Way To Go Kerry!

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Victory will be achieved when Iraq is safe, free and not a home to terrorists.

Does free mean what America agrees with, or letting them sort things out themselves?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I took a few days, but finally read the transcript of the Kerry comment. It can most certainly be said that Kerry was referring directly to Bush and not the troops at all. God I effing hate George Bush.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Kerry has always thought of himself as some elitist. He even tried to get some deferrements so he wouldn't have to go to Nam. When that failed he went into the Navy. He wouldn't have lasted four months in the Army in the bush.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Victory will be achieved when Iraq is safe, free and not a home to terrorists.

Thanks to the boneheaded architects of this war, there will always be 'terrorists' in Iraq - always.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Wow - been hanging out in that bomb shelter of yours lately? What in the hell makes you think for a second that that's achievable now? Could've been - should've been. It was relatively easy - listen to your Army Chief of Staff when he tells Congress how many troops an occupation will take. Now? Civil war. Not an possibility or an eventuality - a reality. Army and Marine commanders say so. You sound like the typical Bushie muppet.

And you sound defeated.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Victory will be achieved when Iraq is safe, free and not a home to terrorists.

So, we should stay until there isn't a significant threat of violence between, say, Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds? Should we stay until there is a functioning Iraqi democracy (what are the minimal conditions for that, I wonder?)? Given that the CIA and other intelligence agencies explicitly claim that the U.S. presence in Iraq attracts terrorists to Iraq, do you think we should stay in Iraq until there is no significant threat from terrorists to U.S. soldiers or to other Iraqi citizens. Finally, in your best estimate, if how long do you think this will take to accomplish?

Originally posted by xs
And you sound defeated.

This sums up your position perfectly, actually. For you (and those like minded), it's not about
right or wrong; it's about 'winning.' You think it's better to be manly for an unjust cause than
to rightly run from something.

You're scarcely different than back when we were cavemen, and, very likely, it's people like you
who will very likely throw us back to the stone ages.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
So, you claim that we have to get out of Iraq, but not until we are victorious. Sounds reasonable. Could you briefly sketch for me what you think an actual victory in Iraq would look like?

When the entire country is a glass parking lot 😉

Actually, when democracy takes root and the Shi'tes and Sunnis quit playing "hot potato" with explosives. I don't realistically see this happening, so I believe Iraq is a lost cause....I just don't have an answer for you....wish I did...

Originally posted by arrakis
You would do better to deal with the facts instead of insult those who disagree with you... but then, isn't this what the Republicans are all about!?

I didn't insult you in my last post, Duuuh! I'm not Republican either, Mr. soothsayer. I hate both parties; in fact I hate ALL politicians except Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan.....if they run, I'll vote, otherwise, I'll stay home.

Originally posted by uzless
Granted, Kerry may or may not have been intentionally insulting the intellectual prowess of US troops.

But even if he was saying the troops aren't the brightest lights in the US, is he wrong?

Where do the recruiting officers go to recruit young people in the US? Most of it is in backwater towns in the middle of nowhere. The recruiters don't spend much time at Harvard and MIT lookin for new troops.

Maybe in Canada they do, but not in the U.S. Therefore, your observation is, well, uzless....🙄

Originally posted by sasquatch672
What I am is angry.

I'm angry that over 2,800 of my brothers- and sisters-in-arms have died executing a mission that was severely flawed both in concept and in execution. Angry that in February 2003, I said to myself, "If the President of the United States said it, it must be true" when he asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Angry t ...[text shortened]... in a high enough position. He (and Cheney, and Rumsfeld) fills both roles.

I agree that we should have started with more boots on the ground....."W" is an idiot! I can say that, can't I?