Posted on 03/08/2007 7:30:03 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
"Their slogan for 2008 should be: "We are the party of action, no matter how stupid they idea, we will champion it!"
How about:
"Vote Democrat. We are for whatever gets us into power."
I heard this on the news. They're pushing for funds to force some of the troops back by spring of 08
Those lying sacks of cr@p. They don't want any such thing. They just want something to scream about going into the 2008 election.
What is this ?
PREEMPTIVE SURRENDER !!
It sure does say it all -- absense speaks volumes! Even today some of them are still saying the two parties are alike which makes me want to scream.
People they don't not like are getting hurt.
That's what bothers them.
They can't go beyond that to "but the alternative is worse".
BREAKING-DEMOCRATS TELL TERRORISTS HOW LONG THEY HAVE TO HOLD OUT
You think so? He won reelection handily enough, and he was peddling the same anti-war wares back then. I think that we'll be stuck with Mr Murtha for quite a while to come. Like it or not, there's a deep undercurrent of anti-war fervor in this country, and he's tapped it pretty effectively.
No surprise. The cut-and-run Democrats see what an anchor this has been around GW's neck (one which they put there, I might add). They need us out of there BEFORE the elections in Nov. '08, so they don't have to stay the course themselves (showing them for the hypocrites they are). It doesn't matter to them that this is a surrender strategy; and it doesn't matter to them what the human and global cost is to those in Iraq and the larger middle east. All that matters to them is it doesn't become an anchor around their necks as they try to solve the problem.
I hate them.
Who? U.S. soldiers? Actually, I usually get the impression that lefties do not like them. You know, because they're either dumb dupes or psychopaths looking to shoot up brown-skinned people.
If it's Iraqi civilians you're talking about, the problem is that U.S. withdrawal won't stop them from getting hurt one iota, and may even accelerate the process.
But just to be clear, I'm not arguing with you, you're making perfectly valid points :) The reason your explanations of lefty thinking keeps raising questions for me is just because lefties are so irrational on the subject.. but we already knew that, I guess :)
They can't go beyond that to "but the alternative is worse".
Indeed; the alternative isn't really being factored into anything.
Even some Freepers bring up "cost" as if this is a valid point; similarly, such people are not taking into account - at all - the financial/economic implications if/when the U.S. does a precipitative withdrawal. They just say "well, it's costing X billion dollars" as if there is some alternative choice whereby we could just not spend that money and otherwise go about doing the same things - and nothing bad whatsoever would result - in which case it's true, we've have X billion extra dollars.
But reality is not like that; there are trade-offs. We could certainly stop funding the "war" (occupation/reconstruction), in which case other stuff would happen which might impact us negatively too. A true economic case for withdrawal would have to take that into account; essentially, nobody does. There's a good reason for that (it's hard!) but that still doesn't justify the one-sided "cost" analysis we usually get.
Yes, and that was a HUGE win in the GWOT. Somalia could have been another Afghanistan.
Americans may never forgive him, but the only Americans that matter where Surrender Jack is concerned are in a small rural part of Pennsylvania, and aparently they are fine with his anti-soldier, anti-American posture. I hope they have trouble sleeping at night.
Maybe because if we're successful over there, then they've been proven wrong by the "simpleton" (in their eyes) they hate so much: GW Bush. They can't stand to think his "unnuanced" view of the power of democracy and liberty might be true. (Because they're so much smarter than he is. /s)
Our church just held a missions conference with a speaker who has worked with Muslims, including militant Muslims, for about 20 years. He lived among them.
He says that Al Queda uses Iraq as a training ground for terrorists. This viewpoint certainly matches the view that fanatics are going to Iraq to fight. We at FR have held for a long time that it is much better to fight them there, than here.
He also says that 911 was orchestrated by Al Queda to induce the west to attack Islam governments so that Al Jazeera could paint the west as attacking Islam. This has succeeded. [He also believes that NOT going into Iraq would have had bad consequences.]
He said that prior to the war in Iraq the moderate Imams would dismiss the fanatics. However, since the Iraq war has started the fanatics are being listened to within the world of Islam. He believes it has succeeded in turning a vast majority (we are talking a billion people here) against the west.
Only 17% of Muslims are Arab! The majority of Muslims live in Southeast Asia.
This speaker says that the west faces a "no win" situation which is being fomented by the fanatics. It is not clear how it can come out well.
This would be dumb for the Republican's to sign because all they have to say is that if the Rats win the elections in a month or so they can surrender without a bill.
In some ways, I welcome this. I prefer my enemies (the left in this case) to be open. Now we can confront them.
Not surprising! I think that everyone knew this was coming and am surprised that it is breaking and I mean the dead media not that you reported it as breaking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.