Update: McCain Selects Gov. Sarah Palin as Running Mate

[RobH4413]

Did you listen to what he said?

He's telling you what could happen if we left right now, essentially arguing that the cost of leaving would be greater in the long run than the cost for staying. I remember watching this on meet the press and completely agreeing with what he had to say.

[saden1]

Yes, I got the message that it's not really about the people (display of hypocrisy is sickening). They couldn't project the cost of entering and they keep telling us we're making progress and we're winning for the last 5 years and now I'm to take this dipshit's word on the cost of staying vs leaving? What is the cost of leaving? And can we continue to stall that cost or stop incurring that cost all together?

Cried wolf too many times...red card...unsportsmanlike like conduct warranting an ejection...strike 3...you're out!

[saden1]

Some serious humor:

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Now you're just bring a water pistol to a gun fight. Give it up on Al-Qaeda and Iran b.s. [B]It's a well know fact that Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the war and we're the only reason they continue to be there. Iraq is nothing more than Al-Qaeda recruiting tool.

1. "Al-Qeada in Iraq", the movement Schneed identified, is not bin-laden's "Al-Qeada". Rather it is a pre-existing Sunni extremist group that declared its allegiance to bin-laden after a new Iraqi govt. was established. By all accounts, this group has steadily lost credibility and recruits since the surge.

Originally Posted by saden1

The gift that keeps giving. Every collateral damage results in a fresh recruit. Iraqis can deal with them and probably more effectively than we ever can.

True earlier in the war. Again, however, every report out of Iraq lately is that the pendulum has swung and the populous is now viewing the extremists as just that and it is their intransigence and commitment to violence that is driving the populous away.

At some point, people realize that the extremists have no solution but violence and see that the cycle of violence can only be broken(and thus the collateral damage stop) by coming up with non-violent solutions. The US and the Iraqi govt. are open to non-violent solutions, AQI is not. As the US shows that it is not opposed to peace and prosperity for Iraqis (and, in fact, is actually striving for that end), Iraqis and other Arabs see that and realize who is actually causing the violence.

Been out drinking and hanging out in the sun all day so this post probably makes no sense. Just pointing out that the Al-queada connection implied by Saden was wrong. Flame away.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. "Al-Qeada in Iraq", the movement Schneed identified, is not bin-laden's "Al-Qeada". Rather it is a pre-existing Sunni extremist group that declared its allegiance to bin-laden after a new Iraqi govt. was established. By all accounts, this group has steadily lost credibility and recruits since the surge.



True earlier in the war. Again, however, every report out of Iraq lately is that the pendulum has swung and the populous is now viewing the extremists as just that and it is their intransigence and commitment to violence that is driving the populous away.

At some point, people realize that the extremists have no solution but violence and see that the cycle of violence can only be broken(and thus the collateral damage stop) by coming up with non-violent solutions. The US and the Iraqi govt. are open to non-violent solutions, AQI is not. As the US shows that it is not opposed to peace and prosperity for Iraqis (and, in fact, is actually striving for that end), Iraqis and other Arabs see that and realize who is actually causing the violence.

Been out drinking and hanging out in the sun all day so this post probably makes no sense. Just pointing out that the Al-queada connection implied by Saden was wrong. Flame away.

You speak for Schneed now?

Oh, I see now, the Iraqi Al-Qeada branch isn't really part of the bin -Laden franchise. They really existed in Iraq before as some other group and were plotting to kill Americans. After we invaded Iraq they joined Al-Qeada family but that really wasn't because of us, they were planning to do it anyways.

If everything is so cool and nice, why not pickup and leave? I get it, we've made progress but not enough to hand over the country yet. It's getting better by the day though. We just have to stick to it even if we have to pay people off and setup a puppet corrupt government.

If I'm wrong I fail to see the wrong turn I took. I think you might want to re-read my earlier post. It's pretty clear, reasoned, and self explanatory.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by saden1

You speak for Schneed now?

Oh, I see now, the Iraqi Al-Qeada branch isn't really part of the bin -Laden franchise. They really existed in Iraq before as some other group and were plotting to kill Americans. After we invaded Iraq they joined Al-Qeada family but that really wasn't because of us, they were planning to do it anyways.

If everything is so cool and nice, why not pickup and leave? I get it, we've made progress but not enough to hand over the country yet. It's getting better by the day though. We just have to stick to it even if we have to pay people off and setup a puppet corrupt government.

If I'm wrong I fail to see the wrong turn I took. I think you might want to re-read my earlier post. It's pretty clear, reasoned, and self explanatory.

Not really, it ignores quite a number of facts on the ground in Iraq. It's your basic regurgitation of the democratic party line from 18 months ago.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You speak for Schneed now?

No. Schneed speaks more than well enough for himself. You, however, made an inaccurate statement in your rebuttal. I was simply drawing attention to your inaccuracy.

Originally Posted by saden1

Oh, I see now, the Iraqi Al-Qeada branch isn't really part of the bin -Laden franchise. They really existed in Iraq before as some other group and were plotting to kill Americans. After we invaded Iraq they joined Al-Qeada family but that really wasn't because of us, they were planning to do it anyways.

<sigh> The group that became popularly known as Al-Qeada In Iraq in October, 2004 is now allied to - but was not originally part of - the Osama led Al-Qeada. They are, in fact, different groups - AQI is a group originally led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (killed in 2006) that began as part of the Sunni counter-insurgency organized after the US invasion.

