COWARDS GIVE UP ON GIS - & GIVE IN TO EVIL

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
I think you 2 are in a bit of a misunderstanding. You both are very reasonable I hope you resolve it.

I'm confused about this Peters guy - he seems to contradict himself. If he's been bashing the administration on Iraq then, by his own definition, he too has been aiding the enemy. I also have a problem with him basically sounding alarmist and very unprofessional. He should stick to Cold War novels instead of this instigating style journalism.
 

JT

Degenerate
Forum Member
Mar 28, 2000
3,592
81
48
60
Ventura, Ca.
Unimpressive article. Send 50,000. The inevitable will happen, a Islamic Yugoslavia. Just like some of us here predicted awhile back. Go get 'em George!
 

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,055
1,343
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
oh i see....because he writes for the ny post that makes him non-credible. i get it.

do me a favor & list all of the newspapers that you think are credible so this way i'll make sure that i just read those.

also while you're at it...check a thread that i think kosar started about a column that peter's wrote being highly critical of the bush administration.you'll see that he is not just one sided....

no...gmroz...

you're just as narrow minded as you accuse gw & dtb of being....

i think you should wake up & read other things than the left leaning newspapers & web sites....

and btw i'm probably more open minded on issues than you are......no go back to bashing christianity...you'll make all of the liberals proud that you're one of them.

AR: I apologize for trying to discredit your point and this source. It is now apparent that I was in the wrong. I still think that my logic was justified, but the facts about Peters refute what seemed pretty obvious. Projecting quotes on groups isn't a characteristic of writers I find trustworthy.

Unlike DTB and Weasel, I am willing to take my medicine when I'm proven wrong. Perhaps I should have just changed the subject....seems to work for them. :SIB

I don't read liberal blogs or left-leaning web-sites or newspapers for my info...unless Yahoo is considered one of them.

I have never bashed Christianity, but I have spoken out against the radicals.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
AR: I apologize for trying to discredit your point and this source. It is now apparent that I was in the wrong. I still think that my logic was justified, but the facts about Peters refute what seemed pretty obvious. Projecting quotes on groups isn't a characteristic of writers I find trustworthy.

Unlike DTB and Weasel, I am willing to take my medicine when I'm proven wrong. Perhaps I should have just changed the subject....seems to work for them. :SIB

I don't read liberal blogs or left-leaning web-sites or newspapers for my info...unless Yahoo is considered one of them.

I have never bashed Christianity, but I have spoken out against the radicals.


no problem gmroz.....it's a very important issue in today's world....i apologize also if i can off too strong....let's move on.....& hope that "our leaders" finally get it right.

and for the record.....i don't read any newspapers on a regular basis. i still check the post & the ny daily news every day because i still follow some ny teams & like their sports sections.if i have time i check the headlines in some of the different newspapers & if a headline grabs my attention, i will then read the article.
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Wow some of the smartest guys I ever had the pleasure of debating. But I can't believe some things that have been said in this thread.
I just think so many have forgotten Why we went to Iraq in first place. Forget if right or wrong. Or that our intelligences was good. Or that we may have been lied to. But we went there not as nation builders. They wanted Saddam. Got Him. They wanted WMD. Got Them if you can even call them that. Wanted elections. Done. So why We still there. No one really knows. Story changes every week or for sure every month. So American public spoke in November. That vote was based on mission complete. If Iraq's want go back to there past and kill each other. That's not our business. Afghanistan everyone understands and stands behind what has to be done.
But name calling should not be part of decent for Iraq. If anyone anyone would have been more truth full to start with it might have helped.
And we did are job in Iraq.
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
By the way, speaking of cowards...which branch of the armed service was Dick Cheney??????????????

And another opportunist piece of chit, SEAN HANNITY, what branch of the armed service did he contribute too????????


QUESTION: What man has over 400,000 Haliburton Stock Options ?

Is there any corporate cronysm that is the real cause of this war ????????

AND are there any people that really believe Gorge Bush's ( story changes by the minute)Battle Cry for democracy in IRAQ. If you still believe that mr Bush's concern was genuine, then you need serious help. Although many of the Bush hardliners prefer to blame this MESS on democrats.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
for the 3rd time in this thread--and still with no answers---

What part of thread was incorrect and why?

