The Truth About Iraq by Bill O'Reilly

jlew24asu

cutback wrote:

But in your original post, Bill asked both Janeane and Dave "Do you want to win in Iraq?" and I'm curious as to how we are going to win. And I'm not calling the US losers, I just want to know what constitutes winning.

then ask Bill. I gave you my answer

gimmesometruth27

jlew24asu wrote:

its not about winning and loosing.

.

if its not about winning and losing, then why is the question "do you want america to win in iraq?" somebody needs to define what the fuck the mission is and what are the criteria we need to meet to achieve "victory". you can not win an occupation. you can not win a war on a tactic (terrorism). all you can do it raise tensions until the people being occupied boil over and then all hell breaks loose. i fear that we are at the boling point now. with each day that passes, it looks as if we are not only not winning, but losing because we have no plan for victory.

Abookamongstthemany

dharma69 wrote:

Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're not. I, for one, can honestly say that I've hardly been glued to my television and/or to the FOX News channel for the past 5 years and I know that I've missed many episodes of The Factor. I'm guessing that since you're no fan of his then you have, too. Perhaps in our being a little lax we've missed that special little apology....perhaps not....

Either way it's of no matter to me, like I said there are more important things to do. And since O'Reilly doesn't run this country or make any policies, in the grand scheme of things as and factors go, he's a fairly insignificant one.

It's a sad fact that there are millions of americans who watch his show every night and believe every word he says and also view Fox News as actual 'news'. Their easily led, no need for facts mentality effects us all. So yeah, it would be nice if he tried being a bit more truthful from time to time and set aside his agenda for a more objective view of things.

jlew24asu

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if its not about winning and losing, then why is the question "do you want america to win in iraq?" somebody needs to define what the fuck the mission is and what are the criteria we need to meet to achieve "victory". you can not win an occupation. you can not win a war on a tactic (terrorism). all you can do it raise tensions until the people being occupied boil over and then all hell breaks loose. i fear that we are at the boling point now. with each day that passes, it looks as if we are not only not winning, but losing because we have no plan for victory.

again, I dont give a fuck what Bill said. I have the ability to form my own opinions. you want to know how I feel read my posts.

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's a sad fact that there are millions of americans who watch his show every night and believe every word he says and also view Fox News as actual 'news'. Their easily led, no need for facts mentality effects us all. So yeah, it would be nice if he tried being a bit more truthful from time to time and set aside his agenda for a more objective view of things.

luckily, it's not a "fact" that idiotic people blindly follow fox news and lap up what o'riley has to say.

that's the equivalent of some right winger coming on here saying all you people lap up what eddie vedder incoherently babbles.

the truth is, the people that are most interested in politics choose our own news sources. you maynot view oriley as news, but i don't really give much credibility to npr, cnn, or real idiots like eddie vedder, al franken, or jon stewart. well, ok, jon stewart is pretty sharp...but seriously, eddie vedder is probably the dumbest human being i've ever heard speak. granted, nancy pelosi isn't far behind. partisans, which most of us are, or ideologues, whatever, are able to choose our news sources.

in some utopia, there is such a thing as an objective news source, but in reality, there isn't. the beauty of our system is that there are a variety of viewpoints out there that we can listen to.

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

luckily, it's not a "fact" that idiotic people blindly follow fox news and lap up what o'riley has to say.

that's the equivalent of some right winger coming on here saying all you people lap up what eddie vedder incoherently babbles.

the truth is, the people that are most interested in politics choose our own news sources. you maynot view oriley as news, but i don't really give much credibility to npr, cnn, or real idiots like eddie vedder, al franken, or jon stewart. partisans, which most of us are, or ideologues, whatever, are able to choose our news sources.

in some utopia, there is such a thing as an objective news source, but in reality, there isn't. the beauty of our system is that there are a variety of viewpoints out there that we can listen to.

Oh, it is a fact! I've met these people ... I'm guessing you have too. She didn't say that every conservative in America watches Fox and believes all of it, she said that there are many who do, and that is undoubtedly true.

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

then ask Bill. I gave you my answer

And I respect that answer. I guess my question to you is, do you know what Bill's answer to the question is? I'm not being a smartass, I'm just curious.;)

Purple Hawk

hippiemom wrote:

Oh, it is a fact! I've met these people ... I'm guessing you have too. She didn't say that every conservative in America watches Fox and believes all of it, she said that there are many who do, and that is undoubtedly true.

sorry sister, you have the arrow of causality mixed up. "these people" (nice rip off of my take on you people) watch fox news because they agree with their perspective to begin with. in other words, conservatives aren't interested in watching katie lauer telling us what's on the agenda. instead, we seek out news sources that actually get it.

speaking of idiots, i've actually talked to many who believe michael fox when he says that republicans don't like stem cell research!

