Well, I certainly hope your brother stays safe and in one piece. I don't know why, or even how, you could view 'killing all the insurgents' as victory and at the same time say the troops safety is in your best interest. That's all I'm saying.

I never said we had to kill all the insurgents, only that time is on our side because insurgents only do what they do in order to make things hard for politicians at home.

How can you possibly say that time is on your side with dozens of soldiers and innocent people dying on a daily basis?

Very easily. Next question, please.

Taking him to the Hague probably wouldn't have reflected well on the state of Iraq's legal framework thing-o.

Also if the US removes from its war, wouldn't the Saudis have something to say if Iran organised a Shiite governance for Iraq? They surely wouldn't let Iran annex Iraq. Can't really see your domino paranoia having quite the forecast effect, NP.

Because he doesn't have to deal with it.

Alternately, he forgets how passionate people - yes, even insurgents - can be when it comes to making things difficult for politicians they don't agree with.

It's a weird argument, all told. Saying that time is on our side, but then saying that we have to stick it out to the long, bitter end. No wonder he's against a timetable, that would mean making a strategy and sticking with it.

There you go with the strawman argument bullshit, lurker.

I have nothing against developing a workable strategy for victory (because the current one is shit), but what I do have a problem with is "Ok, we're going to keep troops there until May 1st 2007 and then we're going to leave, regardless of the situation" - which is what the Democrats want.

Back to the boxer analogy - it's like telling the other boxer that if you don't knock him out by the 5th round that you're going to throw in the towel. He then knows that to win, all he has to do is survive until the 6th round, at which time you will give up. He really doesn't even have to fight you anymore once he knows this - he can just cover up and absorb your blows, doing everything he can to prevent you from knocking him out.

But if he knows that you're coming after him full force until you put him on the ground for the knockout, then he doesn't have that option. At some point, he knows he's going to have to have to actually beat you because you won't give up.

i don't believe you have the authority to make such a statement on behalf of a group which you are not a part of. democrats, in fact, do not think as a collective. here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe about democrats and a proposed plan to move out of iraq:
there are democrats who may think of date-based deadlines as important, and there are others that think more of goal-based deadlines.

but, no matter his determination, if his body gives out, he's going to get knocked down.

I don't give a shit what you believe. This is the policy the Democrats want and by and large, the leadership of the Democratic Party, which is overwhelmingly anti-American and socialist in their ideologies, wants America to immediately begin to draw down troop levels regardless of the level of progress in Iraq.

Even though the newly elected Democrats in Congress are more centrists, the people who hold the power are these ultra-liberals who want to make America weaker.

troop withdrawal, even phased withdrawal won't work in the present situation, and everyone knows it. We learned it from vietnam

Jack Murtha
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Dick Durbin
Howard Dean

All of them hold positions that support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. There are likely more.

how adult of you

i just showed this to be untrue.

i love it. anti-american. that term is utterly ridiculous to be applied to anyone who is elected and represents the opinions and views of AMERICANS (at least those of a plurality of the election voters)

i don't understand this point of view -- why would ANYONE who lives and works for the promotion of america want to make it weaker.

No, you haven't. You showed that some unknown, unnamed quantity of Democrats want a more goal-based approach to withdrawing troops from Iraq. However, nearly every Democrat in Congress that holds a position of power (Minority Leader, Minority Whip, etc.) or has a prominent name in the media supports withdrawing from Iraq regardless of progress because they believe the war is a lost cause.

Whether or not these people were elected has zero bearing on whether or not they are anti-American or not. And by and large, the Democratic Party supports an agenda that will weaken the United States economically and geopolitically, which can't be construed as anything less than Anti-American.

You don't understand it because you falsely assume that the Democratic Party in the United States actually lives and works for the promotion of America.

well, at this point, i'm realizing that your views are such that they cannot be changed because you won't allow them to be.

all i want to say is that, though you may disagree with democrats (as i sometimes do with them, and almost always do with republicans), anti-american is just plain the wrong word. are they wrong? maybe. are they not considering all the facts? maybe. are they deliberately sabotaging our government? if they are, they aren't following the most basic democratic principles.

Would "pro-peace" be a better word than anti-American?
I think it would, anti-American implies some kind of treason. Pro-peace sounds more like what the Democrats are.

No, Pro-Peace would not be a better word than Anti-American because it does not accurately describe the blatant refusal to even acknowledge who the enemies of the country are, let alone fight them.

I guess we can all agree that we all just want the war to be over and those whom are responsible are punished for it

Although I hate to admit it, public opinion does seem to have an influence on politicians. Even if the democrats control the cognress, they simply caN,t systematically oppose Bush because he is Bush. Furthermkore, if they really weaken they economy, as you pretend they will, then they will get kicked out in 2 years

I'm curious: does the recall procedure exist on the federal level?

See, you're wrong because the Democrats can (and have) oppose Bush simply because he is Bush - that's been their de facto policy since 2001 when Bush took office.

The 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections were elections where the Democrats ran on a platform of "We're not Bush." This is what the Democratic majority in Congress is built upon - opposing George W. Bush.

And the policies the Democrats advocate WILL weaken the economy significantly but they will in turn blame the weakening on Bush because he is still in office and push for even higher tax increases and even more gov't spending.

And no, there is no such thing as a 'federal recall.'

but while they were in the opposition, they had the easy game since they were in minority. However, now that they are in power... I have some doubt on whether they will continuously oppose BUsh or not. We shall see

yes, they may have capitalize on the "we're not bush" slogan, but once in power, things prove to be difference:eyebrow:

Of course they will continuously oppose Bush - it's why they were elected. Incoming Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid see it as their mandate - anything Bush wants to do will be frustrated at every possible opportunity.

Dark days are ahead for America under Democratic leadership in the terrorism age.

Which will make my national debut album, Dark America, all that more relevant when it hits shelves next September.

Well, I say "good riddance", although I have a nagging suspicion that it won't happen. But maybe it will...

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4919878

They're saying he will be hanged by tomorrow, the latest. I just hope there's a video of it on Youtube. (Yeah, I'm a sick fuck)