Only traitors do not seek victory in Iraq

[-]

I desire what is best for this country, and for the world.  You can call that victory.

I cannot evade the question, as the question does not completely address my view of the situation.


It is not WIN OR LOSE.  It is not US OR THEM.  You should not call your own country people traitors just because of how they see this war.  That's just dirty, and TRULY unpatriotic--and I don't use that word lightly.

[BigLebowski]

traitors are those who out of a visceral hate for this president, cheerlead for the enemy and use the deaths of soldiers as pawns to score political points.  traitors smear the president, this govt, industry and our troops for political gain in a time of war.  traitors are those who embrace a 9-10 world view deliberately choosing to ignore the costs of appeasement/acquiescence throughout the 90s.  traitors regale their past service and belittle service today.  

Technically a traitor must commit treason.    How does being against a war or any military involvment constitute treason?   

Now I can only assume you thought it was "traiterish" when some high ranking GOP members of congress spoke out against the war in Kosovo in the 90's?   Trent Lott and Delay to name a few. 

excellent point

You may not assume that I give a rat's buttocks about the Repubs. Thank you.

I am not assuming that, but did you condemn them as well, is the only question?   

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

I desire what is best for this country, and for the world.  You can call that victory.

I cannot evade the question, as the question does not completely address my view of the situation.


It is not WIN OR LOSE.  It is not US OR THEM.  You should not call your own country people traitors just because of how they see this war.  That's just dirty, and TRULY unpatriotic--and I don't use that word lightly.

On the contrary, Spunk, you can easily evade the question.. You just did.

[BigLebowski]

...
Do you desire a US victory or defeat in Iraq, Spunkloaf? Please do not evade. Just answer the question.

Please define victory, first?   The commander in chief still is moving the goal posts on that one,  So Mr. D, what do you mean by victory? 

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

traitors are those who out of a visceral hate for this president, cheerlead for the enemy and use the deaths of soldiers as pawns to score political points.  traitors smear the president, this govt, industry and our troops for political gain in a time of war.  traitors are those who embrace a 9-10 world view deliberately choosing to ignore the costs of appeasement/acquiescence throughout the 90s.  traitors regale their past service and belittle service today.  

Technically a traitor must commit treason.    How does being against a war or any military involvment constitute treason?   

Now I can only assume you thought it was "traiterish" when some high ranking GOP members of congress spoke out against the war in Kosovo in the 90's?   Trent Lott and Delay to name a few. 

excellent point

You may not assume that I give a rat's buttocks about the Repubs. Thank you.

I am not assuming that, but did you condemn them as well, is the only question?   

No, but I wasn't paying any attention to politics. Would I now? I doubt it. We are much more committed in Iraq than we ever were in Kosovo. We had no real interest in Kosovo. That was European security issue problem and we fixed it for them. Moreover, Obama will not lead us out of Iraq. If he is elected president because of neorotic White America we will be in Iraq throughout his term in office.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

...
Do you desire a US victory or defeat in Iraq, Spunkloaf? Please do not evade. Just answer the question.

Please define victory, first?   The commander in chief still is moving the goal posts on that one,  So Mr. D, what do you mean by victory? 

1) A stable, functioning, Iraq.

2) The defeat of AQI

[-]

I desire what is best for this country, and for the world.  You can call that victory.

I cannot evade the question, as the question does not completely address my view of the situation.


It is not WIN OR LOSE.  It is not US OR THEM.  You should not call your own country people traitors just because of how they see this war.  That's just dirty, and TRULY unpatriotic--and I don't use that word lightly.

On the contrary, Spunk, you can easily evade the question.. You just did.

Use your eyes, and possibly a brain cell or two.  I said victory.

But you also failed to define victory.

[Peter1469]

...
Do you desire a US victory or defeat in Iraq, Spunkloaf? Please do not evade. Just answer the question.

Please define victory, first?   The commander in chief still is moving the goal posts on that one,  So Mr. D, what do you mean by victory? 

1) A stable, functioning, Iraq.

2) The defeat of AQI

I would define victory as

1.   the defeat of AQI (almost done)
2.   blocking Iran from having control over Iraq; note I used the word control, not influence (done- though can be undone)
3.   maintaining a military presence of at least 3 brigade combat teams with logistical support and a couple wings of airpower in order to keep watch over the oil fields in the region until such time as we eliminate oil as a strategic resource.  And of course an Aircraft Carrier strike group in the Gulf.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

lebo  undermining our nations ability to prosecute this war while our troops are in combat is treasonous and traitorous behavior.  re kosov  this is a silly dodge and no one on the right worked to undermine our efforts once we were committed to the theatre. 
commee  still reliving the run up to iraq.  flash we're in it now and have been for some time.  the choice is to win or lose and bear the consequences attached.  this does not make you a traitor, but rather a scholar of revisionist history.  energy segue was/is silly in the context of this discussion.
spunk  i guarantee all that you enlisted the assistance of spell check to correctly spell moron, moron.   quit with your golden shower fantasies and stick to the topic. 

12:01  mr d asks a straight forward question.  "do you desire a us victory or defeat in iraq?"  lebo, commee, spunk remain unable to simply state YES

[-]

spunk  i guarantee all that you enlisted the assistance of spell check to correctly spell moron, moron.   quit with your golden shower fantasies and stick to the topic.

lol.  You probably needed to use spell check to see if I spelled it correctly, and when you found that I did spell it correctly, you proceeded to attack my grammar and spelling with suggestive scenarios that are not true.  Moron.

12:01  mr d asks a straight forward question.  "do you desire a us victory or defeat in iraq?"  lebo, commee, spunk remain unable to simply state YES

Oh, I am SOOOOOOO sorry I didn't give the answer you wanted.  PLEEEEEEEEEEEEASE forgive me, I did not mean to hurt your FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

again, still unable to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no

[OswaldTheOsprey]

again, still unable to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no

I, for one, prefer a victory of good sense-getting out of the blood soaked hell hole before the death toll gets higher.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

again, still unable to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no

I, for one, prefer a victory of good sense-getting out of the blood soaked hell hole before the death toll gets higher.

OswaldTheOsprey

Iraq is the furthest thing from a blood soaked hell that war can be. 

More people died in firebombing Tokyo in WWII than died during the entire Iraqi war. 

[OswaldTheOsprey]

again, still unable to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no

I, for one, prefer a victory of good sense-getting out of the blood soaked hell hole before the death toll gets higher.

OswaldTheOsprey

Iraq is the furthest thing from a blood soaked hell that war can be. 

More people died in firebombing Tokyo in WWII than died during the entire Iraqi war. 

It is blood soaked enough for me.

OswaldTheOsprey

[E. G. Miller]

Ah, yes; another radical conservative trying to paint the anti-war crowd as pro-terrorist and anti-American. Conservatives have been pulling this shit for years.

I am strongly for victory in the war on terror. The war in Iraq is a terrible distraction. If this administration paid attention to Afghanistan we might have captured Osama bin Laden by now. But no, it had to be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. Bin Laden is laughing his ass off in Pakistan because he knows the U.S. government won't try and capture him. We're too interested in Iraq.

We need to get our priorities straight. Withdraw from Iraq, send the troops to Afghanistan, and try to convince the Pakistani government to let us in. The latter probably won't happen because bin Laden's hand is too far up the Pakistani government's ass…