to win! Though they claimed for the better part of a decade they would rather have us lose and retreat.

I propose, Liberals are secretly HAWKISH on the war. They are secretly on BOARD with GW Bush.

Think about it, Obama has been elected for a month and he hasn't said ONE WORD about Iraq. He is planning on WINNING and TAKING THE CREDIT.

Those of us who listened to these LIBS for 8 years telling us we were "raiding Civilians and bombing children" (Obama's words not mine), actually were LYING and simply LYING to WIN!

Ugh, you have to love that audacity of hypocrites.

It's honestly pathetic.

Like, it's hard to just make a post about it. History Scholars will better define these "democrats". They get elected in 06 to end the war and they support it. They put Obama in to end the War and he will only end 1 at the most, yet that's some how acceptable.

How the *BLANK* is ONE WAR better than 2? How can you pick and chose which WAR is "Democratic"?

Like, you honestly think you can leave Iraq and stay in Afghanistan liberals?

You liberals are classic man. Change! Yes we can to war and higher taxes! Yes we can to bashing and undermining a War effort, only to vote to fund it because we're spineless!

Either way you look stupid. You acted stupid for 8 years. Enjoy whatever you get. I wish you much success with whatever your "Strategy" is TODAY, because it changes so often!

I think the psychology of the matter is, the Liberals always "knew deep down" that the only option was winning.

They acted out their angers and fears by protesting the war though they never stopped believing deep down that we had to win both wars or we were in a world of trouble.

They were never who they claimed to be, and they have always been on our side. They are now just realizing how tough the world we live is. They are seeing the full picture and the light bulb has illuminated their minds.


In closing, I just want liberals to explain the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan and why is it acceptable to leave Iraq and not Afghanistan? What's the difference and why is it your strategy? Why not leave both, why not stay and win both? Why?




[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/30/2008 by Gools]

So because Thomas Friedman believes this, that means every Liberal in the US thinks the exact same way? Quite the generalization..

That's simple... we invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and that general area is still where Al Qeada still is and the Taliban still is and until especially Al Qeada and Osama Bin Forgotten is still there they will serve as a focal point for the extremists and will be a thorn in our side until eliminated.

Iraq was invaded on false premises and unprovoked... as long as we are there it will be an occupation and will give fuel to the extremists claims that it is a war against Islam.

Originally posted by pstiffy
So because Thomas Friedman believes this, that means every Liberal in the US thinks the exact same way? Quite the generalization..

Because in 2006, the Democrats took control of the House (Largest seat gain in 32 years!), reversing what had been Republican control 12 years, and the Senate, respectively 51-49.

So since 2006, Democrats had the power, the control, to end the war by simply cutting off the funds yet they caved in, bowed down, to Bush? Why, what is the reason?


The only REASON is because they SECRETLY SUPPORT the war.

Your rebuttal? Sir?

Originally posted by grover
That's simple... we invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and that general area is still where Al Qeada still is and the Taliban still is and until especially Al Qeada and Osama Bin Forgotten is still there they will serve as a focal point for the extremists and will be a thorn in our side until eliminated.

Iraq was invaded on false premises and unprovoked... as long as we are there it will be an occupation and will give fuel to the extremists claims that it is a war against Islam.

Not to nitpick, but I am sure the smartest experts believe if Osama Bin Liden is still alive, he is somewhere in Pakistan.

And, the smartest expert I know (Ron Paul), says that the extremists don't hate us because we're Free, it's because we build military bases on their Holy Land.

Now, you mean to tell me that Iraq and Afghanistan really have a distinction? To the Muslim extremist, their is no distinction, my friend.

You leave Iraq, you open up a lot of operating room for Iran which will have influence on the effort in Afghanistan.

But it's amazing, like I said, that liberals have the stones to say we should leave Iraq out of principal and stay in Afghanistan for national security.

The enemy knows no such mercy. Obama understands this. While ideally, we would leave Iraq, even your savior, the Messiah, knows that you have to make decisions based off rationale not principal. I bet it's sobering for you. A splash of water on the face after a 7 year nap.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Actually the Democratic gains were so slim that they couldn't do anything without Republican co-operation and they blocked just about everything in regards to Iraq except continued funding for it.

the extremists don't hate us because we're Free, it's because we build military bases on their Holy Land.

Everything I have read intelligent on the subjects confirms that.

But yes there is a difference between the two wars and that difference is rooted in the way we went into Iraq.


[edit on 30-11-2008 by grover]

Originally posted by grover
Actually the Democratic gains were so slim that they couldn't do anything without Republican co-operation and they blocked just about everything in regards to Iraq except continued funding for it.

That's simply false on every level.

Have you no shame?

reply to post by ConservativeJack


No its not false... check the record... the Democrats only had a majority in the senate because the 2 independents caucused with the Democrats.

"Conservative"Jack - I'm not sure why any "Liberals" should even reply to this thread. It sounds as if your mind is made up and you're just spoiling for a fght. Have fun.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by ConservativeJack

 

No its not false... check the record... the Democrats only had a majority in the senate because the 2 independents caucused with the Democrats.

Ugh, that's a pathetic excuse. Independents would have voted with the Dems.

