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

[dalegg 143]

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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

20 more years, eh? At an average of 18 deaths of US service personnel / day, that means we wouldn't have lost but another 131,500 or so of our young men. And we would have accomplished what, exactly, in return?

At the rate the North Vietnamese were dying how many more would they have lost? What would we have accomplished? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell, but that wasn't the question, was it?

Edited November 14, 2006 by dalegg

[mybackpages 0]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

I am not so quick to allow the Dems to get away with the excuse they were misled. Where they failed was to have the political courage to challenge the charge of WMD and link to 9/11. They were more worried about elections and trying to look republican-lite.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled.

Actually, not only they were. The entire nation was mislead. Read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaeda links that Bush and his crooks professed about. They knew long before they ever trumpeted that nonsense out that it was just that: nonsense. The DIA told them so. It is public record now. Too late, unfortunately.

We all were lied into this war. Some of you don't care. I do. So does a majority of Americans. Which is why the crooks at 1600 Penn Ave and their do-nothing enablers in Congress got their arses kicked last week.

[dalegg 143]

Seriously, why do you think we would have lost? The North Vietnamese were not making any significant gains, the U.S was stabilizing relationships with China, Russia would have eventually gone bankrupt or tired of not getting anywhere. With the new bombing policy set forth by Nixon, we would have eventually flattened Hanoi. If all of this continued, how would the North have won?

Why were we there? Particularly when you talk about normalizing relations with communist China. If we can have normal relations with communist countries what is the purpose of fighting other people's civil wars?

Something about the Domino effect... Hey, I'm not defending the War in Vietnam! I'm just saying if we stayed the course there the North couldn't have defeated us.

[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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

Yes, that's the reason we lost. We certainly would have won if we had chose to. We chose to lose.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

20 more years, eh? At an average of 18 deaths of US service personnel / day, that means we wouldn't have lost but another 131,500 or so of our young men. And we would have accomplished what, exactly, in return?

At the rate the North Vietnamese were dying how many more would they have lost? What would we have accomplished? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell, but that wasn't the question, was it?

It sort of is since I brought it up in the context of the recent Iraq debate. Because it stands to reason that we'e not gonna accomplish a first damn thing over there either. We'll just keep on wasting lives until we come to our senses. I, for one, hope that this will happen sooner rather than later...

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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

Yes, that's the reason we lost. We certainly would have won if we had chose to. We chose to lose.

Would have won what? Victory?

Edited November 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[GaryC 7]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled.

Actually, not only they were. The entire nation was mislead. Read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaeda links that Bush and his crooks professed about. They knew long before they ever trumpeted that nonsense out that it was just that: nonsense. The DIA told them so. It is public record now. Too late, unfortunately.

We all were lied into this war. Some of you don't care. I do. So does a majority of Americans. Which is why the crooks at 1600 Penn Ave and their do-nothing enablers in Congress got their arses kicked last week.

In reality the Dems were saying we needed to take out Sadam long before Bush was elected. Do I really need to drag out the quotes? Most of the free worlds intelligence agencies also said that Sadam had them. Bush didn't lie to anyone. It's just the convenient lie the dems are using to cover up their cowardice.

[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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

I think that's true actually. It may have actually taken 20 more years to win there, but as long as we stayed the same course Nixon had us on, we would NOT have lost.

20 more years, eh? At an average of 18 deaths of US service personnel / day, that means we wouldn't have lost but another 131,500 or so of our young men. And we would have accomplished what, exactly, in return?

At the rate the North Vietnamese were dying how many more would they have lost? What would we have accomplished? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell, but that wasn't the question, was it?

It sort of is since I brought it up in the context of the recent Iraq debate. Because it stands to reason that we'e not gonna accomplish a first damn thing over there either. We'll just keep on wasting lives until we come to our senses. I, for one, hope that this will happen sooner rather than later...

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.

So, the only reason we lost Vietnam was because we brought the boys home? Very interesting...

Yes, that's the reason we lost. We certainly would have won if we had chose to. We chose to lose.

Would have won what? Victory?

I'm sorry for your recent head injury. I diidn't know about it until now. We would have won freedom for the South Vietnamese people.

Edited November 14, 2006 by Dean iWait

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled.

Actually, not only they were. The entire nation was mislead. Read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaeda links that Bush and his crooks professed about. They knew long before they ever trumpeted that nonsense out that it was just that: nonsense. The DIA told them so. It is public record now. Too late, unfortunately.

We all were lied into this war. Some of you don't care. I do. So does a majority of Americans. Which is why the crooks at 1600 Penn Ave and their do-nothing enablers in Congress got their arses kicked last week.

In reality the Dems were saying we needed to take out Sadam long before Bush was elected. Do I really need to drag out the quotes? Most of the free worlds intelligence agencies also said that Sadam had them. Bush didn't lie to anyone. It's just the convenient lie the dems are using to cover up their cowardice.

Well there's public denial vs. private admission. Did you read the Downing Street Memo. I know I did, coming from the country who was tasked with doing Bush's dirty work in 'cooking the books' to justify it.

