# RINOs make me sick



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Senate is going to vote on a bill opposing the troop increases in the war in Iraq. * What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. More symbolism over substance.*

By the way, did anyone else notice that whenever he opposes George W. Bush, Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel is always called a "leading Republican" by the media? :roll: uke:

The nonbinding resolution now has two Republicans signed onto it, Hagel and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Both of them are liberals and are RINO's...or Republicans In Name Only. So Two Republicans have joined a handful of Democrats in the cowardly losers club...a group whose goal it is for the United States to surrender in Iraq. So what now? :eyeroll:

President Bush is the commander-in-chief. He is going to send the 21,500 troops to Iraq. No one can stop him. What sort of message does it send to those troops when you have United States Senators standing up on Capitol Hill proclaiming the whole thing a mistake?

Nice vote of support, guys. :******: :******:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Bob, I respect these as you call them, RHINO's because they are voting that way because they do not believe our policy in Iraq is the right thing to do, not because they don't believe in supporting our troops. This is the common illogic used to discredit individuals who do not believe in the way things have been handled in Iraq. RHINO'S believe that we should not throw more bad policy into a situation that has already been mishandled and misrepresented in the first place. Even George W agrees because he has gone through field generals like cabinet members. I admire these people because they have the fortitude to take a stand and will not call them the "cut and run cowards" that the far left has tried to lay on them as a guilt trip. Sorry but the "cut and run" guilt trip worked for a while but obviously Washington has seen the light. And so have middle of the road Republicans. Yes, Bush is our commander in chief as you stated and that is one of our problems and just adds to the confusion.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ I would agree with that if I believed its their true feelings and not a political calculation.

a couple points

1)the resolution is not binding so it does nothing but undermine the attempt to put down the insugency in Sadar city, lower our troop morale and increase the morale of our enemy.

2)ALso when you have a narrowly divided congress they need to stick together soomething the Dems do well and the repubs don't.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The only reason the war in Iraq has not worked to date is because the congress has demanded it be run politically correct. Give the military the freedom to actually fight like they want to win and this crap will be over in a heart beat. The vote to oppose the troop increase in Iraq is just more of the same. An increase would tell the insurgents what ---- it would tell them America is serious about wining this war. The vote to oppose the increase tells the insurgents what ---- that America is even further loosing it's resolve. We have become a nation of instant gratitude. If something doesn't work immediately give up.

What a nation of pansies we have become. Maybe we should all grab our bouquets and march on Baghdad. Maybe we with our flowers and they with their suicide vests can hold hands and dance around the city square. Doesn't that picture just make your heart melt? Sheesh.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Plainsman, why don't you make a few signs and go parade around in Bagdad to let them know how you feel. You might attract a little attention and get on one of the news clippings. Sounds like the plan now is to wean the Iraq government of American soldiers doing the dirty work. Other than to keep leveling the countryside like we are doing this sounds like it is a worthwhile option. Do we need another 20,000 troops to wean them. Probably not and if we don't keep committing more dead Americans it actually sends them a strong message to start getting their acts together and moving towards a civilized nation. This is a stronger message than sending more soldiers to kill more Iraqi's. If more Iraqi's need to be killed, they need to be killed by their own countryman and not American soldiers.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> The only reason the war in Iraq has not worked to date is because the congress has demanded it be run politically correct.


What political party has been in charge of running the war???????????????????? I rest my case!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks guy!!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If you could somehow bring Rosie with you I'm sure you could draw a little fire from the enemy!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ the problem with your idea is there are many govt's in the region that don't want a democracy next door.

Iran and Syria are the prime ones. They know that once poeple are free to elect their leaders it will catch on and spread which would be the end to their dictatorial power.

WE cannot win with the so called surgical type battle plans we need to brutally kill lots of the enemy and anyone that gets in the way.

ANd deal with Iran and Syria before Iran has nukes


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Have any of you seen the results of the latest poll? I have been ripped on when I said there are people who want us to loose the war. Well, now people have been asked.
Only 63 percent want us to win in Iraq. Of the democrats only 51 percent want us to win in Iraq. I forget the number, but it was in the upper 30 percentile when democrats were asked if they wanted us to loose in Iraq. Are these people crazy? No need to answer that last question, it's obvious.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

What poll? What is your definition of win?? Is it want to win or can win by escalation or can win by de-escalation? I'm not sure your wording is correct and you interpetation of the poll is in fact what you trying to portray? Need some clarification! Can you print a copy of the poll where you are getting your information?? 30% OF THE DEMOCRATS WANTED US TO LOSE THE WAR????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

> we need to brutally kill lots of the enemy and anyone that gets in the way.


