Ready...set....

Bu2
Bu2 Posts: 1,693
edited September 2007 in A Moving Train
blow.

Bush is on TV in America, if anyone cares.
Feels Good Inc.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    When is he not on TV in America?

    Or is that the name of a specific network?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    does anyone have any interest in watching Bush give his 8th Iraq speech?

    I'm watching it....I'm seeing Bush speak nervously....as nervously as I would speak if pulled over by a state trooper after having about 9 beers....

    Anyone else watching?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I watched it Bu. ever though he is agreeing to bring some troops home, people are still going to hate him. it doesnt really matter. I think its good we finally have a strategy that involves troops coming home while at the same time trying to be successful in Iraq. I'd like to see more troops come home quicker, but like he said, it depends on how things go over there.
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    the troops he's agreeing to bring home were already slated to come home. It's not like he's making some grand gesture. All he's done is agreed to bring us back down to 130,000 troops instead of 160,000 -- which is where we were before the surge.

    BFD.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Bu2 wrote:
    the troops he's agreeing to bring home were already slated to come home. It's not like he's making some grand gesture. All he's done is agreed to bring us back down to 130,000 troops instead of 160,000 -- which is where we were before the surge.

    BFD.

    ok is that worse then keeping 160 or increasing to 200? it is what it is.
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    Bu2 wrote:
    the troops he's agreeing to bring home were already slated to come home. It's not like he's making some grand gesture. All he's done is agreed to bring us back down to 130,000 troops instead of 160,000 -- which is where we were before the surge.

    BFD.

    Exactly...all he is doing is drawing this out to hand over to the next presidency.
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    As Obama is saying right now on CNN, this is not acceptable. We can start pulling our troops out now, 2 brigades per month, and increase our diplomatic efforts, as well as asking the UN to step up and step in, and we can get our troops out by the end of next year.

    Congress has to fight for this.....and so do we.

    Write your congressmen....it can't hurt.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Bu2 wrote:
    As Obama is saying right now on CNN, this is not acceptable. We can start pulling our troops out now, 2 brigades per month, and increase our diplomatic efforts, as well as asking the UN to step up and step in, and we can get our troops out by the end of next year.

    Congress has to fight for this.....and so do we.

    Write your congressmen....it can't hurt.

    if I can play devil's advocate for a second, have you considered the possible consequences of that action. for example, Iraq falls into civil war and a powerful shiek becomes dictator and allows al queda to operate. or forget al queda, lets just the say first part happens and the Iraqi people fall under another brutal dictator

    one positive I see as a possibility of a fast pullout, is a chance of having peace with Iran and actually having them become an ally. hardcore republicans will have you believe otherwise, but I think its possible.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,755
    this is bullshit. allowing troops that were already supposed to come home is no way to compromise or offer the olive branch to those members of congress that are against the war.

    does anyone know what are the 36 other countries that allegedly have troops on the ground with us?

    there is a way to end the war quickly. pelosi could simply not allow the troop funding bill to come to the floor for debate. yeah its a crappy move, but with no funding will w leave the troops in harm's way??
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    this is bullshit. allowing troops that were already supposed to come home is no way to compromise or offer the olive branch to those members of congress that are against the war.

    does anyone know what are the 36 other countries that allegedly have troops on the ground with us?

    there is a way to end the war quickly. pelosi could simply not allow the troop funding bill to come to the floor for debate. yeah its a crappy move, but with no funding will w leave the troops in harm's way??


    yea, lets have something happen without giving the people elected to debate about it. its cool as long as it fits your agenda right?
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    gimmesometruth, I love you. I'm with you 100% here.

    Jlew, Iraq is ALREADY in the midst of a civil war.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,755
    jlew24asu wrote:
    one positive I see as a possibility of a fast pullout, is a chance of having peace with Iran and actually having them become an ally. hardcore republicans will have you believe otherwise, but I think its possible.

    i think you are on to something here. i think the only way to stabilize the region and have a lasting peace is to get our military out of the region. with our troops on the iranian border, you can not force peace at the point of the gun. if you get the military out of there then you can open diplomatic avenues.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,755
    jlew24asu wrote:
    yea, lets have something happen without giving the people elected to debate about it. its cool as long as it fits your agenda right?

    its funny when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it?

    the gop pulled that trick of not allowing things to come up for debate or a vote many times when they were in power. why can't the dems do it if its the only way that they can conceivably end the war???
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Bu2 wrote:
    gimmesometruth, I love you. I'm with you 100% here.

    Jlew, Iraq is ALREADY in the midst of a civil war.

    well I havnt been there but I disagree. we both can debate that to death but until one of us actually goes there, we cant say for sure. but from what I have seen and read I dont believe its civil war.

    there arent lines drawn in the sand, or two sides with uniforms fighting each other. there are still areas with both sects live together. there are certain people trying to bring the two sides together. its not easy.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    its funny when the shoe is on the other foot isn't it?

    the gop pulled that trick of not allowing things to come up for debate or a vote many times when they were in power. why can't the dems do it if its the only way that they can conceivably end the war???

    well if that happened, and i'm sure it did, thats bullshit and I agree with you.
  • Bu2
    Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i think you are on to something here. i think the only way to stabilize the region and have a lasting peace is to get our military out of the region. with our troops on the iranian border, you can not force peace at the point of the gun. if you get the military out of there then you can open diplomatic avenues.

    Yes. Forget for the moment about our troops being in harm's way....if we weren't there and all of this chaos in Iraq just happened to have happened on its own, we would never think of sending 130,000 to 160,000 troops over there, would we? We would work with neighboring regions, instead, wouldn't we? We would make this a UN thing, wouldn't we?

    Now.......remember that we ARE there. And why are we there? Who put us there? What were our reasons for going there in the first place?

    Get the point now?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,755
    you will never have iraq as an ally. maybe the ruling gov't that we eventually install will be friendly to us and work with us. but i do not think for one second that for all of those hundreds of thousands up to one million iraqis that we have killed, whatever the number, will their families and descendents ever forgive our country? will they ever respect us? i doubt it. they will wish death on every single one of us and our descendents.

    i am really fearful that the war on terror will become a generational thing, passed down from father to son, to his father to son etc..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    you will never have iraq as an ally. maybe the ruling gov't that we eventually install will be friendly to us and work with us. but i do not think for one second that for all of those hundreds of thousands up to one million iraqis that we have killed, whatever the number, will their families and descendents ever forgive our country? will they ever respect us? i doubt it. they will wish death on every single one of us and our descendents.

    i am really fearful that the war on terror will become a generational thing, passed down from father to son, to his father to son etc..

    maybe im too much of an optimist
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    jlew24asu wrote:
    maybe im too much of an optimist


    nothing wrong with being optimistic, j......but the radicals still haven't forgiven us for lebanon......;)......i don't think this one is gonna go away once we're gone from there.....:)
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    cutback wrote:
    nothing wrong with being optimistic, j......but the radicals still haven't forgiven us for lebanon......;)......i don't think this one is gonna go away once we're gone from there.....:)

    I dont know if thats completely true. lebanon currently has a pro USA government and before the recent war with Israel, Beruit was becoming a popular mid east destination. now get back to AET ;)

Categories