quote:

I am the father of 2 boys 6 and 8 years old. I don't want MY sons sacrificing their lives for this war. How many more American sons and daughters have to be sacrificed for this war?

quote:

liberals are always against doing what has to be done to win.

quote:

liberals are always against doing what has to be done to win.

Thank God for GW.

J

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

liberals are always against doing what has to be done to win.

Thank God for GW.

J

That we are winning is highly subjective. And what does winning mean when we have the loss of 4,000+ of our best and brightest; and loss of 84,000 - 91,000 Iraqi civilians?

BTW, not all soldiers want to stay. I babysat for a girl who seved in Iraq with her husband. They are now in Fort Hood and will have to be redeployed again. They, their parents, and they say many like them, want us to pull out of Iraq now. What do you make of this, J?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

That we are winning is highly subjective. And what does winning mean when we have the loss of 4,000+ of our best and brightest; and loss of 84,000 - 91,000 Iraqi civilians?

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

By the way, why did they enlist? This is, after all, an all volunteer military. The draft was ended many years ago.. Just thought you might like to know......

-Dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

liberals are always against doing what has to be done to win.

Thank God for GW.

J

That we are winning is highly subjective. And what does winning mean when we have the loss of 4,000+ of our best and brightest; and loss of 84,000 - 91,000 Iraqi civilians?

BTW, not all soldiers want to stay. I babysat for a girl who seved in Iraq with her husband. They are now in Fort Hood and will have to be redeployed again. They, their parents, and they say many like them, want us to pull out of Iraq now. What do you make of this, J?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

That we are winning is highly subjective. And what does winning mean when we have the loss of 4,000+ of our best and brightest; and loss of 84,000 - 91,000 Iraqi civilians?

quote:

Casualties are an unfortunate part of war. That being said don't expect much to change if Obama wins the election. The democrat mantra is that he will pull troops out within 16 months but that's not the whole story.

This is from his website about his plans on Iraq:

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

So he plans to continue to have troops in Iraq in case al Qaeda attempts to build a base there. Well as Gen. Petraeus and other senior advisers have stated, if we pull out of Iraq that is exactly what will happen, so we will be right back there fighting again. But we will have lost valuable territory that our soldiers paid for with their lives.

Barack has also stated the following:

Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.

Now just how is he going to keep Iran from meddling inside Iraq when they are supplying them with the arms to help kill our soldiers.

Plus he wants to provide financial support to help rebuild Iraq. Why then is every liberal complaining that we are financing the reconstruction now, asking why Iraq isn't paying for it with their oil money? Why aren't they criticizing Obama for this expenditure? Curious.

Finally, if you think our military won't be stretched as thin as some say it is now, think again. Obama has already stated that he will invade Pakistan.

"Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

"There must be no safe haven for terrorists who threaten America," Obama said. "We cannot fail to act because action is hard."

He says if we have actionable intelligence, well we already have that intelligence. We know that high ranking officials of al Qaeda are already in Pakistan and that their government isn't doing anything about it.

So Obama's posturing on Iraq is just that, political posturing. We will still be at war if he becomes the next president. I wonder how many liberals will still be complaining then?

"We cannot fail to act because action is hard." Hmmmm, seems like if GW said this everyone would be all over him, oh wait, he did and they are.

quote:


I could not find that on his website, but to me, anything different is better than what we have now. He is trying to fix the mess that GW made. I will look into what you say later...

quote:


I could not find that on his website, but to me, anything different is better than what we have now. He is trying to fix the mess that GW made. I will look into what you say later...

quote:

Here is the link, sorry for not posting it earlier:
War in Iraq

quote:

And here is the link for his comment about Pakistan:
I'd invade Pakistan for Osama

quote:

As to cleaning up GW's mess and the fact that their were no WMD's, well I hate to inform you that this all started with Bill Clinton. He thought there were nuclear weapons in Iraq as well so he bombed them back in '98, but no one here seems to remember that.