Been out of the country and not online for 5 days, so just getting back in the swing.

This snippet gave me quite a chuckle. I'm pretty confident that in the 8 years of posting with Wayne, he has never, not once, specifically listed anything in any article presented that he disagreed with.

Most of the time he doesn't read anything from any source that he deems 'liberal.' He sees the author, maybe chimes in with a 'liberal blog' comment, does a google and provides links to 'prove' how biased the author is, ignores the article all together, and moves on.

So I thought is was pretty ironic that he's badgering everybody for rebuttals. Nothing more. Carry on.

BTW- I like Peters and read him often in the NY Post. I think he's credible in general, but the shrill, almost hyper tone of this article reads badly.

I believe the main objective of the non-binding vote was to get something going in the senate which would be a first. Open debate about Iraq. (gasp!)
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Well, for starters, here's one lefty that will step forth and argue the point made in the story that congress feels that "you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

Nah, nothing opinionated and incorrect about that comment. I must have missed that verbiage in the resolution...

If this were a Wayne response, that would be immediate grounds for dismissal of the entire article without further discussion.

:rolleyes:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Been out of the country and not online for 5 days, so just getting back in the swing.



So I thought is was pretty ironic that he's badgering everybody for rebuttals. Nothing more. Carry on.



As sad as it is to admit this its exactly why i didn't answer him. I was hoping he would have asked a fourth time. Its kinda funny when you want him to answer a question you have to put it in a thread all by itself and then every one has to shame him into it.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
i agree that this is a mistake & a perfect reason why i won't vote for a democrat....

by Ralph Peters

February 17, 2007 --

PROVIDING aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. It's not "just politics." It's treason.

And signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win isn't "supporting our troops."

The "nonbinding resolution" telling the world that we intend to surrender to terrorism and abandon Iraq may be the most disgraceful congressional action since the Democratic Party united to defend slavery.

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

The message Congress just sent to them all was, "Hold on, we'll stop the surge, we're going to leave - and you can slaughter the innocent with our blessing."

We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage.

Yes, some members voted their conscience. But does anyone believe they were in the majority?

This troop surge might not work. We can't know yet. But we can be damned sure that the shameful action taken on the Hill while our troops are fighting isn't going to help.

And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual.

This resolution has teeth, though: It's going to bite our combat commanders. By undermining their credibility and shaking the trust of their Iraqi counterparts, it makes it far tougher to build the alliances that might give Iraq a chance.

If you were an Iraqi, would you be willing to trust Americans and risk your life after the United States Congress voted to abandon you?

Now that Donald Rumsfeld's gone, the Democrats are doing just what they pilloried the former Secretary of Defense for doing: Denying battlefield commanders the troops and resources they need.

Congresswoman Pelosi, have you no shame?

As a former soldier who still spends a good bit of time with those in uniform, what infuriates me personally is the Doublespeak, Stalin-Prize lie that undercutting our troops and encouraging our enemies is really a way to "support our troops."

As for bringing them home, why not respect the vote the troops themselves are taking: Sustained re-enlistment rates have been at a record high.

And our soldiers and Marines know they'll go back to Iraq or Afghanistan. And no, Senator Kerry, it's not because they're too stupid to get a "real" job like yours or because they're "mercenaries." Some Americans still believe in America.

If our troops are willing to fight this bitter war, how dare Congress knife them in the back?

On Thursday night, I was in Nashville as a guest of the 506th Regimental Combat Team - with whom I'd spent all too brief a time in Baghdad.

The occasion was their welcome-home ball, complete with dress uniforms spangled with awards for bravery. Proud spouses sat beside their returned warriors.

Of course, those soldiers were glad to be home with their loved ones. But they also know they'll go back to one theater of war or another - and no one complained.

They share a value that Congress has forgotten: duty. They're willing to bear the weight of the world on their shoulders. Because they know that freedom has a price.

As you entered the ballroom for the event, the first thing you saw was a line of 34 photographs. A single white candle softly lit each frame. Those were the members of the 506th who didn't come home.