Bob, this sounds just like a guy that I used to know from Iraq that got hung by the neck a few weeks ago!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Let's see Plainsman:

Of the democrats only 51 percent want us to win in Iraq?

and

it was in the upper 30 percentile when democrats were asked if they wanted us to loose in Iraq

Lets see, 50%(win) + 30%(lose) = 80%. That leaves 20% that aren't sure if they want us to win or lose?? This is getting more goofy all the time!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

DJ refer to question #19

note the question is do you want it to succeed?

Pretty amazing results appaerntly some people both Democrats and republicans do not  . You have to ask why not?

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011 ... wspoll.pdf


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Lets see, 50%(win) + 30%(lose) = 80%. That leaves 20% that aren't sure if they want us to win or lose?? This is getting more goofy all the time!!


That's right. Kind of like those undecided they always interview the night before an election. If you don't know by then perhaps you shouldn't vote. 
There is certain segment of society that "feel" they must apologise every day for their existence. They understand why terrorists bombed mean old United States. Then there are those that are in a continous state of Stockholm syndrom. You know the kind where a kidnap victim tries to please their captor. They feel threatened and are willing to give up or loose in the hopes terrorists will have mercy. At 51 percent it only takes a few more wacos to put us in real trouble.

I think we should have our CIA train with the Israeli Massad. Give Ahmadinejad two to the head and most of our troubles in Iraq will be over.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

These democrats are getting our Military KILLED by their public comments that should be made behind closed doors if they must, and want to give *AID and confort to the ENEMY* :******: 
Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about these kinds of people and what *should* happen to them. :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

So DJRooster, you are against sending more troops. Does that mean that you now believe in the "stay the course" strategy? I would also like to here your answer to Bob's question. Do you want it to succeed?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Of course I want it to succeed. In my opinion the war on terror is not a ground war in Iraq. The ground war in Iraq was to remove the guy that was hung a few weeks ago and to destroy their weapons of mass destruction. We have achieved those goals and now it is time to let the Iraqi people run their own country if they have the will to do it. We do not need 120,000 American soldiers fighting a ground war in Iraq to fight the war on terror. Then I hear that we are supposed to invade Iran and then I suppose Syria and hell, might as well take over Lebanon and when we own all that territory then in your opinion I suppose the war will have been won? Do you really think this is the way we are going to win the war on terror?? And do you realistically think this is possible? No, it was a badly thought out plan to start with because this is about so much more than the United States global war on terror. In my opinion, the more we kill, the more we fuel the war on terror. Besides that, what difference will 20,000 more troops make. Probably 20% of them will be out and about and could be on patrol at one time. Do you really think that another 4000 American soldiers running around the country in Iraq is going to swing the war and lead us to victory whatever you definition of victory may be. Come on, you guys, certainly you are smarter than that. George W has gotten us in way to deep already and this is not a life jacket. It is just more bad policy on top of more bad policy. Such is the war on Iraq and such is the history of Iraq. I do agree with the premise that we need to put pressure on the Iraqi's to get out from under our skirt and figure out what the hell they are going to do about running their country, but 20,000 more troops? Not a good idea!! I said it once I will say it again. We need Iraqi's to kill Iraqi's if they need to be killed, not US soldiers. The strong arm of the US in Iraq is doing nothing but promote the war on terror and giving them a reason to hate us even more. This is the same secular war that was going on when Saddam was in charge and 20,000 more soldiers are not going to get them to like each other. Only the Iraqi's can do that!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The ground war as you call it ( what other kind of war is there) is just a battle like Normandy was in WWII the whole world is the battlefield. New york was another, there will be more.

I doubt you or I will live to see the end of it especially if Iran gets Nukes which they certainly will if the Dams and Rinos get their way.

Fight and win in Iraq or get hit again here we lost more people in 4 hours here, our military is better suited to deal with this, if our politicians show some balls another big IF.

20000 trops may not enough but no matter what its going to happen, these politicains should get behind it and act like the support it or at least shut up about it and wait and see. What they are doing now and have done for some time is undermine our efforts and discourage the troops for political gain and I dispise them for it.

According to the poll lots of people do not want us to win in Iraq an unbeliveable position when you think about it. What do they think the Jihadists will do if we don't. Such is the ignorance of the general public in this country.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, my brother has a T shirt that sums this up:
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"

There are liberals in Washington that should have been on the gallows with Sadam. They are treasonous. They care about the power of the democratic party, and their hatred for Bush, more than they care for the United States or it's people. Words can not describe how low I think these people are.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"


AMEN! :beer:


----------