Here is an excerpt:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike

Funny how everyone blames GW for attacking Iraq and claim there were no WMD's there but don't say a thing about Clinton's attack. Of course I can already hear the reply; "Well Clinton didn't go to war..." But it was his intelligence that led to our beliefs about the WMD's in the first place.

quote:

Oh, and to your statement that "anything different is better than what we have now," can I assume from this then that your point about our soldiers dying wasn't so much about the fact that they are dying but rather where they are dying?

If you think that anything is better I can only equate that with the meaning that you approve of any other war as long as it's not in Iraq. So the men dying in Afghanistan isn't as bad as them dying in Iraq. If they were to die in Iraq after al Qaeda builds a base in there and Obama sends us back to war, that would be better. If we invade Pakistan then the men who will inevitably die there would be better than Iraq now. Am I correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

Oh, and for those of you who don't remember, we didn't invade Iraq until after Saddam refused to obey the U.N. resolutions and after he refused to allow the IAEA into the country to look for the WMD's.

Iraq; Denial and Deception

Clinton thought they had WMD's.
The U.N. thought they had WMD's.
The IAEA thougth they had WMD's.
But somehow Bush is to blame because they didn't. Strange.

quote:

Um, the UN and the IAEA wanted to continue the inspections AND they did NOT authorize the US to invade, inthysite - this is well known and documented.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

Obama has said, when clarifying his comments about Pakistan, that he would send in troops only as a last resort.

Further, the U.S. senator from Illinois said, if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists.

Obama revisits Pakistan statement

So an invasion is on the table as an option for Obama, it may be a last resort but it is still an option.

Further, even if he weren't to send in troops what affect do you think it would have to bomb a country that has nuclear weapons? A very dangerous idea.

quote:

Um, the UN and the IAEA wanted to continue the inspections AND they did NOT authorize the US to invade, inthysite - this is well known and documented.

quote:

This is my point exactly. The UN wanted to continue sanctions and inspections but Bill Clinton decides to bomb them anyway yet there is no outcry about that.

And like I said, I knew the response would be the Clinton didn't invade that he only bombed them. And while yes there is a big difference my point was that Bush was acting on intel gained by the Clinton administration. Everyone says that Bush scared the people into going to war, does Clinton not hold any responsibility at all?

quote:

But regardless of the blame, my original point was/is that things will not change for the better with Obama. He will continue to have troops in Iraq by his own admission, al Qaeda will build a base in Iraq once we pull the majority of our troops out as is stated by almost all of our military advisors, he will send some of the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan so they won't be coming home, and he plans on threatening, bombing and maybe even invading a nuclear power, Pakistan, who is currently our ally.

And to your point about McCain and him wanting to leave troops in Iraq for 100 years. I can't believe people are still taking this out of context when it has been shown over and over exactly what he said and what he meant. Talk about 'fear and smear'.

In context he was talking about keeping a military presence much like we have in S. Korea, Germany, Japan, Kuwait, Turkey and other places. He was not talking about fighting a war for the next 100 years.

quote:

liberals are always against doing what has to be done to win.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

GWB said nothing out of line. Obama is weak on terrorism and he doesn't want anyone to point it out. He's a liberal. How could he be anything but weak? They want to tell our enemies our plans, undo our spy network and give them lawyers to get out of prison.

quote:

And of course you have nothing to back up any of these assertions. All you got is the old mantra liberals are weak.

Thanks to this Republican administration, our ground combat forces are at a less ready state than they have been since post Vietnam. And thanks to this administration, our forces are embroiled in a conflict that does not make us any safer. The fact is, attacking Iraq made Iran stronger and strengthened the ideological appeal of Al Qaeda.

I prefer an administration that puts analysis and reason above fear based actions that give people a false sense of security. If McCain continues with his fear based argument, he certainly will loose my vote.

quote:

I'm not going to prove to you that the earth is round. The left has repeatedly tried to block spy programs. They insist that we broadcast our withdrawal plans. They want lawyers for terrorists at Gitmo. Do you not read the paper? This is standard stuff.

