Yes, lefties, there's been defeat regarding Iraq...defeat of the Dhimmocrats

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by Karl K, Oct 2, 2007.

  1. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    Yes sir...that Murtha, that Harry "I am not an assistant vice principal but I sure do look like one" Reid...David "Hoo Boy Netroots!!" Obey...they were all gonna put the kabosh on ol' W and Iraq...

    After all, we had LOST...

    But gee, it's October, and budget time, and guess who has REALLY lost??

    Yes, you guessed it...the Dhimms...really lost.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071002/ts_afp/usiraqfunding

    For those at home keeping score, the bill passed overwhelmingly, 92-3, after some feeble attempts to stop it. Only Robert Byrd, Tom Coburn, and Russ Feingold opposed.

    And, guess what? The Senate Democrats running for President all managed to miss the vote -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chrsi Dodd, and Joe Biden.

    As the Church Lady might say..."How conveeeeeenient!!!"
     
  2. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    So with that extra $128 Billion what's the total spend so far on Iraq and Afghanistan? Looks to me like the biggest losers in this debacle are the American tax-payers
     
  3. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    The $128 billion is "supplemental." All additional budget items are considered supplemental if they are not part of the long term cycle. And the Afghan and Iraq wars WILL end.

    Meanwhile, the US budget is $2.9 TRILLION. TRillion. $128 billion is about 4.5% of the budget.

    As a cost to destroy al Qaeda, implement a Democracy in the volatile Middle East, it's cheap at the price.
     
  4. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    You didn't answer the question.

    How does the cost-benefit analysis stack up on that supplemental fund compared to what else could be achieved with that sum of money (not even considering the historical sums that have been pumped into funding this war)?

    "Destroy al Qaeda"? Not being funny but that's a pretty delusional comment
     
  5. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What's delusional is the idea that al Queda is not being destroyed.

    Not only has their command cadre been virtually wiped out and their personnel been decimated but, what is more important, what is MOST important, is that their reputation as a ferocious fighting force in the eyes of the Islamic world is being destroyed.

    Now if you had the slightest inkling of what middle eastern culture was like, you'd understand that being strong and winning is everything. And al Queda gathered a lot of their support and admirers simply because they looked like winners.

    Now, not only are they geting their asses kicked by America, they're also gettting their ases kicked by Sunni arabs (and Shiites) in an Islamic country in the middle east.

    You see - try to follow along; perhaps if you use a finger you can sound out the big words - this is a terrorism war. And terrorism does not try to win on the battlefield. In fact, it's an admission that they CAN'T win on the battlefield.

    Rather, it's an attempt to win propaganda points. And of course, in this case, al Queda is fighting their war primarily in the US Senate. No, that is not an exaggeration.

    Up until recently, they were winning this war, both on the arab street and in the US Senate, thanks to people just like you who were being used in exactly the way al Queda intends. Congratulations.

    But now, all of a sudden, they are losing. What's more, it's not just America that they're losing to, which is bad enough - their whole appeal is based on their invicibility and the certainty that America has no guts for a fight and will run away. bin Laden based the entire movement on that certainty.

    But NOW they're getting kicked around by the Iraqis, who are more and more the ones responsible or them getting killed over there. So suddenly, other arab people are seeing that they are not invincible, not inevitable, they are frauds and they can be beaten.

    And freind, that is not just losing - that, for al Queda, is the end of the game. WIthout their myths, particularly the ones the American left has tried so hard to salvage - aQ is done.

    Best use of money the US has had in a long time. If it had cost TEN TIMES as much, it would have been money well spent. Hell of a bargain as far as I',m concerned.

    And please,dear Lord, tell me you're not naive enough to belive that the money would have been better spent by the US government. Or, conversely, tell me what it WOULD have benen spent on, since last I looked they're spending like drunks on everything in sight. No programs are going wanting for lack of funds.

    It's just another leftist lie that "we could have given everyone in th country a masters degree" or "we could have paid everyone's helth care bill" or "we could have built 10,000 schools" with that same money.

    That's childish, silly prattle.

    Because, the money was not going to be spent on any of those things, was it? Yes, theoretically I can come up with a long, long list of things that money could buy.

    But in the real world, the one inhabited by realistic, grown up humans with a least a little bit of a goddam clue, we know that none of that would have happened.
     
  6. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    Really? So if the current progress in Iraq continues then al Qaeda is just going to disappear in a puff of smoke? All of the members/followers in Pakistan and Saudi are going to roll-over and see the West as a truly enlightened region and without any need for conversion and submission to a caliphate?

    That's weak sauce Bill

    So al Qaeda has fewer followers now than at the start of the Iraq/Afghan war? Link please

    As to the condescending lecture on the middle-east? Try again, I've spent the last 7 years doing business in the middle east and I understand the culture perfectly well thank you. The loss of "face" is going to hurt them but they've never sold themselves as a traditional army capable of taking on the US armed forces in a head-to-head fight. They "won" the battle when they baited the US into going in all guns blazing into Iraq.

    Then why do you seem to be claiming they are going to be destroyed by their actions on the battlefield?

    How exactly am I being used? You know nothing about me other than the 5 sentences I've written in this thread. You assumed a great deal before you went on this misguided diatribe - maybe next time you'll do me the courtesy of clarifying my views and the basis for them before you make the next ignorant suite of assumptions.

    This I disagree with - my opinion is that bin Laden was looking to bait the US into attacking and in that he succeeded. Where he misjudged is in the ferocity of the reaction to it by the larger middle-east region - he was looking to ignite the tinderbox and he appears to have failed so far, what his next/al Qaeda's next step is we don't know. I have a feeling he may try a major terrorist incident to counter the loss of face he's suffered.

