Stay the course.

[Red Stranger]

You know what's funny. Liberals make fun of the Bush administration for saying "Stay the Course," but they're opposed to NOT staying the course. When someone says, let's pack up our bags and go, they say, "no, you broke it you have to fix it." When someone else says, let's increase the troop level, they say "no you can't do that." They'll quote generals that say we need more troops in Iraq, then they'll turn around and say we need to pull out. How can we have more and less at the same time? Isn't it just living a fantasy?

 

[North King]

No. The fact of the matter is that if we ARE supposed to continue onward in Iraq, we need more troops. But most of the left is intelligent enough to have recognized by now that Iraq is screwed up enough that continuing onward is a bad idea in terms of cost to American pocketbooks, and more importantly, lives.

 

[Red Stranger]

No. The fact of the matter is that if we ARE supposed to continue onward in Iraq, we need more troops. But most of the left is intelligent enough to have recognized by now that Iraq is screwed up enough that continuing onward is a bad idea in terms of cost to American pocketbooks, and more importantly, lives.

That's exactly my point. "We need more troops! Don't send anymore troops!"

 

[Left]

...

You don't have a point. You made this up. Right? I've never heard that.

 

[North King]

That's exactly my point. "We need more troops! Don't send anymore troops!"

Well, if you don't read people's replies, then don't bother making threads.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

No. The fact of the matter is that if we ARE supposed to continue onward in Iraq, we need more troops. But most of the left is intelligent enough to have recognized by now that Iraq is screwed up enough that continuing onward is a bad idea in terms of cost to American pocketbooks, and more importantly, lives.

And that Iraq is unfixable even with more troops.

The time to send more troops was when the generals asked for them, not three years later. I love how Bush is now in "intensive meetings" about Iraq where they are "bringing him up to speed." You mean you haven't been paying attention the last three years? That explains a lot.

I'm so sick of the politics surrounding this, Bush, the ISG, everything. All of it is just BS, trying to find a way to admit defeat without admitting it explicitly, and withdraw without losing too much face. Our government knows we've lost but they'll wait for the "experts" to tell them we have to withdraw. Meanwhile our soldiers are still dying over there. Goddamn.

 

[Red Stranger]

Well, if you don't read people's replies, then don't bother making threads.

Part of your reply says "We need more troops" the other part says "don't send more troops."

 

[North King]

Part of your reply says "We need more troops" the other part says "don't send more troops."

Well, if I quote random parts of your post, I can make, "I" "ha""t""e" "Bush", but that's not exactly informative as to it's content. Maybe you can try actually reading a post instead of looking at one or two words.

 

[Red Stranger]

Well, if I quote random parts of your post, I can make, "I" "ha""t""e" "Bush", but that's not exactly informative as to it's content. Maybe you can try actually reading a post instead of looking at one or two words.

The difference is that I DID look at your whole post, and it implies, "We need more troops. Don't send more troops."

 

[Psyringe]

Part of your reply says "We need more troops" the other part says "don't send more troops."

Well, I'm not a native speaker, so you're probably the authority here, but I actually understood his reply as saying "We would need more troops to carry on, but cannot afford them, so we have to stop this disaster."

 

[North King]

The difference is that I DID look at your whole post, and it implies, "We need more troops. Don't send more troops."

Er... No it doesn't. You're just deliberately being obtuse, and much as I love to increase my postcount, there's no real point to wasting my night on trying to convince you when you won't even read the post.

 

[Red Stranger]

Well, I'm not a native speaker, so you're probably the authority here, but I actually understood his reply as saying "We would need more troops to carry on, but cannot afford them, so we have to stop this disaster."

So he's saying ideally we should do this. But since we can't do this, let's do the opposite, not do something in between. That's essentially saying "We need more troops, don't send more troops."

 

[Red Stranger]

Er... No it doesn't. You're just deliberately being obtuse, and much as I love to increase my postcount, there's no real point to wasting my night on trying to convince you when you won't even read the post.

If I'm obtuse, then you're square. I'll give you a chance to explain yourself then. What do you mean when you said.

No. The fact of the matter is that if we ARE supposed to continue onward in Iraq, we need more troops. But most of the left is intelligent enough to have recognized by now that Iraq is screwed up enough that continuing onward is a bad idea in terms of cost to American pocketbooks, and more importantly, lives.

 

[Tomoyo]

So he's saying ideally we should do this. But since we can't do this, let's do the opposite, not do something in between. That's essentially saying "We need more troops, don't send more troops."

Yes, and it makes perfect sense.

 

[Red Stranger]

Yes, and it makes perfect sense.

The fact that it makes sense to you is why I'm complaining. "We need more troops. Don't send more troops" just doesn't fly logically. You can not have more and less at the same time.

 

[North King]

If I'm obtuse, then you're square. I'll give you a chance to explain yourself then. What do you mean when you said.

One last time. Read the whole post. Note the "but". If you do not know what that word means, please look it up. There are several online dictionaries I'm sure you could find.

Seriously, though, if you literally cannot understand that post, then you shouldn't be debating foreign policy in the first place.

 

[Left]

Ok how about this:


"We clearly can't afford to send enough troops to accomplish the job, so lets not do a half-ass job and screw everything up worse?"

 

[Psyringe]

So he's saying ideally we should do this. But since we can't do this, let's do the opposite, not do something in between. That's essentially saying "We need more troops, don't send more troops."

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that "if we are supposed to do this" actually translates into "we should do this". Seems I have to brush up my English.

 

[Gilder]

Red Stranger's posts implies bashing liberals.

Hey, this game is fun.

 

[Red Stranger]

One last time. Read the whole post. Note the "but". If you do not know what that word means, please look it up. There are several online dictionaries I'm sure you could find.

Seriously, though, if you literally cannot understand that post, then you shouldn't be debating foreign policy in the first place.

Your use of the word "but" doesn't change anything. You're still saying we should do this, but we're going to do the opposite.