You tell us that our military is weak, stuck in a worthless effort, Al Queda is strengthened, and we're not any safer. You then accuse others of using a "fear based argument." Take some of your own advice.

quote:

It's not fear but fact. Our military is weakened by a war that was never properly resourced.

This Republican administration has repeatedly undermined our military and made some of the biggest strategic errors in our nation's recent history.

This is not the party of Ronald Reagan...who vowed NEVER to send in our military into a country with out an exit strategy or undersize our armed forces.

quote:

There is nothing more undermining of our military than telling everyone we can't win, which the left loves to hear. It's demoralizing to our guys and are pep talks for terrorists. It give hope to Al Queda. It is propoganda on behalf of the enemy.

quote:

Who is saying that we can't win? Please get direct quotes where people are saying this.

I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

Let me give you some good advice about debates. Don't ask questions, especially in accusatory, smug tones, if you don't know the answer yourself.

Harry Reid said, "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." There are others too. And if they haven't said so as clearly as Reid, they've pretty much all said that they want to leave now, which is the same thing terrorists want. Democrats agree with the enemy.

Here is the link. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E37E4CB2-622B-445C-A96C-C7B79219CB70.htm Observe the source. Harry was speaking directly to the terrorists. Just be patient, you'll have Iraq and can murder as many as you want as soon as Democrats are in charge. You know all those people who've been helping the Americans? Sharpen your swords. A lot of heads are gonna roll.

And who are you to say that I can't ask questions, ljmac?

Again, since you obviously neglected to answer, I'll ask again, "I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?"

This is not a smug question. The girl I babysat for SERVED with her husband who also SERVED in Iraq. And they are going to serve AGAIN. Please answer the question, yes or no, please, without the usual rhetoric. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

PS BTW You cannot produce quotes where 'the left' wants the US to lose the Iraq war because there are none.

quote:

How many Iraquis have refused to fight terrorists because the left says it's a lost cause and we're going to leave ASAP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

GWB said nothing out of line. Obama is weak on terrorism and he doesn't want anyone to point it out. He's a liberal. How could he be anything but weak? They want to tell our enemies our plans, undo our spy network and give them lawyers to get out of prison.

quote:

And of course you have nothing to back up any of these assertions. All you got is the old mantra liberals are weak.

Thanks to this Republican administration, our ground combat forces are at a less ready state than they have been since post Vietnam. And thanks to this administration, our forces are embroiled in a conflict that does not make us any safer. The fact is, attacking Iraq made Iran stronger and strengthened the ideological appeal of Al Qaeda.

I prefer an administration that puts analysis and reason above fear based actions that give people a false sense of security. If McCain continues with his fear based argument, he certainly will loose my vote.

quote:

I'm not going to prove to you that the earth is round. The left has repeatedly tried to block spy programs. They insist that we broadcast our withdrawal plans. They want lawyers for terrorists at Gitmo. Do you not read the paper? This is standard stuff.

You tell us that our military is weak, stuck in a worthless effort, Al Queda is strengthened, and we're not any safer. You then accuse others of using a "fear based argument." Take some of your own advice.

quote:

It's not fear but fact. Our military is weakened by a war that was never properly resourced.

This Republican administration has repeatedly undermined our military and made some of the biggest strategic errors in our nation's recent history.

This is not the party of Ronald Reagan...who vowed NEVER to send in our military into a country with out an exit strategy or undersize our armed forces.

quote:

There is nothing more undermining of our military than telling everyone we can't win, which the left loves to hear. It's demoralizing to our guys and are pep talks for terrorists. It give hope to Al Queda. It is propoganda on behalf of the enemy.

quote:

Who is saying that we can't win? Please get direct quotes where people are saying this.

I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

Let me give you some good advice about debates. Don't ask questions, especially in accusatory, smug tones, if you don't know the answer yourself.

Harry Reid said, "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." There are others too. And if they haven't said so as clearly as Reid, they've pretty much all said that they want to leave now, which is the same thing terrorists want. Democrats agree with the enemy.

