How to be a good Democrat

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

SB was so upset about it, he blocked me permanently for the 3rd time after not being able to return logic for logic. Hahahaha!

I'm on the infamous Sh*tlist as well. Gotta laugh how SB thinks it's actually any kind of punishment. Talk about inflated self-importance. SB got his undies in a knot at me because I wouldn't allow his wacky pro-Russian/anti-West propaganda without challenge. He couldn't handle it when I had the audacity to express the notion that the Russians are not an invincible entity that everyone is dependant on, and the West/NATO is not exactly a weakling with nothing to offer. How dare I.

Anyway.....I like the posters.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

He couldn't handle it when I had the audacity to express the notion that the Russians are not an invincible entity that everyone is dependant on, and the West/NATO is not exactly a weakling with nothing to offer. How dare I.

Well in the light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars it is should I say somewhat unexpected to have someone wave Nato's flag as if forgetting the huge debacles that those two wars are.

Oh, and did I mention the War on terrorism, the one that Russia is supposed to be an integral part of according to republicans as well, I wonder how that thing is progressing...

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well in the light of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars it is should I say somewhat unexpected to have someone wave Nato's flag as if forgetting the huge debacles that those two wars are.

Oh, and did I mention the War on terrorism, the one that Russia is supposed to be an integral part of according to republicans as well, I wonder how that thing is progressing...

They're going well enough that the Democrats in question can't even talk about them for campaign purposes. We're on the way to handing back control of Anbar province, Baghdad, and the Sadr militia is in ruins. Iraq is now a fully functioning government on they way to getting full control. The fighting continues in Afghanistan, but there is no tragedy going on there, nor does loss seem imminent.

You're still playing the "Iraq is a lost cause" routine I see. Were you just awakened from a 2 year coma?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

They're going well enough that the Democrats in question can't even talk about them for campaign purposes. We're on the way to handing back control of Anbar province, Baghdad, and the Sadr militia is in ruins. Iraq is now a fully functioning government on they way to getting full control. The fighting continues in Afghanistan, but there is no tragedy going on there, nor does loss seem imminent.

You're still playing the "Iraq is a lost cause" routine I see. Were you just awakened from a 2 year coma?

Sadr militia is in ruins? Oh I don't know about that, it was the US who put the Shia in control in Iraq, you really think they are in ruins?

So are you going to resurrect the 1 - 2 mil dead that the war in Iraq has caused? And do you really think the war in Iraq is over now? That's what was expected in -03 and it didn't quite happen. And with the majority of US troops pulling out in -09 or -10 the latest I think we can be pretty secure (or unsecure) in the notion that there will be similar attacks against them to the end of the US presence in Iraq.

The final bodycount for US will be around 5, 6 thousand +, including the coalition & the mercenaries ~ 6000 - 7000. Dunno about you but to me, that's a lot of dead folks. For the US ally Iraqi troops, god only knows. Tens of thousands? And in the end Iraq will continue to be a pretty unstable place with the table set up for a new dictator to step up.

Oh yea and in Afghanistan it looks like the Taliban are getting their act together and inflicting serious casualties against the troops there. I have a buddy there with the UN troops and according to him it don't look too good.

edit. Although I have to say that I don't expect the democrats to do any better.

[baggygreen]

but really, is 5/6000 dead americans a lot, over almost 6 years of warfare??

i know i'll get jumped on by a lot of peolpe for saying so, but lets be honest - 5/6000 people were killed in an hour on the western front. More than once.

different times, yes, but its still a war. and regardless of whether you think its justified or not, it IS a war. people will die. The media started getting involved in vietnam and its only gotten worse since.

Frankly, I suspect things will have gone much quicker if there had been no media presence in affers and in the sandpit, but its speculation, which is always fun, no matter where you sit on an issue!

Originally Posted by baggygreen

but really, is 5/6000 dead americans a lot, over almost 6 years of warfare??

i know i'll get jumped on by a lot of peolpe for saying so, but lets be honest - 5/6000 people were killed in an hour on the western front. More than once.

different times, yes, but its still a war. and regardless of whether you think its justified or not, it IS a war. people will die. The media started getting involved in vietnam and its only gotten worse since.

Frankly, I suspect things will have gone much quicker if there had been no media presence in affers and in the sandpit, but its speculation, which is always fun, no matter where you sit on an issue!

Well you're comparing the Iraq war to WW 1 or 2 then yes, it's not that type of a deal. But if you compare it to, say, the British occupation of India, a huge land with a hostile populace, then at least I can't say they've been too succesful.

Also, the American's aren't even calling it a war, it's "occupation", "insurgency", etc. So by admitting that it is a war would be the first step.

Sea Demon,

Iraq is looking like it will be a fully functioning government from here on.