    On this I can agree, politicians rarely spend money in the right way for the greater good but this war has placed a fiscal burden on the US which the next administration (whether rep or dem) could have done without.
     
  7. Bill Archer

    Bill Archer BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 19, 2002
    Washington, NC
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only if you're determined not to pay attention.

    I'd respond, but your last sentence is snotty, snarky and simply ridiculous, unless you can cite for me someone - literally ANYONE, EVER - who has suggested, implied or intimated that anyone in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia "are going to roll-over and see the West as a truly enlightened region and without any need for conversion and submission to a caliphate?"

    This is, however, a wonderful example of why I don't debate with leftists very much: you all seem to feel that sarcasm is the same as proving a point.

    Define "followers".

    One thing I can say for a fact: they have a lot more DEAD followers than they did. I for one consider this a good thing. Apparently you disagree?

    When speaking to the simple, one has to use small words.

    Ah yes, the all important "I am an expert and can't be argued with" meme which is at the heart of every leftwing argument.

    Thank you.

    Absurd construct. If I were going to argue like you do, I'd interject "link please" right here.

    But instead I'll just say that you have just contradicted every leftist argument about Iraq:

    IF in fact Iraq and al Queda had no connections whatever (as you would surely claim) and there were NO al Queda armed forces in Iraq in 2004, and if in fact, as you would also surely claim, Saddam Hussein and al Queda - being the secular and the Wahabbist ends of the spectrum, and thus, as the left has been telling us for four years, mortal enemies - had no relationship whatever, then how and why would they have "baited" us into Iraq to fight them? According to you, they weren't even there.

    They're not 'going to be destroyed by their actions on the battlefield"

    They're going to be destroyed by OUR actions on the battlefield. In fact, that's what's happening right now, and it's simply undeniable, as much as you wish it weren't true.

    Does this mean that al Queda will disappear off the Earth? Surely not. But they WILL disappear from Iraq, which will be an enormous blow to ther previous aura of invincibility. Which you yourself admit is crucial, really key, to their appeal in the Islamist world.

    By doing exactly what al Queda prays every day that you will do. It's patently obvious.

    I don't think there's much doubt about your "views", and furthermore, this being MY forum, I wll go ahead and make all the goddam "assumptions" I want. If you want to prove me wrong, have at it. But I won't be lectured to.

    1) bin Laden is dead

    2) Why would he believe that, by attacking the World Trade center, that it would result in the US invading Iraq? According to you, Bolivia was about as likely.

    Well there's a good bet. Another spectacular bloodletting, thousands of dead bodies, suffering and death, for his allies in the western media and the US Senae to use as ammunition to try and force the US to stop hurting him.

    Thanks, but I can make my own points. Don't really need that much help.

    But which the democrats will use as an excuse to raise taxes. Of course, they will raise taxes regardless of the excuse. They just like taxes.
     
  8. Prawn Sandwich

    Oct 1, 2003
    Bhutan
    So is al Qaeda being destroyed or not? The point I'm clearly making is that the Iraq war will do no such thing - they will undoubtedly be weaker than they were 6 months ago but still stronger than before the Afghan/Iraq war. If this war isn't going to change the perceptions of the mass un-educated in Pakistan etc then AQ isn't going to be destroyed. This isn't rocket science

    As to my being "snotty, snarky and simply ridiculous" - well, you set the tone, I just responded in kind. Maybe you should consider that if you want respectful posts next time.

    Do you usually use such patently obvious strawmen?

    They do have a lot of dead followers and generally I think it's a good thing (other than bemoaning what could have become of these people if their lives weren't wasted as the pawns of two opposite ideologies), however I also believe that there are more live followers today than there was before Iraq.

    Thanks for the advice, I'll keep it monosyllabic from now on so you can keep up

    You mean compared with your "I'm an expert and can't be argued with" diatribe? Hypocrite much?

    As a point of interest what exactly is your regular exposure to the middle-eastern culture?

    You're welcome - care to show me where I claimed otherwise?

    My bad, I meant that he had baited the US into military action in the middle-east as a consequence of 9/11. Iraq was the icing on the cake as it were for bin Laden.

    You can't kill an ideology by military means alone. If you could Israel would be at peace with Lebanon and the Palestinians now.

    Would you say the US is more or less popular now in the middle-east (particularly with the average Joe Bloggs in the street) compared to before the Iraq war?

    Whether they disappear from Iraq or not, IMO, is still up for grabs and largely depends on the final outcome of this war. Lets wait and see if the recent turnaround in events continues and what becomes of Iraq and the attempt to introduce democracy before we make definitive statements. I hope you're right but it's too early to tell

    And that is?

    My views are my own but I believe you are mis-judging me somewhat in appearing to label me as a "leftist". I do hold many left-leaning views (especially in regards to the futility of war outside of truly the last resort) but I'm conservative in many aspects as well.

    1) I must have missed that on the news

    2) As explained earlier, the baiting I had meant to refer to was to the middle-east as a whole - not Iraq.

    I have no issue with the US going after him - I do have an issue with the US being side-lined into Iraq at the expense of the hunt for bin Laden. That was a critical mistake in my mind - if Bush had wanted to go in to Iraq for whatever his reasons were then fine but take care of AQ business first.

    Having lived under ten years of Tony Blair I have a certain sympathy for your viewpoint - I don't mind paying higher taxes as long as they're used properly to benefit the greater good of society, it's a shame they never are.

    One final point - I'm happy to carry on slinging around the insults and the belittling asides that you instigated but I'd much rather continue this discussion in a civil manner. You're better than that Bill
     

Share This Page