Harry and Nance Nance
Is calling the war we are currently in a failure treason to our country when spoken by members of our government? It goes beyond a freedom of speech issue.
Is trying to start talks with an enemy we are fighting against in Iraq against presidential orders treason when done by the speaker of the house?
Whether these two shit heads will ever realize it or not, but we are in a real war. The war we first got involved in when thousands of Americans died on our own soil. This is a war we can't afford to lose.
I could really go on way too long on this topic, but I think you could fill in the blanks. Simply put, these two people are going beyond, what Republicans say too often, "undermining our president," and "lessoning the value of our soldiers' lives." They are completely politically oriented, and as it stands, our country will suffer from it.
There is no room in a country with so many enemies for a Pelosi or Reid.
Paulina, what is your liberal views of those two events.
Labels: Politics
posted by Rob Turman @ 1:28 PM
18 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
You are emphatically wrong. Explain to me how this wouldn't embolden our enemies.
It would give our enemies more fight because they now believe they have won. If they believe they have won, then more Iraqis will join the Reid proclaimed winning side, which will give our troops more enemy combatants, which will lead to more American and Iraqi deaths.
The UN, Europe and America are all in a stalemate with Iran and Ackmadinijad (however you spell it)
and Nancy went over there and basically told him, "go ahead and continue breaking all those resolutions that were passed. As long as I'm in power, you're reign of terror is safe." Otherwise known as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
In my opinion, this issue goes beyond politics. For Pelosi and Reid, it doesn't. These moves are precisely political. That, Paul, is sickening.
They aren't putting our country, our troops or any other American at the forefront of their thoughts. It is strictly how to get elected. They wish to bring down our currently elected presidency by any means possible (short of brute force). The only way they can get elected is for our country to fail in Iraq and on the war on terror.
Does all that not sound like treason? "The offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign."
I know this isn't your opinion, rather an attempt to sound hip.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Most of the time, I don't. But I stand by this comment with everything I got.
Wars aren't won or lost because of idiotic politicians trying to get elected half way across the world, but when you have an idiotic politician claiming victory for the opposition, it hurts.
This stuff is simple math. More enemy soldiers equal higher death toll.
This war needs to be won and these two ass clowns are... finish thought later. Gotta work.
... doing everything they can to prevent that from happening. Their actions can and will lead directly to more American deaths. There is no way to prove it, but again, simple math.
This comment has been removed by the author.
They are more believable than saying the opposite. That validates those remarks more so than talking out of your ass and making assumptions that in no way relate to how history has seen similar situations develop.
Anyone who truly thinks those words will have no consequences on our country is blind and ignorant to how the middle east works.
It has been well documented that the Iraqis support our troops, but they support victory and their own lives more so. When we first went into Iraq, they didn't believe we would stay long enough to defeat Saddam and therefore didn't provide much information or assistance. When we did take out Saddam, and they realized freedom wasn't too far away, they opened up to our troops providing us with crucial information.
Now, according to Reid, we have lost the war on terror. This will cause the Iraqis and Afghanis to once again go inside a shell, making it harder to gather intel (again with that simple math), leading to a greater risk of troop lives.
And Paul, it is pretty clear, according to the media, that just about anything we do adds fuel to the al Qeuda fire. Declaring victory for al Qeuda will give them better tools to recruit (the US Gov't being those tools) therefore strengthening their army.
The Iranians... same thing.
Slipping past my question asking for you to explain how these two people's actions could end up in any way other than helping our enemy is very liberish of you.
I know you are just messing with me because only a complete idiot would think the way you are claiming to. Then again, I am talking about you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
so let's review:
rob says:
wars are won and lost based on the statements made by politicians thousands of miles away, history proves it.
i say:
wars are won and lost on the battlefield.
analysis: there is no historical precedent for Rob's argument. Whereas my argument is backed up by billions of pages of history.
conclusion: rob is an idiot.
I forgot you have this hard on for the media. They can never do anything wrong. I guess it makes sense because it is what you want to become some day.
