General Petraeus Would Rather Betray Us Than Tell Us The Truth, After All.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Craig234


Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.


If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue.


Are these statements honestly how you feel? Wow.

sig worthy

Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.

It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...


edit

I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"

Do you know what terrorism is?

Do you know what planet you live on?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,960
6,801
126
I wonder how this thread would have gone had it read, "General Betraeus Would Rather Portray Us Than Tell Us The Truth, After All."
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
I was watching some home made video on youtube by some soldiers in Iraq.
They talked about the bad guys launching mortars right at chow time to catch them in the chow hall.

Question 1: Have chow hours been staggered or gone to round the clock since then?

After that a couple of guys were showing where some shrapnel hit the Internet cafe through what looked like an aluminum wall of the cafe. About as much protection as an aluminum shed at Home Depot. In a base that gets mortared in the same places on a regular basis...

Question 2: Hasn`t anyone heard of sandbags?

Question 3: If we knew that the Sunnis and Shias were going to fight each other, why would the Army and Marines leave big caches of Iraqi weapons and explosives unguarded?

Question 4: Is the US military using depleted uranium ammunition and armor in Iraq?

Question 5: Have claims of deformed babies being born to Iraqi civilians and servicemen and women who have served in Iraq been investigated?

Question 6: Was/Is Halliburton really charging $99 to wash one load of laundry in Iraq?

These are just some questions I hope the General is asked.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
When I graduated, my folks kicked me out. They said I had to stand on my own feet. Yeah, they helped me out, but only if I was working my ass off to help myself. They wouldn't lift a finger to help me if I wasn't willing to help myself.

Has the U.S. simply said to Iraq "Get off your asses and help us to help you." It just seems like we are losing our brothers for those people over there, and they don't give a shit. If we find a traitor in the Iraqi police, give him to the people and say, "Show us that you want to help us."

Shit, we got rid of their bad dictator for them, now they must do something. Hell, I see all these gun happy members here, "If all the citizens were armed, we could defeat our government easily." What, the Iraqis are pussies? Why can't they stand up to their terrorists like we'd do to our government?

I may be wrong, but it seems like if they stoned as many terrorists as they did little girls things might be a little better.

I'm just ranting, but are our guys dying for people who aren't willing to fight for themselves? If the answer to that question is yes, then we should just leave.

And, if the majority of Iraqis want us to leave, then we should leave. Wouldn't that just be respecting Iraq's wishes? (Has there ever been a poll?)
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Is Petraeus Latin for Powell? This guy is going to cower to the neocons and lie us into staying in Iraq like Powell lied us into going to Iraq.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Craig234


Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.


If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue.


Are these statements honestly how you feel? Wow.

sig worthy

Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.

It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...


edit

I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"

Do you know what terrorism is?

Do you know what planet you live on?

lol. I guess the answer is no.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,390
29
91
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Craig234


Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.


If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue.


Are these statements honestly how you feel? Wow.

sig worthy

Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.

It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...


edit

I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"

Do you know what terrorism is?

Do you know what planet you live on?

lol. I guess the answer is no.

Yeah, get with the program Nick. *We* are the terrorists.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Craig234


Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.


If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue.


Are these statements honestly how you feel? Wow.

sig worthy

Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.

It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...


edit

I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"

Do you know what terrorism is?

Do you know what planet you live on?

lol. I guess the answer is no.

Yeah, get with the program Nick. *We* are the terrorists.


Damn I keep forgetting that.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
who cares wtf the report is called?! The production of said report has always been laid out in a law written and passed by Congress. It's not Bush's fault that some people were too dumb to figure that out.

Great argument. Don't blame the liars who pulled the bait and switch. Blame it on those they deceived for being "too dumb to figure that out." :roll:

That's the same lame argument the neocons have been pimping since they started to withdraw resources from the war we have failed to win, and should already have won, in Afghanistan to pursue their ill conceived, ill planned, mindless, invasion of Iraq for "reasons" all but the most rabid neocon morons now acknowledge were false.

[ Insert cut and pasted laundry list of discredited Bushwhacko lies here. ]

If it gives you any false comfort, you can blame the majority in Congress for going along with it, but that doesn't relieve the administration of the major blame for starting the war or for the ever-changing succession stovepiped, selected "intelligence" and outright lies they fed Congress and the American people for starting it anymore than it does, now, for yet another pack of lies about the REAL authors of The Patraeus Report.

