The impending Veto

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

No, they can and should withdraw by whatever means they see fit. But it is not up to the military how long it stays in any particular war. Either Congress or the President can end it whenever they want. Of course, it's harder for Congress to do it.
No, it's telling them what job to do. The military doesn't pick its jobs.

Either way, for both sides this is political posturing.

The Dems really just want us to pull out of Iraq, period. (btw I wouldn't give two shits if they did, just don't blame us for the impending genocide)

The Repubs don't want the Dems to control the timeline.

If the Dems had any balls on the issue they would drop all of the bull crap and completely show their true intentions and immediately cut all funding like Murtha wants. But of course they don't have the balls to do that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

(btw I wouldn't give two shits if they did, just don't blame us for the impending genocide)

Who's we?

The Repubs don't want the Dems to control the timeline.

Why is that?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Bullshit to that. When you order a withdrawl that is telling people who have no business to do so, how to conduct a military operation.

Who will decide when America is defeated? Do we keep sacrifice another 57,000 because we cannot admit to reality - to only protect a president's legacy? TheMercenary has just posted sacrifice more rather than admit reality. That is what Nixon would do.

Those who support a mental midget president will not even answer basic Military Science 101 questions.

What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

Those with contempt of American soldiers must avoid such questions. George Jr's political agenda and legacy are more important than providing troops what is necessary - such as armor - such as a viable strategy - sufficient numbers - answers to basic MS 101 questions. Those with contempt for the soldiers will not even acknowledge those questions exist. Those with contempt for the American soldier do not demand benchmarks - just like in Nam. No benchmarks imposed on a lying president simply massacred another 30,000 American soldiers. That is blunt contempt for the soldier, for the victimized nation of Iraq, and for anyone who considered Stalin, Milosevic, Saddam, and Hitler evil.

Good people should let George Jr massacre millions only for his glory and legacy? Imposing no benchmarks is to be an accessory to that massacre. Benchmarks will protect the American soldier from George Jr. Neither George Jr nor others with contempt for everything American will even touch three simple questions.

TheMercenary is right about one thing. Democrats are being too civil with a satanic president who would massacre good Americans to only protect his legacy. Posted is so accurate that George Jr supporters - those with contempt for humanity - cannot even answer three simple Military Science 101 questions. What color is my gauntlet? It's only three simple questions. George Jr cannot even pass a pop quiz - three simple questions. We cannot restrict him enough to protect the American soldier.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Who will decide when America is defeated?

Not you. The last Conspiracy Theorist to run a country like you want things done was Hitler.

[piercehawkeye45]

Tw is not a conspiracy theorist.

Tw says nothing about NWO, 9/11 as a set up, NAU, or whatever else they think of. Tw is pointing out a big personality flaw about Bush that is killing many Americans along with Iraqis while breaking ties with many of our former allies.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

If the Dems had any balls on the issue they would drop all of the bull crap and completely show their true intentions and immediately cut all funding like Murtha wants. But of course they don't have the balls to do that.

Maybe, just maybe, when the Dems say they want us to pull out in a half year, that's exactly what they mean. Maybe they think that pulling out immediately would be catastrophic, but setting a timetable will allow proper planning to take place.

Oh, what am I thinking? You know better than the Democrats what their true intentions are. No point in letting them tell us what their intentions are. You are Merc, and you know all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not you. The last Conspiracy Theorist to run a country like you want things done was Hitler.

Again, TheMercenary must post a strawman - Conspiracy Theorist - to avoid answering three simple questions based in Military Science 101.

What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

Simple questions. Those with contempt for the troops must avidly avoid those questions. What do the troops need more than anything else? Answers to three questions. Only way American soldiers will get what they need from an extremist president? Benchmarks as required by law.

Democrats who are demanding such benchmarks are clearly supporting the troops - as we should have in Nam. Three simple questions. Sen. McCarthy would be proud that extremism - "enemies are everywhere" - is alive and well in America. Where is the Michigan Milita when we need them most?

Clearly with more and bigger guns, then we need not answer three simple Military Science 101 questions. Might even makes right. Those who massacre Americans for a politcal agenda must avoid those questions and therefore cannot see the inevitable defeat - deja vue Nam. It’s patriotic to massacre American soldiers to no purpose? Of course when we avoid answering three simple questions. So TheMercenary spins reality into conspiracy myths - to avoid three simple questions.

[Spaceman3750]

OK, for those who say that Bush doesn't support our troops:

By vetoing the war spending plan, he is finishing what he started. You know how your mommy always told you to clean up your mess? And to always keep your promises? For once, someone is listening to what their mommy told them.

Bush is 1) not backing out when the going gets rough, and cleaning up for the mess we made over there, and 2) keeping his promise to the Iraqis, the American public, and the world when he said that we were waging a war on terror and that we would eliminate our target.

The Democrats in congress are setting Iraq up to become another Vietnam. They are trying to legislate the rules of engagement, and then trying to force our troops out before the job is done. My history teacher has a saying: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

BTW - Mercenary, didn't you steal that one guy's air conditioner in Kosovo?

[duck_duck]

Americans need to quit playing around and decide the direction of America and not worry about who out maneuvers who.

Just an opinion.

[Perry Winkle]

God help me; I agree with tw and like what he's saying. I think I need to get a brain scan, or a lobotomy. I can't decide which.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Maybe, just maybe, when the Dems say they want us to pull out in a half year, that's exactly what they mean. Maybe they think that pulling out immediately would be catastrophic, but setting a timetable will allow proper planning to take place.

Oh, what am I thinking? You know better than the Democrats what their true intentions are. No point in letting them tell us what their intentions are. You are Merc, and you know all.

Is that so they can plan for the genocide better or just so they can nug things out and finally set up the government they are all so fighting over??


You are glatt, and you think you know all about Merc.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spaceman3750

The Democrats in congress are setting Iraq up to become another Vietnam. They are trying to legislate the rules of engagement, and then trying to force our troops out before the job is done.

No, the Democrats are saying shit or get off the pot, to Bush and Iraq. They don't want another Viet Nam that goes on and on and on. Stop this endless wheel spinning and decide how you are going to fix what's broken, and DO IT.

They are aware that much of the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq has been the meddling of Bush and his pals in how the military does the job. Telling the pentagon what troop strength and equipment they'll use and giving them no goal past invading. The impossible situation the troops face is not their fault, it's the guys sitting around the oval office playing "Battleship".

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Spaceman3750

By vetoing the war spending plan, he is finishing what he started. You know how your mommy always told you to clean up your mess?

Bush wants to leave this mess for the next President to clean up.

...waging a war on terror and that we would eliminate our target.

What on Earth does that mean? We're stuck in Iraq until "terror" is eliminated?

They are trying to legislate the rules of engagement,

Example?

and then trying to force our troops out before the job is done.

Please define what it means for the job to be done.

[piercehawkeye45]

I never got the "war on terror" saying anyways.

Sounds like the "war on drugs", just a catch phrase that has no meaning behind it.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I never got the "war on terror" saying anyways.

Sounds like the "war on drugs", just a catch phrase that has no meaning behind it.

Yeah, both wars are futile and never-ending.

Drugs are bad, terrorism is bad, wars are bad: bad at least enough of the time that avoiding them all the time is a pretty good idea.