Then there's the matter of the Dodgy Dossier. Sorry mate - this stuff isn't made up, its there in black and white. I and a good number of people I know were never EVER convinced that the WMD "imminent" threat argument was a big bunch of horse's #######.

[mybackpages 0]

Well there's public denial vs. private admission. Did you read the Downing Street Memo. I know I did, coming from the country who was tasked with doing Bush's dirty work in 'cooking the books' to justify it.

Then there's the matter of the Dodgy Dossier. Sorry mate - this stuff isn't made up, its there in black and white. I and a good number of people I know were never EVER convinced that the WMD "imminent" threat argument was a big bunch of horse's #######.

Drats erekose beat me to it. but said it better than i could have

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sorry for your recent head injury. I diidn't know about it until now. We would have won freedom for the South Vietnamese people.

Really? I guess the whole Cambodia thing was a big red herring then...

Ultimately it was decided that liberating South Vietnam was not worth the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, when there was no direct resulting benefit to the United States to justify it.

[dalegg 143]

What would we have accomplished? Not a damn thing as far as I can tell, but that wasn't the question, was it?

It sort of is since I brought it up in the context of the recent Iraq debate. Because it stands to reason that we'e not gonna accomplish a first damn thing over there either. We'll just keep on wasting lives until we come to our senses. I, for one, hope that this will happen sooner rather than later...

I don't think it's apples to apples though. The question your asking now is "What would we have accomplished with a victory?", or more precisely, "What would we have accomplished for the U.S with a victory?" because assuming we stayed there, we would have eventually defeated Communism in Vietnam, but we wouldn't have defeated Communism itself- Communism was apparantly on it's way to doing that for us.

In the case of winning in Iraq- I think there are some serious gains to be made for us there if we can somehow pull this off. A flourishing democractic ally right smack in the middle of all that could serve as an example that freedom from Tyranny is possible in the Middle East- not to mention the tactical advantage we would have in a war with Iran.

[GaryC 7]

Well there's public denial vs. private admission. Did you read the Downing Street Memo. I know I did, coming from the country who was tasked with doing Bush's dirty work in 'cooking the books' to justify it.

Then there's the matter of the Dodgy Dossier. Sorry mate - this stuff isn't made up, its there in black and white. I and a good number of people I know were never EVER convinced that the WMD "imminent" threat argument was a big bunch of horse's #######.

That still does not refute that the dems wanted to get Sadam before Bush was elected. Are you saying that as Govener of Texas he had the power to deceive the world? Wow! I didn't know he had that kind of juice!!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

um while you are it, let's not forget the dems are not without blame, as many did support the usa going into iraq. the cartoon leaves that annoying minor detail out

Yes, a lot of Democrats were misled into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the security of the United States. That "minor detail" seems to be forgotten too easily.

ROFL!!! Poor little ol' democrats were misled.

Actually, not only they were. The entire nation was mislead. Read up on the Saddam / Al-Qaeda links that Bush and his crooks professed about. They knew long before they ever trumpeted that nonsense out that it was just that: nonsense. The DIA told them so. It is public record now. Too late, unfortunately.

We all were lied into this war. Some of you don't care. I do. So does a majority of Americans. Which is why the crooks at 1600 Penn Ave and their do-nothing enablers in Congress got their arses kicked last week.

In reality the Dems were saying we needed to take out Sadam long before Bush was elected. Do I really need to drag out the quotes? Most of the free worlds intelligence agencies also said that Sadam had them. Bush didn't lie to anyone. It's just the convenient lie the dems are using to cover up their cowardice.

1) Bush clearly lied. That's long been established. About the Saddam / Al-Qaeda link, for example. About the effect that the Iraq war has on our national security. Do I need to continue?

2) No Dem ever favored, pushed, pursued or otherwise encouraged a misguided, ill-planned, unilateral, illegal and illegitimate adventure the kind of which Bush broke lose. That's the reality. There's a difference between promoting regime change and illegally attacking a country. Not that I'd expect you to understand that but your denial doesn't make that difference go away. Not in the real world it doesn't. It seems that now that the huge ** up that Bush and his crooks ahave created is plain obvious, you Bushies don't want to stand up for that ####### no more. So you try to go around and spread the blame. Ain't working, though. Ain't working.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's public denial vs. private admission. Did you read the Downing Street Memo. I know I did, coming from the country who was tasked with doing Bush's dirty work in 'cooking the books' to justify it.

Then there's the matter of the Dodgy Dossier. Sorry mate - this stuff isn't made up, its there in black and white. I and a good number of people I know were never EVER convinced that the WMD "imminent" threat argument was a big bunch of horse's #######.

Drats erekose beat me to it. but said it better than i could have

Don't worry - its all fake. "They" didn't sit through 8-months of public debate about this. They didn't see the BBC being crucified for printing a story that was factually correct, but for a single presentational error in a single report. That whole David Kelly affair stank to high heaven. A man with no history of mental illness or depression takes an overdose of painkillers and cuts his wrist in the woods after speaking with the press. Sounds plausible to me.