# cut and run



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

So what is the first clash going to be between the White House and the Democrats in Congress? Iraq. Make no mistake about their position, because it hasn't changed: they want the United States to cut and run in Iraq. Two top Senate Democrats say they'll introduce the resolution in January. This is what we're told people voted for last Tuesday, so don't shoot the messenger. :eyeroll:

But they won't call it "cutting and running" or "total surrender," though that will be the reality. *You're going to hear weasel phrases like "phased redeployment" and "time table for withdrawal." *

Democrat Carl Levin, in line to run the Senate Armed Services Committee, had this to say: "We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months, to begin that redeployment. We have to tell Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over."

While it's true that we can't be in Iraq forever, why give terrorists a 4 to 6-month head start? Why not just bring all the troops home next Monday, Senator Levin? :******:

Make no mistake: Iraq is a mess. The occupation was mismanaged and Republicans paid the price at the polls. But to just walk out of the country, leaving it in the hands of the insurgency would be a greater mistake. :sniper: :sniper: 
But Democrats' position on Iraq, no matter what they told people when they were running for the election last week...hasn't changed. The policy is the same: cut and run.

With Bush a lame duck in the White House...we'll no doubt wind up pursuing a policy of 'cut and run lite.' You know, where all the troops leave and some of them stay. :roll:

Nothing would make the Islamic terrorists in Baghdad happier. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is no army on earth our military is not capable of defeating. With politically correct ideals introduced into the battle field there is no military on earth we can defeat. Our military is not the problem, we are defeated before we begin with liberal weakness. They have a permanent case of Stockholm syndrome.

Terrorists are rejoicing in the streets.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

No, lets send more troops and more weapons and kill a bunch more Iraqi's and insurgents who want to go to Iraq and kill americans because they conveniently come to the neighborhood. It is too big of a job so the quicker we get out and let the Iraqi's try to govern Iraq which by the way has about been about impossible for the last .000's of years. But the republicans know it can be done in the next...years. The Kurds, Sunnis and ****es will live happily ever after with Syrian and Iranian neighbors to help them in their time of need after the americans leave. Sounds like a plan to me. And where is the rest of the free world? Well if they are republican they should be right there to support "THE PLAN." Let's give them hell boys! Or wait a minute, if we kill them I guess it is heaven!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Excuse me Rooster for expecting serious dialogue rather than sarcasm. Too much to ask?
Perhaps you misinterpreted my previous post as sarcasm. In that light let me seriously ask you why was it ok for Clinton to send troops where he did, but for Bush it is wrong. Also, liberal groups want us to go to the Sudan. I can't see where this is the war on terror, and do we have any business there? I can see where the UN should help solve the problem, but the last time they went to Africa they turned 12 year old girls into prostitutes.


----------



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

DJRooster said:


> No, lets send more troops and more weapons and kill a bunch more Iraqi's and insurgents who want to go to Iraq and kill americans because they conveniently come to the neighborhood. It is too big of a job so the quicker we get out and let the Iraqi's try to govern Iraq which by the way has about been about impossible for the last .000's of years. But the republicans know it can be done in the next...years. The Kurds, Sunnis and ****es will live happily ever after with Syrian and Iranian neighbors to help them in their time of need after the americans leave. Sounds like a plan to me. And where is the rest of the free world? Well if they are republican they should be right there to support "THE PLAN." Let's give them hell boys! Or wait a minute, if we kill them I guess it is heaven!!


Yea, if we leave the only people that will distroy terrorist on their home field is the Isrealis. The terrorist will without a doubt be here in the U.S. blowing up stuff and providing you with the terror as seen on TV that's happen in Iraq.
The liberals remind me of bad parents; that give in to a crying child just so they don't have to here the crying! Then the child is burned by the hot iron and cries twice as much as they would have had the parents done their job in the first place.
Get ready to get BURNED rooster boy!
Your probally anti-Isreal too if your for protection of the terrorist :eyeroll:
I'm just glad after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor the Citizens of this country realize we were in a war to preserve our liberty and didn't quit till the threat was removed as we should today :******:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Those damn liberals want us to go to the Sudan! Now where did you come up with that one??


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

DJ,
Ever watch C-Span????????????????


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I think we should of already went to the Sudan, they need our help, why we stand by and watch genocide is beyond me.

And I'm obviously not a liberal, on this issue.

The UN cannot do anything they are a bad and very corrupt paper tiger


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe we should be there Bob, but I would rather take care of those who threaten our security first. First things first. Also, the rest of the world likes to hate us, but in the same hypocritical breath expect us to be first to the rescue. I think we should only go to the Sudan if other nations also go. They should commit the same number of troops, and the same amount financially. That or no go. They all need to put up or shut up.