Saying wars are won or lost solely on the battlefield proves your stupidity. Learn a little something about how the military works. For starters, the military's funding comes from whom? The battlefield? And with out money, how is any military to win a war? I guess the battlefield is this unseen power that chooses who wins and loses, and nothing beyond that choice has any relevance as for the Great Battlefield has made their decision.
And because you read books written by communist in hopes of some chic seeing you doesn't mean you know anything about history.
History intrigues me, but I make no claims to being an expert. I guess the fact that you feel you have the ability to insult my intelligence on history says you believe you are the expert. Putting yourself on a high horse just like a lib.
The Nazi's got a lot of power from the simple fact they were winning the war. At first, this wasn't the case. Just a war involving everyone. Germany was winning which lead to the Vichy (sp?) French joining, along with many other countries helping their efforts. They wanted to be on the winning side because death at the hands of the Nazi's was pretty scary.
Sports... how many people become fans of teams because a team wins a lot of games?
We aren't going to get into a talk about Vietnam because you read a book once and therefore know everything. My knowledge bows to Paul, the foremost expert on history, while on the topic of Vietnam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The history expert you are should know all about the Vichy French, and nothing further really needs to be said.
Sports is a showcase of human behavior.
Lets think for a little bit. Does anti-war talk help, maintain, or hurt war-effort funding? Or is this something else we chalk up to the battlefield?
The anti-war sentiments in this country are strong. I hate it, but there is nothing I can do about it. There are a lot of stupid people out there. What is worse is when people of our own government step up to a podium and declare our war a failure.
It DOESN'T stimulate talk and it WILL endanger our troops over seas. Unfortunately we don't live in Paultopida were words don't do anything other than begin discussions. There are consequences.
In Reid's case, those consequences only help his political cause. Which is extremely shameful, even for a democrat.
I thought the same about your posts. Nothing useful other than clever ways to say I'm stupid.
Paul = John Edwards
Beyond the declaration of surrender by Reid, there is a lot of funding talk going on. They are beginning to talk about taking away all the funding. Reid said a few months back that he would never take funding away from our soldiers, but last week he came out and threatened that very thing (so I guess threatening is more than just beginning talks).
So, Paul, this is a funding issue just as well as it is an anti-war issue. They go hand in hand. The more the country is against the war, the less funding it will receive.
Recap:
1) Reid says war is lost. He is stabbing our country in the back.
- Paul's retort-It won't effect anything but begin peace talks... and flowers or something.
2) It will because it will lead to more enemy troops.
- Paul's retort-Battlefield
3) Simple math, more soldiers equal more deaths.
- Paul's retort-Too simple.
4)Simplified explanation of how the middle east has gone through this war.
- Pauls' retort-But yeah...you don't know dick about anything and battlefield.
5) Bitch slapping Paul
- Paul's retort-Nice bitch slap but anything you say is too simple to understand.
Good additions!
I was wrong about Pelosi going to Iran. She went to Syria, which really isn't that much different because they are sending a lot of "freedom fighters" to Iraq.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You don't know who the Vichy French were. Look it up.
Nice one. Pro-war, eh? People that support the troops care about what goes on over there. We read about events going on. We talk with soldiers returning from and heading out to Iraq. We do care about what is going on "in the shit." But we can't do anything about that stuff but get sad. It is war. We can get pissed off when fuck faces hurt the war efforts and endanger our troops.
I didn't know it was so easy. No Paul, you've lost this round because I said so. Or do you only have the power to decide who wins these debates. (Will Paul make a connection from this statement to Reid's?)
Your first post said that all it will do is put something in the "market place of ideas." I translated it for you as "eventual means to solve the problems." I wasn't sure what else the market place was used for.
This comment has been removed by the author.
sure you can get pissed off at fuck-faces but that doesn't mean said fuck-faces are committing treason.
also you have NOT (had to delete previous post to get in the NOT) established a solid argument that the statements of Reid et al are actually endangering troops.
in the end, though, Rob, we are both winners! Everyone is a winner in the marketplace of ideas. It is one of the few marketplaces around anymore that isn't tampered with. Of course if we started charging people with treason for presenting ideas the market would become very ineffecient immediately. anywho, i had fun with this one. until next time!
Post a Comment
<< Home