Democrats were voting 28, 27, for ending the funding. That's barely 50% of democrats. (Senate)

But the House was dominated by Dems and they caved into Bush something nice'


How is that respectable?

If they were graded, they would have gotten an F-

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Originally posted by kosmicjack
"Conservative"Jack - I'm not sure why any "Liberals" should even reply to this thread. It sounds as if your mind is made up and you're just spoiling for a fght. Have fun.

I am DIRECTLY CHALLENGING YOU

You can't answer the question?

Why is one war "American and Democratic, and for the little guy"

And the other war is, "George Bush, Republican, we should lose"

Explain that for me and you win a cookie.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

Come on liberals, stand up and express yourself.

Don't be afraid I don't bite I am just trying to better understand my liberal counter part.

Because according to government reports since 2000 Iran has been the leader in terrorist support and funding, not Iraq. In fact Iran, Syria, and Pakistan were higher in terms of terrorist activity than Iraq back in 2002-2003. The Pentagon has also apparently ruled out connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Afghanistan housed the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and still does apparently; the country also has a large illegal opium market that helps fund the terrorists that run it.

So if anything we should probably have been in Iran and Afghanistan if this war is really about terrorism. Instead we're in Iraq, which is now basically getting the help from Pakistan and Iran, which as those government reports stated, have higher state sponsored terrorism.

So we basically went into a country that was low on the radar for terrorism and now that we're there all the other countries that have higher amounts of terrorism are bleeding over into Iraq to help out.

So no we shouldn't be in Iraq we should be in Afghanistan mainly, and we should have been in Iran but that's probably out of the question at this point since we're spread so thin.



[edit on 30-11-2008 by davion]

The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that the Government lied to get us into the war in Iraq when they had justifiable reasons to convince us to support them into war. But they just lied about Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists and having nuclear weapons. They could have easily convinced us that Saddam Hussein was a madman committing a modern genocide and should be stopped but they didn't . We need to stay in Afghanistan for at least a little while to stabilize the region because there is proof that the Taliban were in power and we toppled their regime because they were being oppressive to their people and Bush did not lie to us about Afghanistan. So, Afghanistan is a just war, and Iraq is an unjust war. Even if it was successful.

reply to post by ConservativeJack


How is that false? Do you know what a filibuster is?

The question has already been answered. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 (and a delayed response at that). Iraq still has no known reasons for invasion.

Two different countries, with different people, and different reasons for invasion. Why does anyone need to explain the difference to you? It's obvious as day.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by ConservativeJack

 

How is that false? Do you know what a filibuster is?

The question has already been answered. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 (and a delayed response at that). Iraq still has no known reasons for invasion.

Two different countries, with different people, and different reasons for invasion. Why does anyone need to explain the difference to you? It's obvious as day.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

This is so funny!

I am literally laughing.

This is great man. Obama getting elected has been great. It's eye opening.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that the Government lied to get us into the war in Iraq when they had justifiable reasons to convince us to support them into war. But they just lied about Saddam Hussein harboring terrorists and having nuclear weapons. They could have easily convinced us that Saddam Hussein was a madman committing a modern genocide and should be stopped but they didn't

. We need to stay in Afghanistan for at least a little while to stabilize the region because there is proof that the Taliban were in power and we toppled their regime because they were being oppressive to their people and Bush did not lie to us about Afghanistan. So, Afghanistan is a just war, and Iraq is an unjust war. Even if it was successful.

Right, we should leave Iraq because of politics....

"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the source of one's anger.

We can't lose in Iraq just because your mad that you got tricked!

Because you got tricked by both democrats and republicans, both voted for authorization. Hillary Clinton led the charge.

But make no mistake about it, Leave Iraq, it's a WRAP. We're DONE.

Go buy Sun Tzu. This is a battle of ideology.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by ConservativeJack]

reply to post by ConservativeJack


What's funny? Your responses and their lack of substance?

Originally posted by davion
Because according to government reports since 2000 Iran has been the leader in terrorist support and funding, not Iraq. In fact Iran, Syria, and Pakistan were higher in terms of terrorist activity than Iraq back in 2002-2003. The Pentagon has also apparently ruled out connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Afghanistan housed the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and still does apparently; the country also has a large illegal opium market that helps fund the terrorists that run it.

So if anything we should probably have been in Iran and Afghanistan if this war is really about terrorism. Instead we're in Iraq, which is now basically getting the help from Pakistan and Iran, which as those government reports stated, have higher state sponsored terrorism.

So we basically went into a country that was low on the radar for terrorism and now that we're there all the other countries that have higher amounts of terrorism are bleeding over into Iraq to help out.

So no we shouldn't be in Iraq we should be in Afghanistan mainly, and we should have been in Iran but that's probably out of the question at this point since we're spread so thin.



[edit on 30-11-2008 by davion]

Your so wrong. Iran is sovereign and was not a viable option of invading. Too sticky.

Syria, Israel already took care of them.

Pakistan would defend herself with Nuclear Weapons, not a viable option. An untouchable.

Again, your not worth my time.

Good luck with your life.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by ConservativeJack

 

What's funny? Your responses and their lack of substance?

you are funny. your way of thinking, how propagandized you are.

you are a walking, typing, stereotype. (Iraq is unjust! I'm a judge! I'm noble)