As usual, you ignored the entire point. Stop obsessing with 2003 and hanging Bush and try to actually contribute something meaningful that may impact the here and now;... or, better yet, the future... We have a crisis to solve, and your rants against Bush for the initial invasion are nothing more than verbal diarrhea that contribute nothing to the discussion of current events.

Earth to palehorse74 -- Did you read my OP? I posted it on 8-15-07, and the entire post was about information from an article dated 8-15-07 revealing newly disclosed deception and fraud by the administration regarding who was actually writing The Patraeus Report. Those are not my words. That's what your Traitor In Chief has been calling it for months. How is that not a "discussion of current events?"

If that was the first time the administration had lied, there wouldn't be a relevant list of previous lies available for reference in the discussion. But this isn't the first time they've lied, is it? :shocked:

I know it's extra tough for you, as you cannot get through one thread without shouting "He lied and our soldiers died! WMD'S, OIL, AND HALIBURTON OMGWTF!!" But hey, give it your best shot... try to join us in 2007, a year in which none of those initial issues have any impact on solving the current problems in Iraq and elsewhere.

Of my 20 posts in this thread, including this one, I didn't get into the administrations' history of liesand malfeasance until my seventh post in the thread where my references were in direct response to PJ's post that the whole thread "a farce" and "the Democrats don?t want the truth out of Iraq." While you're at it, if you check, you won't find the word, "Haliburton" anywhere in this thread... until you brought it up, and I've NEVER claimed the Bushies invaded Iraq for oil. :p

I don't have to "join you" in 2007. I've acknowledged the current problems with ending our involvement in Iraq any number of times, including in my fifth post in this thread:

Even a fastest case exit strategy would take substantial planning and time to execute. Call it whatever you want as long as it means we're planning the best way out, instead of trying to somehow justify the bullshit that got us in and is keeping us in.

I also replied to your attempts to distract attention from what I've actually posted in this thread:

I'm not "stuck" in 2003, but the only way to prevent any repetition of the heinous crimes against the American people by the Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal is to try them and convict them for their crimes.

That is as important as any issue for both the present and future of our nation.

good luck with that.

Thanks. We'll need all the luck we can get and more. It would be nice if some of you conservatives who claim to love this country, and who are so late in figuring out this administration's scams, would join us in salvaging our democratic institutions from the damage they've done, preferably before it's too late. :(
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Craig234


Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.


If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue.


Are these statements honestly how you feel? Wow.

sig worthy

Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.

It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...


edit

I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"

Do you know what terrorism is?

Do you know what planet you live on?

lol. I guess the answer is no.

Yeah, get with the program Nick. *We* are the terrorists.

Yeah, that's what I meant:roll:. How's that bubble holding up?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.


Two things are worth saying.

1. There will be the Patraeus report and events on the ground will both be happening on 9/15/2007. Events on the ground will be the single most important factor in possibly discrediting the Patraeus report. Or to put it the other way, the Patraeus report must be consistent with events on the ground to be credible.

2. To stay consistent with reality, the Patraeus report must stay consistent to events on the ground in Iraq. And the importance of any inconsistencies will lie on how far into the future the congress allows its self to write a blank stupidity check. And a lock far into the future blank stupidity check is the direct opposite of a reality check. So all eyes must be on how far into the future GWB&co. wants the funding to last----I suggest congress should allow no more than two to three months---guaranteed GWB will want it to last at least a non-reviewable year or more.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

Doesn't the DoD serve at the pleasure of the President?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.


Two things are worth saying.

1. There will be the Patraeus report and events on the ground will both be happening on 9/15/2007. Events on the ground will be the single most important factor in possibly discrediting the Patraeus report. Or to put it the other way, the Patraeus report must be consistent with events on the ground to be credible.

2. To stay consistent with reality, the Patraeus report must stay consistent to events on the ground in Iraq. And the importance of any inconsistencies will lie on how far into the future the congress allows its self to write a blank stupidity check. And a lock far into the future blank stupidity check is the direct opposite of a reality check. So all eyes must be on how far into the future GWB&co. wants the funding to last----I suggest congress should allow no more than two to three months---guaranteed GWB will want it to last at least a non-reviewable year or more.

Actually, looks like it's gonna be a 9/11 party:
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008258629

Can you say drinking game? Every time someone says "...on that day, 6 years ago today...", drink!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

OK. I'll agree with you that Congress deserves a swift whack up the side of the head for their poor choice of wording in the legislation that allows the Bushwhackos to continue to lie to both Congress and the American people... yet again!

