Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe I heard anything about a Withdrawl plan or an exit strategy. Suits me fine.

I'm pretty sure what's going to end up happening is that the newly elected Iraqi government is going to create their own exit strategy for our troops, and our government will comply.

At 11/30/05 12:33 PM, -Michael- wrote:

At 11/30/05 12:27 PM, fli wrote: Mmm'kay... News today in one sentence:
"We'll leave once we've declared victory."

You used, "We'll" in an informal form, in a newspaper it would be, "We will"

My bad...
:-(
I know... I know... It's tuff luv.

At 11/30/05 12:09 PM, Kuuuter wrote: Who really cares anymore. Its now a reality that we lost in Iraq. The only people who are losing their lives are those dumbass bottomfeeder us soldiers so I really don't care.

Wow, you're a piece of garbage! Number one, it's not a reality that we "lost" in Iraq. And you won't find anyone who actually knows what they're talking about (i.e. not you) who will agree with that idiotic assertion. And as for the only people losing their lives... those soldiers are people. They're not bottomfeeders as you called them. They are people risking their lives for complete strangers, so even if they were the only ones dying, you're still a jackass for saying that. But they're not, innocent civilians and Iraqi troops are dying too, so not only are you a jackass but a heartless idiot as well.

Which fits the profile of bottom feeder more? A brave soldier who risks his life to bring freedom to a country full of people he's never known? Or some jackass rooting for the insurgents to kill our soldiers and innocent people? I for one...go with the second one, you.

Well spoken.

At 11/29/05 11:12 PM, -Michael- wrote: I'm suprised nobody has made a topic yet.

Bush's Can't-Lose Reversal
Wednesday's speech will set the agenda for withdrawal from Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Nov. 28, 2005, at 7:14 PM ET

Be ready for a timetable
Brace yourself for a mind-bog of sheer cynicism. The discombobulation begins Wednesday, when President George W. Bush is expected to proclaim, in a major speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, that the Iraqi security forces—which only a few months ago were said to have just one battalion capable of fighting on its own—have suddenly made uncanny progress in combat readiness. Expect soon after (if not during the speech itself) the thing that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have, just this month, denounced as near-treason—a timetable for withdrawal of American troops.

And so it appears (assuming the forecasts about the speech are true) that the White House is as cynical about this war as its cynical critics have charged it with being. For several months now, many of these critics have predicted that, once the Iraqis passed their constitution and elected a new government, President Bush would declare his mission complete and begin to pull out—this, despite his public pledge to "stay the course" until the insurgents were defeated.

http://www.slate.com/id/2131125/nav/tap2/

What do you think of his sudden 360?

Are you blind? this isn't a 360, bush SAID from the get-go that he was going to start withdrawing US troops from iraq once the iraqi security grows and becomes trained.

The democrats wanted bush to take all troops out of iraq the second we found out there were no weapons of mass destruction, or a more specific way of putting it, there were no large stockpiles of biochemical and genocidal warheads.

Bush said he would do no such thing

And he didn't

The democrats exclaimed bush had no plan to get the US troops out of what they called a vietnam quagmire, did i spell that right?

Bush told us his plan:

- Continue to search for Any chemical weapons or mistles, WMD's or otherwise

And we did, beleive it or not we found enough supplys from iraq to support 1 nuclear bomb, with some chemicals left over. It's definatly not as much as expected, but who know's, maybe in a few years the iraqi government might stumble upon an underground factory or somthing, i doubt this will happen, but it's always nice to have some wishful thinking, this is of course wishful thinking as long as iraq remains a free country

- Aid iraq as a role model for elections and making constitutions:

We did this as well, we waited for an election which did go well, no major offensives, alot of iraqis' voted including women. We're currently waiting for the iraqi's to vote on the consitution they have, if you notice, bush said he would start taking out us troops out a few at a time until the iraqi security force gains complete control of iraqi safty and freedom. (almost an oxymoron, but we have a national gaurd too so w/e)

- Go on the offensive if we discovered any "insurgent" training camps or insitutions.

We did this as well, unfortunatly several US troops died in the offensive in the sunni triangle, i dont know much about this, but they did not die in vain, unless your a democrat of course.

Any ontop of that, bush did this from the get go, it must have pained you democrats to see all of those inocent terrorists from the taliban and al queda get bombed.

- Leave gradually once everything above is near completion

And bush just announced somthing he said a long time ago. If bush took every single US troop out at once that would catch me as suspicous, even for a republican, but he didn't. He did what he said he would do.