If we do go the amount of money se spend should be taken from our contributions to the United Nations. After all doing nothing (like the UN) should cost them nothing.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

We should go there ruthlessly kill the bad guys and anyone else that gets in our way and tell them and the Government of Sudan if anyone else bothers those poor people we will be back for them next with no mercy.

Then if they test us we should do it.

It really is that simple, evil only respects might. Its like the bully on the playground if you kicked his *** that was the end of it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If the liberals would let us actually fight to win a war I would agree with you Bob. You do know what would happen as soon as we shoot one bad guy. Or perhaps one of the women in our armed forces might abuse one of those tough guys and the liberals would see him as a victim. I'm sure we could capture someone guilty of butchering a thousand people and if someone slapped him while interrogating him the liberals would call for imprisonment of the American soldier . We better tuck our tails while the liberals are in power. I can't see sending our soldiers into harms way with their hands tied ----- again.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If we had a president that was actually a conservative and didn't want to get along with the dam liberals we wouldn't have the press embedded with our troops.

Then we could kick the hell out of them and not worry about what the PC croud thought.

You are right about one thing if your not going to fight to win and do what it takes then we should stay out of it.

Unfortuately the islamists will bring it to us sooner or later and then we will have a much bloodier fight, the Iranians have nukes, weapons grade plutonium was found today, and the missles to deliver it, their president has stated that he thinks the end of the world is near, that Isreal is going to be destroyed. Most Americans don't even know it, and could tell you anything about world politics other than what the head in the sand talking heads on ABCCBSNBC tell them .

We are a bunch of fat politically stupid people that are more interested in pro football than the fact that a madman wants to kill us and now has nukes, go figure. :roll: .

And to top it off our congress *that does know this pretends not to know *so they can jockey for political power and the wealth and prestige associated with it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We are a bunch of fat politically stupid people that are more interested in pro football than the fact that a madman wants to kill us and now has nukes, go figure. .
> 
> And to top it off our congress that does know this pretends not to know so they can jockey for political power and the wealth and prestige associated with it.


Your 100% correct and I am afraid millions will die in a nuke attack before these stupid Americans come to their sense. I am afraid it will take a huge disaster to awaken America and get the football couch potatoes to open their eyes. We have become a nation of ignorant pansies, led by power crazy, gutless, corrupt politicians.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm said:


> If we had a president that was actually a conservative and didn't want to get along with the dam liberals


Bobm

Keep in mind the Notion of ... "Campaigne Promises"

"Uniter, not a divider."

I find it hard to see that we did not get what we voted for ...

especially once you realize no one figured on 911


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Bobm said:


> We are a bunch of fat politically stupid people that are more interested in pro football than the fact that a madman wants to kill us and now has nukes, go figure. :roll: ..


I am oh so happy to see you acknowlede that the real problem is ...

"We the People"

As a side note ... I personally clamor for the NBA ... Laker fan ... Gotta-Love Kobe Briant, Lamar Odom and crew

And I absolutely adore my Hot Rods


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Bobm said:


> We should go there ruthlessly kill the bad guys and anyone else that gets in our way and tell them and the Government of Sudan if anyone else bothers those poor people we will be back for them next with no mercy.
> 
> Then if they test us we should do it.
> 
> It really is that simple, evil only respects might. Its like the bully on the playground if you kicked his a$$ that was the end of it.


Very nobel of you, but take the S of your chest and put away your cape for a minute and ask yourself, what's is in it for us. "Dead Americans" thats the only thing thats in it for us just like Iraq. To care for other humans is normal but we still live in the jungle, we still just gotta watch out for #1. In my opinion most Americans could give a Damn about Sudan, Iraq or any other country for that matter, I am one of those Americans, let them fight their own wars and bleed their own blood.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If you were correct in your assumption they would fight there own wars and not involve us here I would be all for it.

But since they already have come here and killed 3000 civilians and have stated that they intend to kill all of us if they get a chance we need to deal with it. Our military is more than capable of doing so if we can get over the PC idea that killing innocent bystanders is not acceptable.
Its not good but it is a consequence of battle.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Bobm said:


> the PC idea that killing innocent bystanders is not acceptable.
> .


That may happen, right after Jessica Simpson shows up at my front door with a 6 pack, a pizza and a doctors note diagnosis for acute nymphomania. :-?

Sad truth is it will just take more dead Americans before we will do what is needed.


----------



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

> Sad truth is it will just take *more dead Americans before we will do what is needed.*





> September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., *killing all 45 people on board*. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible *death toll close to 5,000*, while *as many as 200 people *may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.
> 
> Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, *killing 17 sailors and injuring 39*.
> 
> ...


Your right the *Sad truth is it will just take more dead Americans before we will do what is needed. * 
uke:


----------