Now, please tell us why that excuses the Bushwhackos for doing it. :roll:

As of 8/20/07 11:06 am EDT, 3,707 American troops have died in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES in Iraq and tens of thousands more American troops are wounded, scarred and disabled for life.
rose.gif
:(
rose.gif


The Bushies should be tried for murder for every one of those dead Americans, and they should be tried for treason for shredding the rights guaranteed to all American citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

I'm sure you and the rest of your sycophantic admin apologists are very pleased with what they've accomplished and will be cheering as the number of flag draped coffins continues to grow.

GG, your ass! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

Doesn't the DoD serve at the pleasure of the President?
What does that have to do with the reports being authored properly, and in complete accordance with the law passed by Congress?
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

Doesn't the DoD serve at the pleasure of the President?
What does that have to do with the reports being authored properly, and in complete accordance with the law passed by Congress?

You suggested it and I'm asking you a simple question?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
What does that have to do with the reports being authored properly, and in complete accordance with the law passed by Congress?

What does that have to do with the fact that they have always lied, and that the will contintue to lie as long as they can play, saying one thing and sneaking in another just because they manage to slip weasel words in the text of the legislation as they're negotiating with Congress?

THAT IS NOT A DEFENSE FOR LYING! THAT IS NOT A DEFNSE FOR KILLING MORE AMERICANS. Grow up, and get over it! Your guys are lying, murdering, traitorous assholes.

If you still support and defend them in the face of all the evidence against them, what does that make you? :shocked:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Harvey
OK. I'll agree with you that Congress deserves a swift whack up the side of the head for their poor choice of wording in the legislation that allows the Bushwhackos to continue to lie to both Congress and the American people... yet again!

Now, please tell us why that excuses the Bushwhackos for doing it. :roll:
uhh, ok, so let me get this straight: Are you now encouraging Bush to break a law?

wow... that's beyond ironic.

As of 8/20/07 11:06 am EDT, 3,707 American troops have died in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES ...blah blah...The Bushies should be tried for murder...blah blah....they should be tried for treason.... blah blah... shredding the rights...apologists... blah blah blah... coffins... blah
Do you use software to generate that crapola in every post, or do you use the copy and paste technique?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

Doesn't the DoD serve at the pleasure of the President?
What does that have to do with the reports being authored properly, and in complete accordance with the law passed by Congress?

You suggested it and I'm asking you a simple question?
The answer to your question is actually "no."
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Narmer
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well at least we can all agree that there will be a Patraeus report on 9/15/2007. Although I think GWB&co. would prefer delaying it until 1/20/2009.

No, there will be a report writtten by the Whitehouse staff that they will claim was based on whatever they want us to believe Gen. Patraeus reported to them. The Bushwhackos' credibility is so far south of zero that, regardless of what it says, or how accurate it may be, we'll have no reason to believe it'll be anything more than yet another fraud.
Well then perhaps your Democrat Congress should have written to the law to force the DoD to write the report themselves... As it stands, the reason the WH is authoring the report is because "your heroes" made that a legal requirement.

GG!

Doesn't the DoD serve at the pleasure of the President?
What does that have to do with the reports being authored properly, and in complete accordance with the law passed by Congress?

You suggested it and I'm asking you a simple question?
The answer to your question is actually "no."

Hmmm, this is what Keird wrote in another thread defending you:

Originally posted by: keird
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Then do it on your own dime, because you work for me and that's not what I'm paying you for.

Service != subservience, hotshot.

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Get elected, then we'll listen.

Is he lying or are you lying?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Now, please tell us why that excuses the Bushwhackos for doing it. :roll:
uhh, ok, so let me get this straight: Are you now encouraging Bush to break a law?[/quote]

It's too late for that. He's been doing it continuously for six years.

As of 8/20/07 11:06 am EDT, 3,707 American troops have died in the Bushwhackos' war of LIES ...blah blah...The Bushies should be tried for murder...blah blah....they should be tried for treason.... blah blah... shredding the rights...apologists... blah blah blah... coffins... blah
Do you use software to generate that crapola in every post, or do you use the copy and paste technique?[/quote]

It's public information. Do you use software to generate your support for your Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of murderers and thieves in every post, or do you cut and paste your posts from your used toilet paper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.