This is everything explained in a nutt shell but you get the point.

I'm starting to think that the terrorists are getting desparate, they dont usually ask women to blow themselfs up for allah unless their running out of men, i mean, unless the muslim is a lesbian who beleives in the whole islamic martyr policy then... (no offense to any homosexuals who are here) i'm pretty confused what an islamic woman could gain from killing herself. Which as we know now, was forced upon by her husbaned, who ended up being then only one of the 2 to get killed. And he was an insurgent leader so we think, do generals usually fight on the front lines in no mans land? no... not usually.

- Continue to stay in iraq until the iraqi

I cant really say this is spam, since for me, it's as political as political gets.

I'm sorry, this topic was locked when I looked at it. Or maybe I just looked too quick. ANywho, I was just saying that Bush did a 360, coming full circle to his original plan. Maybe we'll continue on into Iran. Pax U.S.!!!

At 11/30/05 12:33 PM, -Michael- wrote:

At 11/30/05 12:27 PM, fli wrote: "President calls Iraqi War a victory..."

The W in, "War" does not need to be capitalized. Please check your grammar book before writing full sentences.

Yes it does, it's a proper noun since he was referring to a specific war ("Iraq War").

Fli was nice enough to not point this out, so I will. HAHA, j00r wrong!

At 11/30/05 04:53 PM, smith916 wrote: And we did, beleive it or not we found enough supplys from iraq to support 1 nuclear bomb,

Source? News to me. What sort of "Supplies"?

It saddens me to see how i write a debatable editorial on this subject and everyone else continues to go on about spelling and grammar as if this is the english thread. My spelling and grammar are terrible, but i live on with. I've got a Virtumundo virus eating away at my virtual memory and i'd like some responce before my computer dies.

At 11/30/05 06:09 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 11/30/05 04:53 PM, smith916 wrote: And we did, beleive it or not we found enough supplys from iraq to support 1 nuclear bomb,

Source? News to me. What sort of "Supplies"?

He means dirty bomb. Here's the partial list they've been posting on Human Events online and other conservative outlets.

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

Chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

It's from a book called Disinformation by Richard Miniter, and he's the first one to admit at the beginning of the chapter that the pre-war intelligence wasn't as strong as everyone thought it was.

bush is a stubborn idiot. He's not leaving.

At 11/30/05 06:09 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 11/30/05 04:53 PM, smith916 wrote: And we did, beleive it or not we found enough supplys from iraq to support 1 nuclear bomb,

Source? News to me. What sort of "Supplies"?

http://www.newsmax.c..5/11/12/103450.shtml

In addition to the low-enriched uranium, an additional 500 tons of non-enriched uranium was stored at the same site.

Idiots that stuff we knew about. It was under UN watch and sealed. There were not WMD or supplies to make them or BUsh and Cheney would be pimping this daily. Even they admit it

At 11/30/05 12:09 PM, Kuuuter wrote: Who really cares anymore. Its now a reality that we lost in Iraq. The only people who are losing their lives are those dumbass bottomfeeder us soldiers so I really don't care.

Found one.

At 11/30/05 06:27 PM, demoninabottle wrote: bush is a stubborn idiot. He's not leaving.

his speeches are getting longer and longer (does anyone know a good site transcripting Bush's speeches?) ..i kinda fell asleep after he said "terrorist" and "Iraq" for the gazillionth time, like; "Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Terrorists Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq Terrorists Iraq Iraq Iraq Iraq...." ...zzz~

bush is a stubborn idiot. He's not leaving.

At 11/30/05 06:07 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 11/30/05 12:33 PM, -Michael- wrote:

At 11/30/05 12:27 PM, fli wrote: "President calls Iraqi War a victory..."

The W in, "War" does not need to be capitalized. Please check your grammar book before writing full sentences.

Yes it does, it's a proper noun since he was referring to a specific war ("Iraq War").

Fli was nice enough to not point this out, so I will. HAHA, j00r wrong!

Actually Skunk... I did check that out.
On offical papers from the United States, the proper way is to not capitalize the "war" part.

So it's "Vietnam war" for them... (Although there are exceptions such as World War II, etc...)

and it's "Vietnam War" for us... (or at least my grammar books.)

So both of you are right.

