|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 13, 2008 14:51:23 GMT -5
Keep laughing.
We're reloading.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 13, 2008 14:56:18 GMT -5
Exit strategy, what a joke. A new term for people unwilling to sacrifice one iota for people who are under the yoke of tyranny. Now that we are near accomplishing everything in Iraq that we set out accomplish, the very issues you were so worried about became non-issues.
And, I am not sure if you have been paying any attention, but congress is doing a far worse job now that the control has shifted across the isle. Bush has nearly double the approval rating of congress.
The success in Iraq is obvious to those who are actually paying attention, rather then parroting a party line. But, you want instant gratification, just like you get at McDonalds. Well, war is not like fast food, on demand movies or instant stock quotes. It is a fluid, dynamic event that changes quickly and requires continuous evaluation.
Never forget, he who laughs last, laughs best. An exit time has been set, attacks are down and Iraq is on the road to recovery. They will become economically viable in a far shorter time then Vietnam did, the other war that was run by political strife. It will be irrefutable proof of what we can achieve by sticking with them, when compared to the abandonment strategy embraced by the gutless no war crowd that would watch their own children be led to slaughter rather then lift a finger in aggression.
Wake up and smell the coffee saunterelle, you don't know what you are talking about. That is why you argue with talking points, rather then looking at what history has already shown us about strength and weakness.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 13, 2008 15:04:43 GMT -5
I note in Saunterelle's 11:55 reply that he completely avoids any of the points and facts raised in my detailed response, but instead changes the topic and drives off in a completely different direction.
What's the matter... can't argue the matter without somehow dragging "Bush Lied" in to it?
So, in the interest of dragging the thread back on topic..... it should be noted that perhaps Madame Speaker needs the money? She's only sold 5000 copies of her book since it's release.
Yeah... that socialist doctrine she peddles is a real winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 13, 2008 15:11:04 GMT -5
Addressing your points would mean talking instead of shouting.
Not very likely, but fun to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 14, 2008 23:46:58 GMT -5
Then call me when we start fighting wars based on accurate intelligence with experienced leaders and a solid plan that includes an exit strategy. are you saying that the intelligence agreed upon by the UN, many western world leaders, and the US congress was not accurate? are you saying that gen. tommy franks and his colleagues were not experienced leaders? you don't know jack when it comes to leadership and it shows in your posts. exit strategy? did we have an exit strategy in WWII? we had a plan to kick the enemy's ass repeatedly until they were vanquished. the same plan should be adhered to in iraq and afghanistan how many did we go thru during the clinton years when we weren't fighting a war? (except for that little kosovo thing that no one seems to remember, right?) turnover is natural. i left the service during the war. people retire and move on to other things. get over it. exactly who is laughing at america? please name the names. in your mind you think that people are laughing at the stupid americans but in reality they yearn to be like us. still they brave the desert heat to get here. still they drift across shark infested waters on rickety make-shift rafts on the hopes of touching the dry land in florida. the world would be a sad, sad place without america. foreigners know that although they don't always show their appreciation. have you ever travelled outside your little bubble, santurelle? have you ever left the bay area? i get the feeling you haven't. most people who talk smack about america typically have never seen anything outside of a 100 mile radius of their hometown. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 15, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -5
How is continuing to enable a thread hijack advancing the discussion on point in this thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 15, 2008 15:08:36 GMT -5
Perhaps we should hear from some of our friends out in Oklahoma. Rep. Tom Cole can give us some real insight into the inner workings of the House, and why Pelosi went on vacation, rather then bringing the energy bill to a vote. Here is the story for you to read. |
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 16, 2008 19:02:38 GMT -5
Wind power is destined to fail. The acreage that is required for the windmills is to great for the return. Now, if you could somehow put windmills on floating platforms and put them off our coast, then you might have something. Until then, wind is a pipe dream. Really? 27 high yield wind area have been recognized in the United States with at least 13 of them in the Gulf of Mexico near Louisianna and Galveston Texas. ________________________ Inherit the Wind The Gulf Coast is littered with the carcasses of unused oil equipment. Now those structures are being repurposed to build the first offshore wind farm in the United States. By John Geoghegan The port of Iberia has never been busier. Situated on a narrow canal leading to the Louisiana coastline, the docks here throb with the sound of tugboats towing oil platforms to and from their anchorages in the Gulf of Mexico. When a drilling site is depleted, the platforms return to port; the docks are littered with rusting steel hulks waiting for their next run. In December, though, one of these platforms, stripped and refurbished by a local startup, returned to sea with a new mission. The first of a flotilla to come, it carried wind-monitoring equipment as well as radar for tracking migratory birds. Those that follow will be topped not by drilling rigs but by windmills. The turbines are bound for an 18-square-mile area roughly 10 miles off the coast of Galveston, Texas, where the first offshore wind farm in the US is under construction. That’s right: The flower of sustainable energy is blooming in oil country. Get ready for the Great Texas Wind Rush. www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/wind.htmlwww.windenergypartners.biz/offshorewind.html________________________ As for Queen Nancy, her agenda was made quite clear when she stated that her responsibility lies first with "Saving the Planet." "With fewer than 20 legislative days before the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1, the entire appropriations process has largely ground to a halt because of the ham-handed fighting that followed Republican attempts to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. And after promising fairness and open debate, Pelosi has resorted to hard-nosed parliamentary devices that effectively bar any chance for Republicans to offer policy alternatives. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.” “I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.” ] www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12122.html |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 16, 2008 23:04:58 GMT -5
Her real agenda should have been to impeach bush!  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 16, 2008 23:41:10 GMT -5
Her real agenda should have been to impeach bush! [/quote No, her real agenda should be to uphold the constitution. She should try reading it at least once. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 17, 2008 0:16:08 GMT -5
No, her real agenda should be to uphold the constitution. She should try reading it at least once. Yeah, huh? Especially since she's been swearing an oath to uphold and defend it every two years or so for the past couple of decades. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 17, 2008 14:27:41 GMT -5
Her real agenda should have been to impeach bush! [/quote No, her real agenda should be to uphold the constitution. She should try reading it at least once. In that case, they (Congress) all need to re-read the Constitution, including the pres. and his admin. |
|
