Earth to Bush: Iraq wants us out, too
Despite President Bush's insistence that "we will stay until the job is done," Iraqi leaders want us out. Yesterday they called for a timetable for our withdrawal and said that so-called insurgents have a "legitimate right" of resistance. They said that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations don't target innocent civilians or institutions designed to help Iraqi citizens.
The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces...control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
So: the Iraqis wants us out of Iraq, and a majority of U.S. citizens want us out of Iraq. Mr. Bush, it seems to us that "the job is done." Mission accomplished. You win. Two thousand fifty U.S. soldiers have died, but if you bring the rest home now you will have saved at least 140,000 lives. Which gives you a much better shot at being treated kindly by the history books than if we stay in Iraq indefinitely.
http://www.gtconnect.com/articles/2005/11/22/ap/headlines/d8e1hv3o0.txt
The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces...control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.
So: the Iraqis wants us out of Iraq, and a majority of U.S. citizens want us out of Iraq. Mr. Bush, it seems to us that "the job is done." Mission accomplished. You win. Two thousand fifty U.S. soldiers have died, but if you bring the rest home now you will have saved at least 140,000 lives. Which gives you a much better shot at being treated kindly by the history books than if we stay in Iraq indefinitely.
http://www.gtconnect.com/articles/2005/11/22/ap/headlines/d8e1hv3o0.txt
posted by Editor at Large at 6:55 AM
5 Comments:
EARTH TO LIBTARD:
Every last American, including Bush wants us out of Iraq, moron.
Regardless of your penchant for delusion, we on the Right don't enjoy war.
What you're trying to insinuate is that a majority of Americans is against the war over there, which is patently false.
No matter how many times you say it, it still doesn't make it true.
The Iraqi government knows that they have a problem with the terrorists that are fighting Coalition forces, and that no matter how much they want and need our help, the terrorist idiots will keep on killing innocents. This is an attempt to get that to stop.
We'll leave on their terms, so they get to save face and make it look like we left only because they made us.
With any luck, they'll have their military ready to handle the situation by the time we leave.
Unfortunately, the Iraqi leadership still thinks that their enemy thinks rationally, whereas we know that they think like a liberal. They'll never stop fighting, and they'll never stop killing innocents. They enjoy the promulgation of terror, and will enjoy it until they die.
It's me again ("Anonymous"), and I want to apologize for calling you "libtard" and "moron." I guess I just get frustrated sometimes when I can't think of a valid argument to counter your valid opinions. But that's no excuse for resorting to name-calling. I should know better. I should be more mature.
Also, I know that actions speak louder than words, and when I really stop and think about it, I can see how Republicans' actions may have led you to believe they like war. Historically, they have spent a lot of time, energy, and money either planning for or engaging in war. Still, in my imagination I can hear Bush saying he disapproves of war and wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible, and as Einstein once said, imagination is more important than knowledge!
I should also know better than to use the term "liberal" as a pejorative. I borrowed a dictionary to look it up and discovered that it means "marked by generosity; given or provided in a generous or openhanded way; ample, full." I guess those aren't such bad traits for a person to possess--unless they are "generous or openhanded" with my hard-earned money! But still, from now on, when I feel the urge to insult someone who disagrees with me, I'll call him or her a real pejorative such as "conservative," which means "tending or disposed to maintaining existing views, conditions, or institutions"--the opposite of progressive, in other words.
Finally, I want to explain my reason for posting as "Anonymous." I'm ashamed to admit that it's because I'm afraid of being attacked for expressing my opinions. If I posted with an actual identity and a way for you to reply to my comments, you might drop by my Web site and leave an anonymous comment--maybe even call me names and attack my character. I couldn't take that, so I post as "Anonymous" to avoid retaliation. I guess that makes me kind of a coward.
But at least I'm not a libtard! LOL.
Just like a typical libtard.
You use the definition of liberal that has nothing to do with you, and you appropriate words with positive meanings to attempt to attach legitimacy to your vile goals. Progressive? I think not. Take a good look at why this country was founded. You're trying to turn us into another Britain, which is why we left in the first place? Regressive might work a little better.
Oh, and I have a dictionary too.
Try this one on for size:
liberal - Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
You know, there's another definition for liberal, but I can't really apply it to you morons with good conscience.
liberal - Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
I suppose it's partially true. You're not limited to established, traditional or orthodox attitudes, views or dogmas. You're limited by all new idiotic attitudes, views and dogmas.
And you're most definitely not free from bigotry.
Wow. It's amazing what crawls out of the woodwork when we leave our site unattended for a few days. And we have to admit, we're a bit confused: Are "anonymous" and "anonymous" the same person - schizophrenic, or possessing a unique sense of humor? Or are they two separate individuals with a lot of mutual vitriol?
We've considered terminating the anonymous posting feature so that only people with return addresses could leave comments, but then we might miss out on this bizarre but fascinating form of entertainment. We're also tempted to mediate the spat to prevent it from escalating into all-out war, but we're just perverse enough to want to watch the drama unfold and see who wins.
So, "anonymous 2": How are you going to respond to "anonymous 1"? We're glued to our seats...
This is sad. No one likes war, of course. That is not the question we need to ask ourselves. The question is, "do we cause war--or are we doing our part to see that war doesn't happen?" Liberal, conservative--those are just names that don't mean the same thing to anyone. Everyone feels slighted in life--or believes that government is wasteful. What a silly place to get hung up. I like it best when people comment without all the anger. It is hard to hear what the person who calls their self a conservative is really trying to say because their hate and anger are so much on the surface. Breathe into that--what is underneath all that hate and anger? Do you do your part to see that war doesn't happen????
Post a Comment
<< Home