Here is the link. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E37E4CB2-622B-445C-A96C-C7B79219CB70.htm Observe the source. Harry was speaking directly to the terrorists. Just be patient, you'll have Iraq and can murder as many as you want as soon as Democrats are in charge. You know all those people who've been helping the Americans? Sharpen your swords. A lot of heads are gonna roll.

And who are you to say that I can't ask questions, ljmac?

Again, since you obviously neglected to answer, I'll ask again, "I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?"

This is not a smug question. The girl I babysat for SERVED with her husband who also SERVED in Iraq. And they are going to serve AGAIN. Please answer the question, yes or no, please, without the usual rhetoric. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

PS BTW You cannot produce quotes where 'the left' wants the US to lose the Iraq war because there are none.

You asked, "Who is saying that we can't win? Please get direct quotes where people are saying this." I gave you Harry Reid's "This war is lost..." quote and a link. Did you notice that this was broadcast throughout the region where it could be used by our enemies to boost their moral and to discourage our allies? How many Iraquis have refused to fight terrorists because the left says it's a lost cause and we're going to leave ASAP? The left is going to abandon these people, they'll be slaughtered, and Democrats will call it peace.

What exactly is the question about the girl? She volunteered. She didn't volunteer to serve in San Diego, Miami or Hawaii. She volunteered to serve wherever she was commanded to go. I sympathize that it's difficult. I don't sympathize that she was unaware about what she signed up for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

GWB said nothing out of line. Obama is weak on terrorism and he doesn't want anyone to point it out. He's a liberal. How could he be anything but weak? They want to tell our enemies our plans, undo our spy network and give them lawyers to get out of prison.

quote:

And of course you have nothing to back up any of these assertions. All you got is the old mantra liberals are weak.

Thanks to this Republican administration, our ground combat forces are at a less ready state than they have been since post Vietnam. And thanks to this administration, our forces are embroiled in a conflict that does not make us any safer. The fact is, attacking Iraq made Iran stronger and strengthened the ideological appeal of Al Qaeda.

I prefer an administration that puts analysis and reason above fear based actions that give people a false sense of security. If McCain continues with his fear based argument, he certainly will loose my vote.

quote:

I'm not going to prove to you that the earth is round. The left has repeatedly tried to block spy programs. They insist that we broadcast our withdrawal plans. They want lawyers for terrorists at Gitmo. Do you not read the paper? This is standard stuff.

You tell us that our military is weak, stuck in a worthless effort, Al Queda is strengthened, and we're not any safer. You then accuse others of using a "fear based argument." Take some of your own advice.

quote:

It's not fear but fact. Our military is weakened by a war that was never properly resourced.

This Republican administration has repeatedly undermined our military and made some of the biggest strategic errors in our nation's recent history.

This is not the party of Ronald Reagan...who vowed NEVER to send in our military into a country with out an exit strategy or undersize our armed forces.

quote:

There is nothing more undermining of our military than telling everyone we can't win, which the left loves to hear. It's demoralizing to our guys and are pep talks for terrorists. It give hope to Al Queda. It is propoganda on behalf of the enemy.

quote:

Who is saying that we can't win? Please get direct quotes where people are saying this.

I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

Let me give you some good advice about debates. Don't ask questions, especially in accusatory, smug tones, if you don't know the answer yourself.

Harry Reid said, "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week." There are others too. And if they haven't said so as clearly as Reid, they've pretty much all said that they want to leave now, which is the same thing terrorists want. Democrats agree with the enemy.

Here is the link. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E37E4CB2-622B-445C-A96C-C7B79219CB70.htm Observe the source. Harry was speaking directly to the terrorists. Just be patient, you'll have Iraq and can murder as many as you want as soon as Democrats are in charge. You know all those people who've been helping the Americans? Sharpen your swords. A lot of heads are gonna roll.

And who are you to say that I can't ask questions, ljmac?

Again, since you obviously neglected to answer, I'll ask again, "I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq. They, their families; and many other soldiers and their families want the US to pull out of Iraq. Do you feel that they do not want us to win as well, because they want to pull out of Iraq?"