At 11/30/05 06:09 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 11/30/05 04:53 PM, smith916 wrote: And we did, beleive it or not we found enough supplys from iraq to support 1 nuclear bomb,

Source? News to me. What sort of "Supplies"?

Al Franken..."The Truth with Jokes" (paraphrased):
In one site alone we found 300+ pounds of high grade explosives...
He had mobile weapons facilities in which we'll never know what was housed because Bush allowed them to get away...
He (Saddam) had dozens of short range missles...
Tanks of Sarin Gas...
Etc...

In Conclusion, we know for "a fact" (quote marks mine) Saddam had no WMDs.

In his rush to conclude Saddam had nothing, Franken admits to several discoveries of weapons we found.

Alright. I fail to understand this. If there were sufficient materials found to construct a nuclear warhead, then why didn't the administration work extra hard to let us know about it? If this were true, it may well have justified the war for many Americans.

Instead, Bush continues droning on about Democracy in Iraq, as though we honestly care. If the Iraqi people wanted a democracy, then they should have staged their own revolution. The United States has no right to fight another nation based on that nation's government, dictatorship or otherwise.

At 12/1/05 02:27 AM, LordXanthus wrote: Alright. I fail to understand this. If there were sufficient materials found to construct a nuclear warhead, then why didn't the administration work extra hard to let us know about it? If this were true, it may well have justified the war for many Americans.

Instead, Bush continues droning on about Democracy in Iraq, as though we honestly care. If the Iraqi people wanted a democracy, then they should have staged their own revolution. The United States has no right to fight another nation based on that nation's government, dictatorship or otherwise.

If that is true, Clinton had no right to save the Bosnian peoples. And on a more personal level, if you notice your neighbor is beating his wife you don't have a right to say shit about it. Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government. Especially when that government is:
A. Giving support to several terrorist groups that attack us (HAMAS, among others)
B. Shoots at our planes as we patrol the no fly zone
C. Tries to kill one of our former presidents
D. Sponsers suicide bombings in allied countries
E. Ignores UN sanctions on building weapons
F. Violates Human Rights like Crazy
G. All of the Above and more

Liberals want to issue sweeping changes on a national level to social injustices, mostly imaginary. Conservatives actually impliment changes to real worldly injustices on a World Level. Don't complain about small scale human rights violations then bitch when we fix the real thing on a massive scale.

As the world's strongest nation, it is our duty, not our right, to stop genocide and mass-murder when we can. To stand idly by and do nothing is the same as watching your neighbor beat your wife and not call the cops. You're allowing evil under a pretense of "peaceful neutrality".

It would be unwise to rush and make a time table just to try and get your approval raiting up.

We're allready in, we can't leave until the job is done. Unfortunately most of the terrorists are Saudi's, and not even Bush will risk starting a third war.

Ha, that's funny as shit. He's going to turn into a "flip flopper". Even though his supporters are saying "Well kerry flip flops to much".

God, you guys are dumber than shit. Your pride is so fucking important that you can't admit you were wrong.

At 12/1/05 03:23 AM, darknezz1 wrote: Ha, that's funny as shit. He's going to turn into a "flip flopper". Even though his supporters are saying "Well kerry flip flops to much".

They used that word wrong, as well. Kerry said he was for the war to a Pro-War crowd, and he said he was against the war to an Anti-War crowd. That's not flip-flopping, that is pandering, and America deserves a president that knows the difference!

God, you guys are dumber than shit. Your pride is so fucking important that you can't admit you were wrong.

They may be too proud to admit the cause for the war was wrong, but currently it's not important. Forget how we got here, we're here NOW, what do we do NOW?

At 11/30/05 06:26 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: He means dirty bomb.

Can't a person find non-enriched uranium in practically any state which has had some sort of nuclear program in the last fifty years? I mean, everyone has agreed to the fact that their nuclear program was dormant. Does this mean that Nevada will soon become the next part of the axis of evil?

At 12/1/05 01:15 AM, George_Bush wrote: In shall invade Nevada, with much agression. They will know the full force of the americunt military

dam you bush. not nevada. why not kansas, or nebraska?

At 12/1/05 01:15 AM, LegendaryFrog wrote: are you fo' rizzle?

At 12/1/05 02:46 AM, WolvenBear wrote: ... Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government...

The goes against our principal of allowing people to have the choice of government. Saddam imposses a dictorship... we impose a democracy. They're happy about Saddam out, but they want their own government.

And if you understand from the terrorist's perspectives, they're doing what you've just said. The also believe they have a right to fight with us for whatever reasons.

