Reply With Quote
Withdrawl is withdrawl. If the cir stances are right, he is indeed willing to let the chips fall where they may.
That's not saying he's for withdrawal, that's saying that he's for the Iraqi government telling us if they want us in Iraq or not.
Withdrawl is withdrawl. If the cir stances are right, he is indeed willing to let the chips fall where they may.
I'm for winning at all costs.....
Chump is such a ...not only did he selectively quote from within that post...he also didn't even have the balls to post the actual thread...
I give you:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47614
And yes...I am for withdrawl if the conditions are right(IE we get at least one non ed up country out of the deal, and a place to station our military to put the heat on Iran), and the nutcases are occupied with each other and not us...
The goal is to give Democracy a foothold in the middle east so all the ty countries get exposed for what they are...and to pose an extreme military threat to Iran...
That isn't what the soldiers in this article advocate, and that isn't what most of the out of Iraq libs advocate...
Semper Fi!!!
I gave the link, whottt. Folks are smart enough to be able to see the whole thread if they wish.So you're ok with terraists eventually controlling all that oil? That doesn't really reflect a "winning at all costs" view does it? Or is that the cost -- Islamists in control of the majority of Iraq and all that oil for a base in Kurdistan? Is that victory?And yes...I am for withdrawl if the conditions are right(IE we get at least one non ed up country out of the deal, and a place to station our military to put the heat on Iran), and the nutcases are at war with each other...
Chump...you are a such a stupid . Why am I forced to type because you have a ty memory and lack the capacity for linear logic?
Who says the Shias are the terrorists?
Look it's real simple you stupid ...if the elected goverment asks us to leave I am for leaving and supporting the Kurds and letting the dumbasses fight each other and supporting the less ed up side...it will divide muslim opinion and fragment the Islamofascism and it puts us in better position to ass Iran.
It's not that complicated...and it is not what these soldiers and liberals are advocating.
But you are leaving open the possibility of the Islamists taking over non-Kurd Iraq. Why are you trying to duck this? If you are arguing it could happen if we pull out now, why could it not happen if we withdraw to the place the Islamists aren't?
#1 If the government we put in place turns hostile to us...then em.
#2. The Lib concept is to totally GTF out...mine isn't. Mine is divide and conquer and still maintain a military presence...both for the purpose of stablizing(in a positive way) at least a portion of the ed up areas of the middle east, and for putting military pressure on the ed up regions that remain in power.
It's not the same thing...
Look, I realize that for us to communicate I have to make myself dumber since you obviously can't make yourself smarter...and I do this generously, but at some point you have to pull your head out and get it...................
I've climbed 3/4ths down the moutain of intelligence for your benefit...can't you meet me 1/10th of the way up it? It's you that it benefits...
BTW, that's not what the article was about. Why am I forced to type because you have a ty memory?if the elected goverment asks us to leave I am for leaving
Thanks for admitting you're fine with turning over most of Iraq to the Islamists. That wasn't too difficult, was it?
If they turn hostile, then them, and forget all that "winning at all cost" BS.
That's what the point I was making was about..
Because you elect to take posts out of context and twist like the you have always been.Why am I forced to type because you have a ty memory?
Which part is out of context, "I'm for winning at all costs" or "If they turn hostile, then them"?
Winning at all costs = losing 2/3 of Iraq to Islamists.
Thanks for proving you have rocks in you skull...
You automatically assume it will be the Islamacists that take power, you also assume that we won't be able to influence the outcome to our benefit if we maintain a military presence. When in fact, that's only assured if we do the pull out the libs advocate. It isn't the same thing I advocate if certain events occur, and it won't have the same outcome, and it's your inability to discern the difference that makes you a dumbass. I mean I've only pointed out the differences 50 billion times. You continue to proudly show how you can't discern the difference as if it is a virtue, when in fact the only one it impresses, is other dumbasses...
Why not? You did in this very thread when arguing against withdrawl.You automatically assume it will be the Islamacists that take powerBy holing up in Kurdistan? Tell me, are we influencing the outcome in Waziristan to our benefit because we're next door in Afghanistan?you also assume that we won't be able to influence the outcome to our benefit if we maintain a military presence
A true American!!
No I didn't...I didn't say the same thing at all. You just can't tell the difference. A recurring problem for you...
Again...you can't tell the difference.By holing up in Kurdistan? Tell me, are we influencing the outcome in Waziristan to our benefit because we're next door in Afghanistan?
But if you think I am in anyway in favor of just cutting and running and letting the chips fall where they may...you're just being dump, and I can't fix that. That's not what I am saying....that's not what I have ever said.
Oh, I forgot, the kurds don't control the oil. Time to adopt plan..........?
Please keep helping Chump...I know he appreciates it.
Of course I see the difference. You'd just allow the suicide bombers, militant Islamists, etc., take over most of the country.
I'm not all over the place. Just make up your mind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