This is not a smug question. The girl I babysat for SERVED with her husband who also SERVED in Iraq. And they are going to serve AGAIN. Please answer the question, yes or no, please, without the usual rhetoric. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

PS BTW You cannot produce quotes where 'the left' wants the US to lose the Iraq war because there are none.

You asked, "Who is saying that we can't win? Please get direct quotes where people are saying this." I gave you Harry Reid's "This war is lost..." quote and a link. Did you notice that this was broadcast throughout the region where it could be used by our enemies to boost their moral and to discourage our allies? How many Iraquis have refused to fight terrorists because the left says it's a lost cause and we're going to leave ASAP? The left is going to abandon these people, they'll be slaughtered, and Democrats will call it peace.

What exactly is the question about the girl? She volunteered. She didn't volunteer to serve in San Diego, Miami or Hawaii. She volunteered to serve wherever she was commanded to go. I sympathize that it's difficult. I don't sympathize that she was unaware about what she signed up for.

Because one democrat made that statement, you think that all Democrats believe the same, ljmac? Honestly, is that what you think? I have never met anyone who generalizes more than you - LOL! I'll give you that...

Well, now. I am trying to understand what you are saying. My question was, the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband) - she, as well as other soldiers, believe that we should pull out of Iraq. Because they believe this, are you saying that they want to lose the war? Just trying to understand you logic...

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

quote:

Because one democrat made that statement, you think that all Democrats believe the same, ljmac? Honestly, is that what you think? I have never met anyone who generalizes more than you - LOL! I'll give you that...

Well, now. I am trying to understand what you are saying. My question was, the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband) - she, as well as other soldiers, believe that we should pull out of Iraq. Because they believe this, are you saying that they want to lose the war? Just trying to understand you logic...

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

quote:



I'm not playing that game with you. You demand that I prove that a Democrat said we can't win. I show you one (perhaps the most powerful D in the nation), then you demand two. I show you two, then you demand three and it goes on forever.

Soldiers shouldn't complain, but do their duty. They volunteered.

Anyone who says they want to pull the troops out now is saying that they want to give up. There will be widespread slaughter and Democrats will call it peace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

Because one democrat made that statement, you think that all Democrats believe the same, ljmac? Honestly, is that what you think? I have never met anyone who generalizes more than you - LOL! I'll give you that...

Well, now. I am trying to understand what you are saying. My question was, the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband) - she, as well as other soldiers, believe that we should pull out of Iraq. Because they believe this, are you saying that they want to lose the war? Just trying to understand you logic...

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

quote:



I'm not playing that game with you. You demand that I prove that a Democrat said we can't win. I show you one (perhaps the most powerful D in the nation), then you demand two. I show you two, then you demand three and it goes on forever.

Soldiers shouldn't complain, but do their duty. They volunteered.

Anyone who says they want to pull the troops out now is saying that they want to give up. There will be widespread slaughter and Democrats will call it peace.

No, ljmac - you generalized as usual - that is my point: saying things like "There is nothing more undermining of our military than telling everyone we can't win, which the left loves to hear." The "left" does not like to hear that we can't win - and most people know this.

I see - so when their leadership fails them: when there were not enough troops sent in the first place; when there is no exit strategy; when 4,000+ of their brothers, sisters have died - our best and brightest shouldn't complain? Is this really what you think?

Your logic does not make any sense at all. The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again, but believes that we should pull out of Iraq- how on earth does this mean she wants to give up? Please explain this.

BTW, what do you call the situation now - ideal? Do you call it peaceful?

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

Because one democrat made that statement, you think that all Democrats believe the same, ljmac? Honestly, is that what you think? I have never met anyone who generalizes more than you - LOL! I'll give you that...

Well, now. I am trying to understand what you are saying. My question was, the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband) - she, as well as other soldiers, believe that we should pull out of Iraq. Because they believe this, are you saying that they want to lose the war? Just trying to understand you logic...