As the world's strongest nation, it is our duty, not our right, to stop genocide and mass-murder when we can. To stand idly by and do nothing is the same as watching your neighbor beat your wife and not call the cops. You're allowing evil under a pretense of "peaceful neutrality".

That's what we do all the time.
Everyday.
What happened to the genocide in Ethipia... the begged us to help, but we didn't send aid.

To take on this "we-got-to-help" attitude is great.
But Bush did things wrongly by not stating that premise before the war. He said, "We're going to get Osama, and there are WMDs in Iraq."

He get's Saddam, a small nothing, and we didn't find WMDs.
Know why his approval levels are so low? Because he's losing trust. He says this, but does the other in this war.

Sure, it's a good thing now people aren't affraid of genocide and Saddam...
but sad thing is that many of them are now affraid of us.

At 12/1/05 02:46 AM, WolvenBear wrote: If that is true, Clinton had no right to save the Bosnian peoples.

A nation should only recieve US aid if they request it.
And on a more personal level, if you notice your neighbor is beating his wife you don't have a right to say shit about it.
We're talking about international diplomacy here. That is entirely different. Especially if the woman asks for assistance. Consider this, however: Suppose I do try to stop her husband from beating her. This may cause him to freak out and kill one or both of us. Oh, well. It seemed like the thing to do at the time.
Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government. Especially when that government is:

A. Giving support to several terrorist groups that attack us (HAMAS, among others)

Al Quaeda is the only terrorist organization to attack us within our own borders, and Saddam had no connection to them.

B. Shoots at our planes as we patrol the no fly zone

They call it a no fly zone for a reason.

C. Tries to kill one of our former presidents

Said former President tried to kill him.

D. Sponsers suicide bombings in allied countries

Prove it.

E. Ignores UN sanctions on building weapons

Saddam was not building weapons of mass destruction. Most of us know that.

F. Violates Human Rights like Crazy

That's none of our business. We're not international police. I have a problem with oppressive communists governments. Does that mean I have the right to attack China?

G. All of the Above and more

Liberals want to issue sweeping changes on a national level to social injustices, mostly imaginary. Conservatives actually impliment changes to real worldly injustices on a World Level. Don't complain about small scale human rights violations then bitch when we fix the real thing on a massive scale.

We need to be more concerned with our own social injustices. Have you heard of the Patriot Act? Furthermore, there are better ways to improve global human rights. All Bush has done here is create more enemies.

As the world's strongest nation, it is our duty, not our right, to stop genocide and mass-murder when we can. To stand idly by and do nothing is the same as watching your neighbor beat your wife and not call the cops. You're allowing evil under a pretense of "peaceful neutrality".

I would have no problem with putting a stop to genocide and mass-murder, if that was truly what was being done. All we are doing in Iraq is creating enemies. If I see my neighbor beating his wife, I'm certainly not going to walk in and shoot him. He has friends, you know. In the event that this did occur, I sincerely hope I wouldn't be stupid enough to cut the wife's legs off, mistaking her for an enemy.

can people shut the fuck up about flip flops?! Isn't that what smart people do? Learn from their mistakes?! Christ almighty...

I've got new for you all: no he didn't! He stated that we are fixed there for at least another year. This was all hype, just like I thought.

Bush is a moron and anyone that doesn't like it when people criticize him are whiners. And people that complain about democrats just showing their opinion are complainers. You dorks need to get a life.

This is the wrong country to start criticizing the very foundation of this country. Which was to not be involved in the same yahoo nonesense that took place in the 1700's and helped triggered the Revolutionary War.

One of which was the absense of the British Bill of rights in the colonies. People couldn't say what they feel or wanted to say about the people that were mistreating them.

That right there, proves just how stupid people that just keep complaining on how people simply dislike George Wankalot Bush.

Yes, we do have a right to fight another nation based on it's government. Especially when that government is:

A. Giving support to several terrorist groups that attack us (HAMAS, among others)

Al Quaeda is the only terrorist organization to attack us within our own borders, and Saddam had no connection to them.

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723
That's from a liberal by the way.
Yes Saddam did have ties to al Quida. That's not "drinking the kool-aid", that's observation from evidence and logical thinking. And I'm sorry, but this is just common sense, any terrorist group who attacks us period is our enemy, i.e. Hamas who Saddam was a huge fanatic supporter of. So even if Saddam HADN'T had ties to al Quida (which ironically enough Zarquwi considered him an ally), this point of yours is nullified.

