Wrong as usual. It was Senate Republicans on the floor arguing against getting involved in the war, for two reasons, the first being that the economy was just getting back on track and they didn’t want the war efforts to drive us back into recession, and two, Hitler didn’t do a thing to us.

“That’s funny….Robert, the peacekeeper cannot refer to Republicans without using the term “dumb ass” and yet he wants us to believe he can exercise diplomacy with dictators who gas 300M+ of his own people and had rape rooms, and folks who shout “Alah Akbar” before disemboweling toddlers”

First of all, Iraq is a country the size of California, and has nowhere near 300 million people (and you wonder why I can’t refer to Republicans as anything besides dumb asses). Secondly, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we are not the world’s police. If you gave a shit about the suffering of others, you’d want to fix it in our own country first, then maybe move on to Darfur, where real genocide is taking place. So please, spare me the phony altruism.

“And we all prefer feeding the poor which is why Christians and churches have set up shelters for years to help the needy”

Says the guy who bashes the poor at every available opportunity…

“But socalizing contributions and forcing people to give up portions of their income never works, so I can guarantee you that Eisenhower did not support that.”

Wrong. Here’s Dwight in his own words:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

He’s basically saying that tax dollars would be better spent on feeding the poor and clothing the cold than bombing people…

“We didn’t lose because our troops were incapable, we lost because of nitwit media like Walter Kronkite [sic] warning us “the Red Coats are coming.” So of course, we did not back our allies and now that part of the world is living under communism. Which is what liberals want for Iraq. Thank God they didn’t get their way.”

Steve, is it blissful being oblivious to reality? We were out manned in Vietnam, and out fought. We lost because we didn’t know how to fight a war like they did. Some might even say we lost because we didn’t belong there. Much like Iraq, we were not attacked by Vietnam. You can’t expect to win an illegitimate war. Oh wait, you’re a conservative…

“Where’d you get that from? Dennis Kucinich?
Even though it’s a lie, what does it matter to you? You don’t mind tax dollars going towards abortions in other countries, so why should you care? What a way to support your troops. Why don’t you just get a banner that says: “our troops couldn’t do it, it can’t be because of them!””

God, I love it when you bring up stupid shit that just gets force fed back to you.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_the_us_government_paying_factions_in.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2413200.ece

“Because violence is down”

And why is violence down? See above.

No, they did not say that which was my point.

“Is that what we do? Let dumb ass Republicans show us how not to use diplomacy?”

That’s funny….Robert, the peacekeeper cannot refer to Republicans without using the term “dumb ass” and yet he wants us to believe he can exercise diplomacy with dictators who gas 300M+ of his own people and had rape rooms, and folks who shout “Alah Akbar” before disemboweling toddlers.

“And I do for the most part. He wasn’t a crazy partisan neocon, he had a brilliant tax structure, and he actually favored feeding the poor over dropping bombs on people…”

Eisenhower was incredible. And we all prefer feeding the poor which is why Christians and churches have set up shelters for years to help the needy. But socalizing contributions and forcing people to give up portions of their income never works, so I can guarantee you that Eisenhower did not support that.

“So, nevermind that whole ‘losing the entire war’ thing?”

We didn’t lose because our troops were incapable, we lost because of nitwit media like Walter Kronkite warning us “the Red Coats are coming.” So of course, we did not back our allies and now that part of the world is living under communism. Which is what liberals want for Iraq. Thank God they didn’t get their way.

“If I think about it anymore, my head is going to explode. Talk about projection…”

Then perhaps you should think a little harder and longer before opening your mouth. Just a suggestion.

“Funny how paying insurgents to stop shooting at our troops will do that…”

Where’d you get that from? Dennis Kucinich?
Even though it’s a lie, what does it matter to you? You don’t mind tax dollars going towards abortions in other countries, so why should you care? What a way to support your troops. Why don’t you just get a banner that says: “our troops couldn’t do it, it can’t be because of them!”

“Yeah, I’m sure it had to do with years of Democratic pressure. By the way, why is it that you weren’t accusing Bush of waving that white flag of surrender?”

Because violence is down. Now it’s just monitoring and completion of training for the Iraqis. And Democratic pressure was ignored for eight years. If that were true, we’d have yanked them out when violence was at record numbers.

Hi Joe,

Nah, liberals make the best bottoms ever. Liberal men cannot even show up for work everyday, you really think they have what is required to be a top?

Yeah, guess who was saying that – Republicans.

“Just like Bill and Hill sat on going after Saddam Hussein in the 90’s, then our Georgy came in and showed ‘em how it was done.”

Is that what we do? Let dumb ass Republicans show us how not to use diplomacy?

“As a liberal, you’re probably supposed to back the Eisenhower years”

And I do for the most part. He wasn’t a crazy partisan neocon, he had a brilliant tax structure, and he actually favored feeding the poor over dropping bombs on people…

“Although, I supported it all and our military never lost one single battle in ALL of Vietnam”

So, nevermind that whole ‘losing the entire war’ thing?

“No, he pointed out the Democratic failures in war and how Republicans had to fix them. Iraq requires no fixing”

What?! Wow, I can’t even begin to form a thought cogent enough to tell you how fucking ass backwards that is. If I think about it anymore, my head is going to explode. Talk about projection…

“Violence is down massively”

Funny how paying insurgents to stop shooting at our troops will do that…

“Our troops will still be out by 2011 as already negotiated by Bush. Them coming home will not be an orginality [sic] of Obama’s”

Yeah, I’m sure it had to do with years of Democratic pressure. By the way, why is it that you weren’t accusing Bush of waving that white flag of surrender?

Then stop complaining that the Constitution is doing what is was designed to do…

It’s funny that you mention that because I’d like to know why FDR was not taunted on a daily basis:

“What are we going after Hitler for? Hitler didn’t hit us at Pearl Harbor! Why are we spending all this money to fight Hitler when the Japanese are still multiplying!?”

The fact is FDR sat on Hitler for quite a while before going. Just like Bill and Hill sat on going after Saddam Hussein in the 90′s, then our Georgy came in and showed ‘em how it was done.

“We’ve actually been in Vietnam in some for or fashion since the 50’s, so technically, Eisenhower got us into that…”

Actually, Eisenhower was involved in the Indochina War which was against Vietnamese loyalists and because of our involvement, a ceasefire was negotiated in 1954.

Much like the fact that we fought against Saddam in the first Gulf War – the one Democrats always pretend to support.

As a liberal, you’re probably supposed to back the Eisenhower years, as opposed to the Democrat years we actually spent in the Vietnamese territory. (Although, I supported it all and our military never lost one single battle in ALL of Vietnam).

“Did you really just say that when W. admitted he was leaving his messes for the next president?”

No, he pointed out the Democratic failures in war and how Republicans had to fix them. Iraq requires no fixing. Violence is down massively and more deaths happened in New York and Detroit than in Baghdad in the last six months.

Our troops will still be out by 2011 as already negotiated by Bush. Them coming home will not be an orginality of Obama’s. He knows this as well, which is why he did the crazy thing with Gitmo so that someday we get to fight all over again.

Boy, you are stretching on that one. I swore to defend the Constitution, not go around collecting DNA for some scumbag terrorist that you seem to have empathy for.

That is still truly sick!