UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Dems bitch slaps Bush warmongers


1/9/07 6:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 06:43 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25191
I responded to it directly & it didn't prove me wrong. In fact, it it proved me right as explained above. You just owned yourself. How amusing
1/9/07 6:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Headless Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 09/20/2006
Posts: 74
Wow jack you really are retarded. You wrote that starting in '69 thanks to an influx of new soldiers (bringing the total of soldiers to 500,000) the death toll decreased. david lea just stomped your pee brain by showing you that during that time (1970 on)of decreased deaths in the american military, that in fact the US was in the middle of a massive withdrawl. You are a blind pompous fool.
1/9/07 7:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack & Coke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2276
FACT CHECK: Congress Has Repeatedly Placed Limits On Military Deployments And Funding President Bush will address the nation and announce an escalation of the war in Iraq by sending about 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. Can Congress do anything about it? Some bush nut-hugging right-wing members have claimed that anything other than symbolic action is unconstitutional. Legal scholars on both the left and the right say that's false. History supports their case. Over the last 35 years, Congress has passed bills, enacted into law, that capped the size of military deployments, prohibited funding for existing or prospective deployment, and placed limits and conditions on the timing and nature of deployments.
1/9/07 7:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 07:54 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25195
Nice try... No where in those stats does it say that military casualties decreased starting in 1969 due to an increase in soldiers in the region. So what do you think caused the decrease in military casualties? Even as the pullout was going on we saw a continual decrease in troop level/casualty ratio In 1966 and 1970 we had a similar number of troops, but less percentage of casualties in 1970 AFTER the build up of forces. Likewise, and proving my point further, in 1966, for every 1 US troop killed, at least 14 enemy combatants were killed. In 1970, for every 1 US troop killed, at least 21 enemy combatants were killed. After the surge of troops, we began kicking ass and actually winning the war.
1/9/07 7:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
taba
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 5440
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Biden, let me start with you. If President Bush calls for more American troops to Iraq, the so-called surge, Joe Biden will say... SEN. BIDEN: No. But there's not much I can do about it. Not much anybody can do about it. He's commander in chief. If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there's no way to say, "Mr. President, stop." MR. RUSSERT: ...there's really little Democrats can do. Why not cut off funding for the war? SEN. BIDEN: I've been there, Tim. You can't do it. MR. RUSSERT: Why? SEN. BIDEN: You can't do it. It's - what - because it made sense in the Constitution when you said you could cut off funding when you had no standing army. We have a standing army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars. You can't go in and, like a tinker toy, and play around and say, "You can't spend the money on this piece and this piece and" he - able - he'll be able to keep those troops there forever constitutionally if he wants to. MR. RUSSERT: Why not have legislation then that would cap the number of troops in Iraq? SEN. BIDEN: Because it's very difficult to - it's constitutionally questionable whether or not you can do that. I think it is unconstitutional to say, "We're going to tell you you can go, but we're going to micromanage the war." When we wrote the Constitution, the intention was to give the commander in chief the authority how to use the forces, when you authorize them, to be able to use the forces. And so, look, what we have to be doing here is the president - the only way this is going to change, Tim, and I've been saying - I'm a broken record on this - is when a majority of Lindsey's colleagues, Republicans, say to the president, "Mr. President, enough. We are not going to support you any more," that's when the president will begin to change his policy. That's when we begin to listen to bipartisan groups. That's when we begin - begin to listen to the majority of the expert opinion in this country.
1/9/07 7:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack & Coke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2277
Oliver North Says Nearly All U.S. Troops In Iraq Oppose Escalation Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, former Col. Oliver North - now a conservative military analyst for Fox News - said that on his recent trip to Baghdad he learned that "nearly all" U.S. troops opposed escalating the war in Iraq. They told North, "We don't need more American troops; we need more Iraqi troops." North added that Bush's proposal "sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the 60s by gradual escalation as a way not to lose." Transcript: NORTH: No, I don't. None of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, guardsmen and marines that I interviewed in my eighth trip told me they wanted more US boots on the ground. Nearly all expressed just the opposite. 'We don't need more American troops; we need more Iraqi troops' was a common refrain. My concern is that incremental increase in US troop strength...as first suggested last summer during the congressional campaign sounds eerily like Lyndon Johnson's plan to save Vietnam in the 60s by gradual escalation as a way not to lose.
1/9/07 7:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dr boudreaux
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 8594
I never figured Oliver North would betray his Commander-in-Chief and his country
1/9/07 7:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
hubris
191 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 52794
LMAO!!! 0wned!!!
1/9/07 7:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Moke
99 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 13164
For 20 years lefties have been calling North a lying douchebag. Reverse double-pwned!
1/9/07 7:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
241 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 23508
Are there any Repubs willing to give John Kerry and Joe Biden credit? They've been saying all along that there are "not enough troops" in Iraq. Just curious.