Purple Hawk

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

if its not about winning and losing, then why is the question "do you want america to win in iraq?" somebody needs to define what the fuck the mission is and what are the criteria we need to meet to achieve "victory". you can not win an occupation. you can not win a war on a tactic (terrorism). all you can do it raise tensions until the people being occupied boil over and then all hell breaks loose. i fear that we are at the boling point now. with each day that passes, it looks as if we are not only not winning, but losing because we have no plan for victory.

ok, if you don't understand the definition of winning, then seriously, you have to take the blinders off.

if you honestly believe there is no plan for victory, take the blinders off.

the plan has been all along is to train the iraqi forces so that they can take control. if you honestly don't know that...sorry, you're not smart.

unfortunately, the drive by media has you and your ilk hook line and sinker. it's all about bush. yet you can't see the big picture. I don't believe you people understand the world as it actually exists, and that's unfortunate.

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

ok, if you don't understand the definition of winning, then seriously, you have to take the blinders off.

if you honestly believe there is no plan for victory, take the blinders off.

the plan has been all along is to train the iraqi forces so that they can take control. if you honestly don't know that...sorry, you're not smart.

unfortunately, the drive by media has you and your ilk hook line and sinker. it's all about bush. yet you can't see the big picture. I don't believe you people understand the world as it actually exists, and that's unfortunate.

Have you talked to many people who've worked with these Iraqi forces? You should try it, it's an eye-opener. I don't think it's us who doesn't understand the world, pal.

Purple Hawk

hippiemom wrote:

Have you talked to many people who've worked with these Iraqi forces? You should try it, it's an eye-opener. I don't think it's us who doesn't understand the world, pal.

i would love to hear more for the people working with the iraqi forces. becuase that's news. unfrotunately, to the drive by media, and most posters here, death tolls are news. as far as the not understanding the world comment, it goes to the heart of this thread. most of you cannot get past your hatred of bush (not to mention reagan). You people are pissed at the success of capitalism. You are pissed that we have not followed old europe, and you are fixated on old economic divisions which is really unfrotunate, because new divisions are arising, and you will not be on board until it's too late.

hippiemom

Purple Hawk wrote:

i would love to hear more for the people working with the iraqi forces. becuase that's news. unfrotunately, to the drive by media, and most posters here, death tolls are news. as far as the not understanding the world comment, it goes to the heart of this thread. most of you cannot get past your hatred of bush (not to mention reagan). You people are pissed at the success of capitalism. You are pissed that we have not followed old europe, and you are fixated on old economic divisions which is really unfrotunate, because new divisions are arising, and you will not be on board until it's too late.

Oh yes, capitalism is such a rip-roaring success. That's why we're so much healthier than our European counterparts .... longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, lower crime rate ... you know, all the things that make up a healthy society.

Oh, wait .... nevermind that.

Anyway, I've talked to people who have spent time attempting to train these Iraqi troops, and let me just say that they don't share your optimism that they'll be in control of themselves any time in the near future, much less anything else.

gimmesometruth27

Purple Hawk wrote:

ok, if you don't understand the definition of winning, then seriously, you have to take the blinders off.

if you honestly believe there is no plan for victory, take the blinders off.

the plan has been all along is to train the iraqi forces so that they can take control. if you honestly don't know that...sorry, you're not smart.

unfortunately, the drive by media has you and your ilk hook line and sinker. it's all about bush. yet you can't see the big picture. I don't believe you people understand the world as it actually exists, and that's unfortunate.

i will answer your points as you have laid out, sorry but you call me out then i am going to reply.

1- i understand the defintion of winning as achieving the 4 items that bushco has said in variation over the past 3 years but have yet to come to any sort of fruition. what are the official criteria for victory????? i have heard a combination of the following 4. they have changed focus a number of times but my most recent memory tells me they are defeat saddam, check. find and eliminate WMDs? where the fuck are they??? defeat the insurgency?? hardly has happened yet. allow iraqi forces to take over security....has hardly happened as they get owned by the hundreds on a daily basis by the very insurgents they are charged with suppressing. and stabilize the middle east, which will never happen, especially with an american trying to dictate policy to a bunch of middle easterners who could care less. so as i see it we have achieved one of four for a nice .250 average. not even enough to get you on an all star team in baseball anymore, let alone gain you the respect of the world. my blinders are off and i am seeing quie clearly thank you. i would ask you to remove yours and give me some actual goals that we have met. i am willing to accept any bullshit propaganda here at this point so give it your best shot, as we should all be grasping at straws to prove any sort of success.