Oh yea, repeat that mantra 100 times before going to sleep, it might help. No but seriously, you believe that? Let me ask you this question, they always ask these questions from the people in favour of Bush, what would have to happen in order for you think that the Iraqi government would have failed? Say, if they were to acquire WMD's and use them against a minority or some stuff like that, would that qualify as a failure? It's just that I'm intrigued by these pro-war/Bush people as to what their rationale for the war actually is. So right now it's "a fully functioning government" in Iraq, ok then. At one time Saddam was one and he didn't have any WMD's so it seems that the US is kinda going in circles here while people are dying by the million. But maybe that's the point, eh?

Oh no, I think the whole Afghanistan - situation has been a terrible tragedy and the 'media blackout' concerning bad news about civilian casualties etc. from that theather of war only makes me more worried that sheet is hitting the fan there in a major way. The fact that the UN has been called as the mess-cleaners and are now taking casualties is another example of a failure by the US-led coalition.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

would have to happen in order for you think that the Iraqi government would have failed? Say, if they were to acquire WMD's and use them against a minority or some stuff like that, would that qualify as a failure? It's just that I'm intrigued by these pro-war/Bush people as to what their rationale for the war actually is. So right now it's "a fully functioning government" in Iraq, ok then. At one time Saddam was one and he didn't have any WMD's so it seems that the US is kinda going in circles here while people are dying by the million. But maybe that's the point, eh?

Oh no, I think the whole Afghanistan - situation has been a terrible tragedy and the 'media blackout' concerning bad news about civilian casualties etc. from that theather of war only makes me more worried that sheet is hitting the fan there in a major way. The fact that the UN has been called as the mess-cleaners and are now taking casualties is another example of a failure by the US-led coalition.

Yeah, whatever OTH. I've listened to people with your point of view for years. And it's only the same crap over and over again. Tell all the above to your pillow tonight. Because I stopped listening to you types long ago. Your comments are merely the same broken record which doesn't even address the successes we've seen. Yours is merely the view being fed to you by a media that wants the disastrous results you seek. You are merely a person who craves failure and defeat. But yes, Iraq is now a functioning government. The country is being rebuilt. They have revenue incoming. The insurgencies there have failed. The US military and allies have been successful. You and yours have been a failure at selling the idea of "failure". It's why you don't hear the Democrats talk about it as an issue. They can't because they sounded just like you before the end of last year.

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Good news from Iraq :............ Oh wait ... uh, nevermind

And you're blind if you want a nice, clean, easy war with no casualties. It ain't ever going to happen. You're trying to drive opinion based on these weak links of yours. As if they tell the entire story? And as if they're not driven to create a story? I would tell you where you can go, but you're already there.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Sadr militia is in ruins? Oh I don't know about that, it was the US who put the Shia in control in Iraq, you really think they are in ruins?

So are you going to resurrect the 1 - 2 mil dead that the war in Iraq has caused? And do you really think the war in Iraq is over now? That's what was expected in -03 and it didn't quite happen. And with the majority of US troops pulling out in -09 or -10 the latest I think we can be pretty secure (or unsecure) in the notion that there will be similar attacks against them to the end of the US presence in Iraq.

The final bodycount for US will be around 5, 6 thousand +, including the coalition & the mercenaries ~ 6000 - 7000. Dunno about you but to me, that's a lot of dead folks. For the US ally Iraqi troops, god only knows. Tens of thousands? And in the end Iraq will continue to be a pretty unstable place with the table set up for a new dictator to step up.

Yes. They are pretty much in ruins. The insurgencies can't even mount a meaningful resistance to the government currently in place. And sorry, I won't play your game. War is bloody. There will be loss of life. We know that. It's pretty much a dead argument at this point as Iraq is looking like it will be a fully functioning government from here on. It won't be the wasted mission and humiliating defeat you were looking forward to for us.

Oh yea and in Afghanistan it looks like the Taliban are getting their act together and inflicting serious casualties against the troops there. I have a buddy there with the UN troops and according to him it don't look too good.

Oooh, yeah. Go Taliban!!!! (Sarcasm off) What kind of a whack job are you? Getting their act together???!?!?! Oh, I'm sure you would be so happy if US troops were taking a bloody beating. And how the Democrats could use it as a campaign issue. Woop-dee-doo. Again, it's a crap argument. There is nothing coming from that theater that indicates loss. On the other hand there has been plenty of good news. I'm sure any good news of course just breaks your little heart.

[baggygreen]

the tough thing about civvie casualty claims is that at the moment the main enemy is fighting an insurgency - they dress like the civvies, fire from within civvie areas, and then use any civvy deaths to discredit the "good guys" for want of a better term.

you kill an insurgent, he's a dead insurgent. now if someone takes away his weapon and gets a camera, he's a dead civvy now, ripe for the propaganda war.

its tough!

thanks for the laughs tho mikhayl! (your antics, rather than links)