1/9/07 8:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
241 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 23509
"The day our nation defines its participation in an endeavour through whomever supports it is the day we are torn apart." Sadly, partisanship has already destroyed us. If Clinton invaded Iraq, almost everyone now for the war would have been against it. And vice versa. It's sickening. Nobody wants to think with their head anymore. They'd just rather get their talking points from their favorite partisan websites, and leave it at that. As for the issue at hand, if we are going to surge, I'd go with the McCain surge plan. It makes much more sense than a surge of 20k troops, which will achieve nothing. We can't even secure Baghdad with all the troops there now. How the fuck are we supposed to secure the entire country with just 20000 more? Surge with another 100000 or 150000 troops and you might achieve enough security to give the political process a chance. 20k ain't gonna cut it. We will continue to be playing "whack a mole" which is how McCain describes it. That's not a winning strategy. But don't let that stop any of you partisan airheads. Continuing to suck up whatever shit comes out of your "side's" asshole, right down your fucking thoats.
1/9/07 8:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25196
If Clinton invaded Iraq, almost everyone now for the war would have been against it. Bullshit. There you go with your partisan drivel again.
1/9/07 8:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 08:19 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25197
Wow jack you really are retarded. No, I think you're about to prove you're the retarded one. You wrote that starting in '69 thanks to an influx of new soldiers (bringing the total of soldiers to 500,000) the death toll decreased. Casualties decreased. Once you reach the 6th grade, you should learn the difference between a kill and a casualty. Then again, you're probably in the "special" 5th grade right now, so I don't think you'll learn what "casualty" means, ever. david lea just stomped your pee brain by showing you that during that time (1970 on)of decreased deaths in the american military, that in fact the US was in the middle of a massive withdrawl. "pea" imo LMFAO! Again, in 1966 we had more US casualties and less enemy deaths compared to 1970 when we had a similar amount of troops. After the increase in troop levels we began winning the war. Casualty rates were dropping, NVA deaths increasing, AVRN troop numbers increasing. The numbers alone show that we were winning the war and that's AFTER the increase in troop levels to crush the enemy. You are a blind pompous fool. Coming from someone who has no reading comprehension skills and no understanding of the meanings of basic words? LMFAO!
1/9/07 8:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GucciGucciGucci
818 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 10928
Imagine if that $100 billion were used to get us off of Middle East/OPEC/Venezuelan oil.
1/9/07 8:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
241 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 23511
LOL @ Jack Here's a John McCain quote: "Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties." What part of that sentence don't you understand?
1/9/07 8:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2021
LOL look at Mccain trying to seperate himself from Bush and company so he can try and get elected. Then he will pick up the agenda where his neo con cronies left off.
1/9/07 8:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crazy Zimmerman
241 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 23513
"LOL look at Mccain trying to seperate himself from Bush and company so he can try and get elected." To be fair to McCain, he is taking a very unpopular position now. He wants a drastic surge in troops, and he wants to challenge Sadr. That doesn't sound like a political position to me.
1/9/07 9:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25198
What part of that sentence don't you understand? None of it. It's irrelevant to anything I said. That doesn't sound like a political position to me. And Bush saying: "send 20,000 more"? Would this be considered a neo-con position? http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061214-0241-iraq-senators.html McCain said Americans must realize that if U.S. troops leave Iraq in chaos, groups such as al-Qaida "will follow us home and that we will have a large conflict and greater challenges than those that we now face here in Iraq.""
1/9/07 9:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25207
Wow Kampen, best response ever! Mind if I copy/paste it to own other people on other threads? I'll replace "neo-con" with whoever I want to own. Damn good reply, Kampen!
1/9/07 10:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 10:11 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25210
go broke and loose our standing as a world power due to fuck nuts like jack carter Wow, can I copy/paste that one too? Fuck, what an amazing reply! We will be like the soviet union in the 80's LMFAO! So another 17,000 US troops will die in Iraq? Military spending will constitute 25% of the GNP? Economic growth rate will be 0%? Dumbass
1/9/07 10:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jan-07 10:46 PM
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25216
You are done for the day. No response as usual. You're a one-trick troll. I imagine your troll training went a little something like this: To beat this guy you need wit… You don’t have it. You’ve got THC deposits on most of your neurons… so verbal sparring is out. So what we’ll be calling on is blunt force trolling... Now let’s start building some Trolling Bombs!
1/10/07 12:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack & Coke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2279
?
1/10/07 12:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CPracer16
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 06/06/2006
Posts: 2024
All the Al qaeda will follow us home"? Fuck yeah thats a Neo con position. We still have yet to charge Osama Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks. Yet we are still somehow saying that Iraqi insurgenst are coming to America? That is fucked up. We were told WMD is the reason for the Iraq war, now they have changed that to somehow try and tie Iraq to 9/11 and terrorism here in the U.S. Only the blind sheeple would believe that crap
1/10/07 12:19 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack & Coke
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 2280
QUOTE: "..our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever.." -WPE June 28, 2005 source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050628-7.html
1/10/07 12:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
550 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 10-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25230
18 months ago? He's listening to Gates who suggested 10,000-20,000

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.