AQI's official name is different than "Al-Qeada In Iraq" (It's something like "Jihad in the Country of Two Rivers"). AQI simply did not exist under that name at the time of the original invasion and, prior to the invasion, the group that became known as AQI did not exist at all as many members were part of Sunni power structure. After the fall of the Iraqi Baathist government, Zarqawi led a faction of the Sunni counter-insurgency eventually declaring himself and his followers as allies to Osama.

Your original assertion that there was no Al-Qeada presence in Iraq prior to the invasion is generally accepted to be true with the caveat that, due to his increasing isolation by the West, there was evidence that Saddam was beginning to reach out to Sunni extremist groups, including al-qeada, for support.

Based on Schneed's original statement and the points he was debating, however, it is my impression that the discussion was not about pre-war al-qaeda but who the curent enemies are and what there current role is. Your reference to pre-war al-qeada as part of THAT discussion was inaccurate and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by saden1

If everything is so cool and nice, why not pickup and leave? I get it, we've made progress but not enough to hand over the country yet. It's getting better by the day though. We just have to stick to it even if we have to pay people off and setup a puppet corrupt government.

So we should just pick-up and leave and let the fragile peace that is taking hold - end? Good plan. Further, I have not seen allegations of corruption or puppet government raised before even by the Dems. What is the basis for such assertions?

Originally Posted by saden1

If I'm wrong I fail to see the wrong turn I took. I think you might want to re-read my earlier post. It's pretty clear, reasoned, and self explanatory

I think Schneed has very accurately stated the wrong turn you took. I, however, was simply referring to your inaccurate and irrelevant implication that "al-qeada" and "al-qeada in iraq" are synonmous.

[budw38]

Who cares what saden < saten > thinks , he's a flag burning , crybaby , chiken-shit pussy .

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by budw38

Who cares what saden < saten > thinks , he's a flag burning , crybaby , chiken-shit pussy .

Woh dude...that's a tad uncalled for. I certainly do not agree with Saden at all on his stance here...in fact he's so far off the mark, it's kind of amusing, but I keep my comments to myself. Just because he is a FAR lefty, and thus a little confused does not make him a bad person, or a "chicken-shit pussy". Is this how you treat everyone with a differing opinion than yours? Saden does not deserve that at all.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by budw38

Who cares what saden < saten > thinks , he's a flag burning , crybaby , chiken-shit pussy .

Wow? Uncalled for much?

Saden must have struck a nerve if you couldn't even rebut his points like an adult and had to result to name calling.

[saden1]

We're fighting Al-Qeada? Saying we're fighting Iraqi insurgents would be more credible. Anywho, Al-Qeada is Al-Qeada and playing the semantics game doesn't fly here. Will they go away if we walk away? I don't know if anyone can say they won't. Maybe we're the only ones that know how to defeat them? Also, I have little faith in reports from the administration or the pentagon to tell us the truth. I want independent verification and unfortunately Lord Bush the only way to do that is through a new administration (hint: not one headed by a 72 year old pro-war guy).

Now you're regurgitating the Al-Qeada/Sadam link hook line? That's really disappointing, I expect more for you.

Iraq is a synonymous with corruption and if you really don't already know this you should. If you truly believe we're not the ones pulling the strings in Iraq in terms of Iraqi policy I am afraid I can't continue with this discussion.

Former Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity:



You guys keep peddling and sinking your teeth into "trust us, we know what we're doing, we know what's going on, we're winning though it's fragile, we're really close to victory" hook line.

[saden1]

I appreciate all the support guys. For the sake of transparency I must confess that budw38 and I have a history. You see, a while back he tried to hit on me and I told him I don't swing that way and wasn't willing to play on his team. Naturally he was disappointed but I was kind enough to inform him that he could find like minded sausages in San Fransisco. Obviously he has some lingering animosity about being rejected so be kind to him.


budw38, keep looking buddy, i'm sure you'll find your sausage soulmate someday.

[dmek25]

hey saden, if schneed and Joe keep thinking the way they are right now, good old John McCain still might get those 100 years out of Iraq, after all

[budw38]

Originally Posted by saden1

I appreciate all the support guys. For the sake of transparency I must confess that budw38 and I have a history. You see, a while back he tried to hit on me and I told him I don't swing that way and wasn't willing to play on his team. Naturally he was disappointed but I was kind enough to inform him that he could find like minded sausages in San Fransisco. Obviously he has some lingering animosity about being rejected so be kind to him.


budw38, keep looking buddy, i'm sure you'll find your sausage soulmate someday.

Your the one living in the North SF, Seattle ,,, nice try .

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by budw38

Who cares what saden < saten > thinks , he's a flag burning , crybaby , chiken-shit pussy .

Well, I find that I disagree quite significantly with saden lately (on current events), and I can't say I care lately for his approach (to paraphrase "Everyone affiliated with the Republican party is as osidious as a used tampon") but what you did was an over the line, personal attack directed at another member on this board.

Which of course isn't allowed.

So here's the deal, you have until, let's say 2pm today to apologize to saden (on this thread for the world to see) and then maybe we won't consider banning you. If you don't, you're gone for 6+ months. Of course, I'm not the only mod here so someone else may not be so kind and just decide to ban you outright right now.