|
Imagine the horror on teh faces of the Dems should Bush and al Maliki settle on a time-table completely absent any imput from the left... |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
|
Why did the Bush regime want permanent bases? Why did it want to exempt private contractors from Iraqi law? |
| |
Written By:
Steve J.
URL:
http://radamisto.blogspot.com
|
You looking for answers or trying to make a point?
If it’s the latter, which I’m sure everyone supposes, why not save everyone a lot of time and make them? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Why did the Bush regime want permanent bases?
I don’t know for the same reason we have Kasernes in the BRD? My friends were stationed in Nurnberg, in an old Wehrmacht kaserne...and then there’s Rhein-Mein for the USAF and Landstuhl at Rhein-Mein for ALL services...all of these are permanent bases, do you object to them, too? Or the naval bases in Japan? |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
LOL, you guys are really trying to hold on to some claim that the fiasco in Iraq can be salvaged. I do have advice:
http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/advice-to-iraq-war-hawks/
Don’t be surprised if your BS doesn’t work for the public at large. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
Don’t be surprised if your BS doesn’t work for the public at large.
Erb-meister, we MUST be winning, no one writes about Iraq any more, a SURE sign of success...
You are going to be like the members of the Parti Communiste Francais...they kept telling themselves and others that the Marshall Plan was failing. Even as Euriope’s economy(ies) took off. Why because it HAD to fail and no matter what evidence was produced, it WAS a failure. You know you are going to be fun for the next few years.
|
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
Don’t be surprised if your BS doesn’t work for the public at large. Ask me if I give a sh*t what the public at large thinks.
As for your comments, I have only one thing to say:
Small Steps, there Erb. Small Steps! |
| |
Written By:
SShiell
URL:
http://
|
I blame the Main Stream Media:Polling Data
Do you favour or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?
Jun. 29
Mar. 16
Feb. 3
Favour
30%
32%
34%
Oppose
68%
66%
64%
No opinion
2%
2%
2%
Source: Opinion Research Corporation / CNN
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,026 American adults, conducted from Jun. 26 to Jun. 29, 2008. Margin of error is 3 per cent. As oil prices continue to rise, as food prices go up, as American jobs are lost, as the stock market goes down, as radicals gain ground in Pakistan, as more Americans are dying in Afghanistan, etc., people ask themselves: WTF are we doing spending billions and billions in Iraq?
Of course, wingnuts long ago checked out as serious observers about Iraq. Time and again they have cited symbolism over reality as signs of progress. They have failed to grasp the political situation on the ground. They have failed to understand the larger political picture, and the long-term strategies of the actors. After all, before February 2006, wingnuts were telling us that we had turned the corner in Iraq. Indeed, many on this site said that very thing. Now, they are telling us the same thing again. Lucy, meet football.
The American people have finally figured that out. Hence, the above poll. Americans are getting it: Iraq is a waste of American resources. Even more so today. After all, when gas is approaching $5 a gallon, Americans figure there are better things to do with their hard earned money than to spend defending the thugs in Baghdad.
Wingnuts have never understood that. To them, there is no price not worth paying in Iraq. For them, it’s not a practical issue, with costs and benefits. By contrast, for most Americans, it is exactly that. To most Americans, a decrease in the number of deaths does not justify the cost of staying in Iraq. It’s just that simple.
And most Americans also ask the question: Why, on the one hand, do wingnuts celebrate the purported increasing power of Maliki, a man who has literally embraced and is the closet ally of the madman in Tehran, and, on the other hand, decry anyone who even mentions talking to the Iranians? Why are we dying for Maliki, a man who embraces the Anti-Semitic madman in Iran as a brother?
So go ahead, cheerlead for the war, wingnuts. Please. Tell Americans paying $5 a gallon that they have an obligation to spend their hard earned money subsidizing an oil rich nation in the Middle East. Oh, and see you in November. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Reuters, of course, wants to make an issue of al Maliki’s mention of a "timetable":The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage. Uh, hello! It makes sense to oppose such talk when you have a viable enemy who is willing to go to ground to wait you out and then strike after you’ve left. Make an issue? WTF does that mean?
Nothing, actually. First of all, stating the American government’s position with regard to the position of another government is not making an issue out of anything. It is called "reporting."
Second, the Bush admiistration has not changed its position. And yet you imply here that we don’t have said enemy anymore, which makes bringing up the "issue" legitimate, that is, the position of the US government. And thus you seem to say Maliki is making sense. But yet the reporters are trying to make an "issue" out of it, out of the thing that Maliki is making sense about.
So Maliki and Bush are both right, except of course that they take different positions.
Again, more evidence of the weirdness of the wingnut position on Maliki. They support him - for now - because he playing the role of strongman in Iraq - but they don’t want to like him, because he loves Iran. Since their egos are more important than their concern for US foreing policy generally, the former wins out over the latter.
Strange that. |
| |
Written By:
mkultra
URL:
http://
|
Source: Opinion Research Corporation / CNN
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,026 American adults 1,026 people as a sample size for the entire US? With a mere 3% margin??
And what, pray tell, was the question asked?
These tiny details, how the nag at my mind...
They would nag at your’s too mk, if you applied some critical thought to the process now and then. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Jacobs
URL:
http://
|
They would nag at your’s too mk, if you applied some critical thought to the process now and then. But then MK would have to deviate from the Dem’s talking points and that just won’t do. |
| |
Written By:
SShiell
URL:
http://
|
OK, Neither the ’Professor’ nor Mk jack ass have answered the premise of the article:
The surge has worked. Violence in Iraq is down. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds are working together and forming an inclusive government. AQI is either dead or dying, and Al Sadr is virtually in exile, his army dissipated.
So I’m going to challenge Erb and Mkultra to stop using Argumentum ad Populum and instead address the premise:
Victory is (virtually) being declared not by the United States but by the Iraqi Government, so much so that a timetable for withdrawal is being considered. All of the above is in stark contrast to both what you two have said and what you two have predicted over the past few years.
Would you like to admit your humanity here and accept you were incorrect, and happily so, because this means we’ve won? Or do you instead choose to continue holding on to your pride in spite of empirical evidence that you’re effectively trying to argue against the sun rising in the East? |
| |
Written By:
Joel C.
URL:
http://
|
Is that the real Boris Erb posting or someone pretending to be him?
McQ:I have no problem with either and I say, the sooner the better. PM al Maliki is just showing his independence. American troops will be in Iraq for a minimum of another ten years, and probably for a lot longer than that. |
| |
Written By:
Martin McPhillips
URL:
http://newpaltzjournal.com
|
Now that a timetable totally makes sense, I eagerly await McQ’s endoresment of the presidential candidate who favors a timetable and his condemnation of the one who’s agin it. Perhaps McCain is the one who needs to go to Iraq so that he can change his mind about his "outdated and dangerous strategy for turning budding success in Iraq into a disastrous defeat."*
*McQ on timetables 2 June 2008 |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