2- if there was a plan for victory wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that we would have already achieved victory in less time than it took to finish WWII? maybe its me but after bush declared "mission accomplished" its like the people in charge of the war have been on vacation. they forgot to tell the insurgents that we won and that they should cash in their chips.

3- if that was the plan then i am sorry that it failed. i was expecting something a little better from all of the chickenhawks in this administration. if you think that this is possible and that it will be worked out then maybe it is you that is not smart. why should they take care of the mess we made? its like we are saying "sorry we destroyed your infrastructure and our companies are going to rebuild at a cost of 7 times what it would cost to pay an iraqi company but its ok. the us will pay for it so you will be indebted to us for the next 100 years."

4- maybe it is you that does not see the big picture. it is unfortunate that you are actually buying this shit that is being purported by the bush white house. i read more than the liberal media thank you. i am a free thinker and i know when we are fucked and when we are not. right now we are fucked. billions of dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost and for what? we have still not secured the country. militias and insurgent attacks are all we hear about. they are jockying for control of the country while we sit on our hands trying to figure out the next move. we have failed and we have created a whole new generation of terrorists that will strive to kill both my kids and your kids. how do you feel about that? have we done the correct thing? i say no, and nobody will change my mind even if we discover a silo containing 1000 nuclear warheads pointing at washington dc. we intervened in some shit that we had no business sticking our big noses into and we look like fools to the rest of the world. if you can still support this debacle then i feel sorry for you. but then what else can be expected from a pro-war person that has the word hawk in his screen name?

flywallyfly

chiefojibwa wrote:

i'm sorry, could you repeat that? it's hard to understand you when you've got rush's cock in your mouth.

You just cost me a coffee cleanup after I spit it out reading this !!

jlew24asu

flywallyfly wrote:

You just cost me a coffee cleanup after I spit it out reading this !!

when you guys are done with your circle jerk, feel free to add to the discussion

norm

chiefojibwa wrote:

i'm sorry, could you repeat that? it's hard to understand you when you've got rush's cock in your mouth.

Thank you chief. You are much more diplomatic than I want to be. What I want to say will get me banned.;)

flywallyfly

jlew24asu wrote:

when you guys are done with your circle jerk, feel free to add to the discussion

You told me, buddy.

sapperskunk

hippiemom wrote:

Oh yes, capitalism is such a rip-roaring success. That's why we're so much healthier than our European counterparts .... longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, lower rates of teenage pregnancy, lower crime rate ... you know, all the things that make up a healthy society.

Oh, wait .... nevermind that.

Anyway, I've talked to people who have spent time attempting to train these Iraqi troops, and let me just say that they don't share your optimism that they'll be in control of themselves any time in the near future, much less anything else.

Capitalism sure has been good to me. I used to live in Europe, hated every second. As far as training Iraqi's, it's a tough road, I used to do it. But I swear only time can teach these guys correctly, so my advice is to be patient.

sapperskunk

chiefojibwa wrote:

i'm sorry, could you repeat that? it's hard to understand you when you've got rush's cock in your mouth.

Is that how Dems debate? It got quiet all of a sudden? I want to hear more about this guys sexual relations with "Rush". Come on buddy, don't stop now.

Songburst

jlew24asu wrote:

I'm not ready to sit back and call america a loser just so I can point at republicans and say I told ya so.

its not about winning and loosing.

I would like to see a stable Iraq with a government that represents all factions living in peace for one common goal.

I want the terrorists defeated. being any foreign fighters trying to undermine the government and killing American troops.

is this possible? I hope so. but it wont be possible if we leave next week. there is still work to be done.

Did you want to see a stable Iraq before the war? Then why do you care now? The Iraq war was never about defeating terrorists so why is it a goal now? Is it because the US started the terrorist problem in Iraq? I really don't think that you understand what a terrorist is. These are people who believe that something is a threat to their way of life and they think that terrorism is their only venue to get heard. These aren't people who just like killing for the sake of killing people. You have just had the "bad guy in a mask with a bomb" image pumped into you for the last 5 years and now you believe it. There is good that can come from this war and it has to do with bringing democracy to the middle east. It could be a good thing, but farce of this "cause du jour" of this war is that the people of the Middle East have been ruled by iron fists since the dawn of time. To think that you can waltz into one of those countries and feather in a democracy in a couple of years is laughable. Establishing a true democracy in the middle east will never happen in our lifetime. It really can't happen when the people who are trying to bring the democracy in care more about money and oil than they care about the well-being of the people involved. And you can't honestly think that Bush gives one shit about the people of Iraq or the thousands of people who have been killed by his brilliant decision making (because he is the decider). The whole goal of that war was to make a few rich guys even richer and to that extent he has succeeded. I still can't fathom that anybody supports anthing that this loser has ever done.