Soldiers honor their dead. It's the least Congress could do to honor the living men and women in uniform.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/18/10119/7174 this guy and people like him won't vote for a dem but they will back the right that can't even take care of the men that they send into a war zone that they have no plan for victory.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Only part I would disagree with was I think he went a little far calling them cowards--deliberate aiding and abetting of enemy would have been sufficient.

other than that, his main themes--are undisputable--

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
Only part I would disagree with was I think he went a little far calling them cowards--deliberate aiding and abetting of enemy would have been sufficient.

other than that, his main themes--are undisputable--

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

more support for the troops from this President http://network2.tv/episode/2513208/
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
oh AND LIKE BROKERING ALL THOSE SAUDI STUDENTS BY BUSH TO COME HERE IS NOT AN AL QUAEDA MORALE BOOSTER ???OR TRYING TO TURN AMERICAN PORTS OVER TO THE DUBAI SAUDIS. GET REAL

Isn't this clear support of the enemy or are you repubs in this forum in aggreement with Bush's kok and bull story about them being our allies?

BUSH SAID / DID THESE THINGS BUSH has an unfettered alliance with these Saudi Scumbags.... " you don't support our troops by supporting our enemies "

THIS MESS HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH !:scared
 
Last edited:

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Only part I would disagree with was I think he went a little far calling them cowards--deliberate aiding and abetting of enemy would have been sufficient.

other than that, his main themes--are undisputable--

The vote was a huge morale booster for al Qaeda, for Iraq's Sunni insurgents, and for the worst of the Shia militias.

You don't support our troops by supporting our enemies.

I think it's time that we call a spade a spade here. I am sick and tired of this line of thinking/commenting. Because someone has a different opinion on how best to deal with the horrible situation our country is now in because of this administration, it absolutely does not mean that our elected officials, and liberals for that matter, are supporting our enemies.

That's all I care to say here. It's just not true...it is a BS line of analogy that simply is not true. I cannot name one person in this country personally that supports our enemies (whoever the Hell they are at this point). We may not share your zealousness for supporting a false pretense and worse follow through, true, but we do not wish for the enemy to kill our people.

Time to draw a line in the proverbial sand. I've said this before, to little response. Democrats do not support terrorism. None of them. I know it sounds cool on the righty talk shows and in GW and Wayne's posts, but it simply is not true.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
Would agree Chad that they may not intentionaly support terrorism but quite obvious nearly 100% of their initiatives aid and abet terrorists/terrorisim.

I would be happy to be specific on areas including Iraq-Iran-NK-Al Queda- our troops--terrorist rights ects if you would like.

Heres the newest one Edwards just come up with yesterday--

Edwards: "Perhaps the Greatest Short-Term Threat to World Peace Is the Possibility That Israel Would Bomb Iran's Nuclear Facilities"

Ahmedinijad after hearing--:00hour
---and is there any wonder who he now supports for pres in 08 ???
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
quite obvious nearly 100% of their initiatives aid and abet terrorists/terrorisim.
such bullshit.

nothing the dems have said or done aids and abets terrorism as much as the invasion of iraq has done.

and why again do you even remotely care who ahmadenijad wants to win our elections?
 

Pujo21

Registered
Forum Member
May 14, 2002
2,772
2
0
How can anyone be in favor of any war decisions when this present administration doesn't have a clue ?? They are idiots.

Despite the fact that Hillary said something...or Bubba got a BJ...this mess was caused by bush.

This is a failed plan by the republicans...but the nation is not surprised ! Bush The Republican SCREWED this up so bad......

AND YET there are those grasping at straws in this forum trying to feebly blame dems, expounding vacant thought and babbling insanities....and then what happens when 20,000 more troops go in and 5,000 more get killed in something that can never succeed because of the total incompetance of Bush.

Then who are you Republican geniuses going to blame......


BUSH DID THIS, not hillary..not the dems.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,480
157
63
Bowling Green Ky
I hear you pujo--but
--did you hear the voters in 04
--do you listen to our troops
--did you miss the record turnouts to vote in Iraq
--did you ever hear about the other iraq--
--did you cash in on best time in your life to own home or reduce your debt with lowest interest/inflation rates in decades
--is lower taxes a non issue?
--is all time market high a non issue?
Did you find a job with the low employment rates

---or are you waiting for that minimum wage increase the Dems got you?

from one of your own--

Right now, we're in some sense in a relatively good spot," says Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington. "We're in the sixth year of an economic expansion," a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.

---does 6 years ring any bells????
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top