B. Shoots at our planes as we patrol the no fly zone

They call it a no fly zone for a reason.

Yes it was a no-fly zone FOR SADDAM, because he was KILLING HIS OWN PEOPLE. It wasn't a no-fly zone for us. He had no right to shoot at our planes.

C. Tries to kill one of our former presidents

Said former President tried to kill him.

Didn't try very hard. Actually what did Bush Sr. do? He refused to finish the job and gave Saddam his country back. And even if he had tried to kill him, it was because....what was the reason again...oh yes, he was invading our allies and trying to enslave them. We went to war with him. He then tried to kill our president during a time of peace. That's a blatant act of agression, and even Clinton responded to that one.

D. Sponsers suicide bombings in allied countries

Prove it.

Don't have to. He was quite proud of it. Bragged every opportunity he could about it. You're just disagreeing cause you hate Bush. You know you're wrong here.

E. Ignores UN sanctions on building weapons

Saddam was not building weapons of mass destruction. Most of us know that.

Really? Interesting. Clinton said he was.
http://www.weeklysta..000/003/527uwabl.asp

Also thought he had ties to al Quida interestingly enough.
Kerry said he was. EVERY single nation in the world thought he was. And in Al Frankens last book, in denying Saddam had any WMDs, he puts out a list of...WMDs, about as long as my arm, included, but not limited to: Sarin gas, weapons grade materials to make Anthrax, short range missles, and hundreds of pounds of high grade explosives (just in one place). And, interestingly enough, I don't actually have to prove he was making weapons (though he was, and the UN has acknowledged it), to prove this point. Part of the rules said he had to grant access to UN inspectors to any and all sites make sure that he wasn't building weapons. By ignoring this one, Saddam gave us the impression he was building. Innocent people don't deny access to empty rooms, kinda like innocent people don't plead the fifth. So even if we HADN'T found a single weapon (which no one believes but you, indeed the only argument ever put forward was that we found no nukes, even Michael Moore has acknowledged WMDs, so you're in a category of ignorance by yourself), and we did find weapons, but regardless, we still would've been justified. As a cop, if a suspect bluffs with a fake gun and you shoot him, you are justified. You don't wait for him to shoot at you to find out if it's real. You kill him, and his bad for using a fake gun.

F. Violates Human Rights like Crazy

That's none of our business. We're not international police. I have a problem with oppressive communists governments. Does that mean I have the right to attack China?

Yes actually it IS our business. When Iraq sponsors terror, flagrantly disrespects rules and murders its own people and we do nothing, it makes us look weak and emboldens our enemies. Besides, we are partially responsible for his murders by convincing citizens to stage an uprising then doing nothing as they got slaughtered.

G. All of the Above and more

You keep citing how Bush has "done no good", he has only "made more enemies". But to do this, you cite...nothing. Because this assertion, like most of your poorly informed argument is also dead wrong. It's not like reasonable people picked up their guns when we invaded Iraq and became insurgents. 90% of them were already involved in some sort of terrorist organization (mainly because from those we've identified the remains of, they were all on some sort of criminal list) and the others were evil people who saw their way of life about to go away and wanted to continue an oppressive regime. The Iraqi people mostly love us. Even Saddam's old sect is coming around now that we found the torture chambers and showed we are equal opportunity liberators. We are working towards a new Democracy, one supported by the people, same in Afghanistan. Syria and Libya have disarmed thanks in part to us.

And to address your argument of threatening your neighbor with a gun for beating his wife...and cutting off his wifes legs accidently, let's put things in a better perspective. If we want to add civilian casuality into the anaylogy... You see that your neighbor is beating his wife with something. You run over with a gun (since in this instance you called the UN cops and they refused to come over), and kick in the door shooting. You accidently hit the wife and paralyze her from the waist down. However it doesn't matter because he was hitting her in the head with a ballpine hammer and she's braindead. When you examine his house, you find two dead children in the basement that have been raped and tortured. Fortunately, you find two in the closet that he had two more children who he hadn't killed yet and would get to later. Sadly, while you waited for the police, he beat his wife as good as to death. But, you saved two lives. All in all, you know you did some good.

Yes, what terrible people we are, accidently killing some civilians in an effort to depose a dictator that was PURPOSELY killing innocent civilians, and torturing them and raping them. Gee, we're scum.