Thank you in advance, Peace and God bless,

quote:



I'm not playing that game with you. You demand that I prove that a Democrat said we can't win. I show you one (perhaps the most powerful D in the nation), then you demand two. I show you two, then you demand three and it goes on forever.

Soldiers shouldn't complain, but do their duty. They volunteered.

Anyone who says they want to pull the troops out now is saying that they want to give up. There will be widespread slaughter and Democrats will call it peace.

No, ljmac - you generalized as usual - that is my point: saying things like "There is nothing more undermining of our military than telling everyone we can't win, which the left loves to hear." The "left" does not like to hear that we can't win - and most people know this.

I see - so when their leadership fails them: when there were not enough troops sent in the first place; when there is no exit strategy; when 4,000+ of their brothers, sisters have died - our best and brightest shouldn't complain? Is this really what you think?

Your logic does not make any sense at all. The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again, but believes that we should pull out of Iraq- how on earth does this mean she wants to give up? Please explain this.

BTW, what do you call the situation now - ideal? Do you call it peaceful?

Peace and God bless,

Pulling out means giving up.

quote:

Lizahana
5/25/2008 2:18:36 AM
I babysat for one who is serving with her husband in Iraq.

5/25/2008 11:39:18 AM
I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq.

5/26/2008 1:02:04 AM
"I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq.

5/26/2008 11:14:28 AM
I babysat for a girl who seved in Iraq with her husband. They are now in Fort Hood and will have to be redeployed again.

5/28/2008 7:56:32 AM
the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband)

5/28/2008 7:53:08 PM
The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again,

5/28/2008 11:52:31 PM
The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again,

quote:

BTW, what do you call the situation now - ideal? Do you call it peaceful?

quote:

ORIGINAL: inthysite

quote:

Lizahana
5/25/2008 2:18:36 AM
I babysat for one who is serving with her husband in Iraq.

5/25/2008 11:39:18 AM
I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq.

5/26/2008 1:02:04 AM
"I babysat for a girl who is served in Iraq with her husband. Currently they are in Fort Hood and will be redeployed to Iraq.

5/26/2008 11:14:28 AM
I babysat for a girl who seved in Iraq with her husband. They are now in Fort Hood and will have to be redeployed again.

5/28/2008 7:56:32 AM
the girl that I babysat for - who served in Iraq and will again (with her husband)

5/28/2008 7:53:08 PM
The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again,

5/28/2008 11:52:31 PM
The girl I babysat for served in Iraq; is STILL serving our country; and will still serve in Iraq again,

Okay, I think we get the idea here, you babysit for a family serving in Iraq who, along with their families and some other soldiers they know feel that we should pull out. But that doesn't mean that the majority of soldiers feel this way. From what I've heard from people who have gone to visit our soldiers and asked them about the war the overwhelming response was to stay and finish the job so that their friends have not died in vain. Of course you won't read about this in the liberal media.

As to how leaving Iraq means that we give up, well Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines quit as the following:

quit
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
quit also quit·ted; quit·ting
Etymology:
Middle English quiten, quitten, from Anglo-French quiter, from quite free of, released, from Latin quietus quiet, at rest
Date:
13th century

transitive verb
1: to make full payment of : pay up <quit a debt>
2: to set free : relieve, release <quit oneself of fear>
3: conduct, acquit <the youths quit themselves like men>
4 a: to depart from or out of b: to leave the company of c: give up 1 <quit a job> d: give up 2 <quit smoking>

intransitive verb
1: to cease normal, expected, or necessary action <the engine quit>
2: to give up employment
3: to admit defeat : give up

By leaving Iraq we would be dparting from or out of, ceasing necessary action, and thus by definition admiting defeat. By your own admission the situation in Iraq is not peaceful or ideal indicating that work is left to be done.

quote:

BTW, what do you call the situation now - ideal? Do you call it peaceful?

quote:

By leaving Iraq we would be dparting from or out of, ceasing necessary action, and thus by definition admiting defeat. By your own admission the situation in Iraq is not peaceful or ideal indicating that work is left to be done.