Hooray! I say. Now the rest of you clever clogs can explain the impact of this. Proceed.
Printable View
Hooray! I say. Now the rest of you clever clogs can explain the impact of this. Proceed.
Well, the staunch work of the troops from several nations has made that part of the world a better place to live for it's inhabitants.The recent election results confirm the natives approval.
What I don't understand is giving a specified date for extraction (Aug. 31, 2010.). Now the remaining terrorists simply know they need to lay low for the remaining 18+/- months until we're gone. :dabs:
You mean the troops from the USA, and two soldiers from a few welfare countries, that wanted our money, that by the way they never fought in battle, only England did?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
But england only had around 2 thousand soldiers. That part of the world will never be a better place, their living standards went back a houndred years with the Bush invasion, is worst now than with Sadam.
So Bush said one thing, but wait he said they won the war, just wait that the American soldiers come home and you will see the difference.
And We didn't achieve what we went there for, we still don't have their oil lol.
You're a fucking idiot. That is all.
now they dont have to worry about getting nerve gassed by their own president or dictator.
also, oil is down to about $30 a barrel and gas is under $2 a gallon
And you are a republican that is wrost lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Finally. An issue we can all agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
=-=-=
As for the topic at hand, I'd say that this is probably a good thing. Not entirely unexpected, either.
Not sure if it's going to gain the US any popularity in the middle east at this point, as it's been too long. But it might calm some people down.
Then do what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Fuck sake Skizo, can you not do something about 5 tomatoes there?
Ha and Russia is invading Canada . This stuff never gets old .
"The latest flashpoint in Arctic politics - Friday's revelation that Canadian fighter jets intercepted a Russian bomber on the eve of U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Ottawa - comes as Norway and its Nordic neighbours weigh a possible military pact to defend each other against potential aggression on the polar frontier. "
http://www2.canada.com/topics/entert...tml?id=1341510
Oh, let's just not worry about it; it'll be fine - we've got B.O.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateThen do what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
Actually, this isn't news; we've been leaving Iraq all along, but citing a date was viewed as tactically stupid.
B.O. believes differently, and hey, it's his show, so.
"Viewed as tactically stupid" by whom?
And what's this talk about "we've been leaving Iraq all along" about?
In Sept. of last year Bush insisted that he was maintaining troop levels until he was out of office and whoever followed him would be responsible for drawing down the level.
You know, the old "my way or the highway" doctrine so beloved of the Repubs.
So, let's get this straight...for 6 years Bush/Cheney insisted that the US was going to stay in Iraq till a "victory" was achieved.
In 2007, troop levels are increased as part of the famous "surge".
In 2008, Bush insists that troop levels will remain stable as long as he's in office.
None of this even accounts for the rising level of "contractors" brought in by family friendly companies like Haliburton and Blackwater, who's numbers make them the second largest force in Iraq, second only to the US military.
And yet you say "we've been leaving all along".
What an interesting grip on the English language you have.
Cause you see, to most people that doesn't indicate "leaving" in the normally perceived sense.
Anyone and everyone with a brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
This of course leaves the libs out of it.
Nobody (John McCain's remark aside) said we'd stay in Iraq beyond the job's being done.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
To assert otherwise is a universal liberal affliction.
In any case, we shall see what happens.
EDIT:
Y'know, it just occurred to me to note the lack of political signage above my computer, you B.O. fan-boy.
There is none now, has not been, nor will there ever be.
Your not counting the Fox News screensaver, huh?
"Nobody said we'd stay in Iraq beyond the job's being done"...oh, that's a good one.
Nobody ever said what "being done" meant either, did they?
Just a tad bit open ended for my taste, thank you.
You don't worry. Me, I want to know just what these "terrorists" are going to "just lay low" for, seeing as I'm being told that will be the result of telling them we are drawing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Oh, let's just not worry about it; it'll be fine - we've got B.O.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
What goal would they try to achieve, apart from getting US troops out of their part of the world, that they are not trying to achieve now?
Let's just for the sake of debate say that these "terrorists" will lay low until our troops leave. Wouldn't that mean our troops are safer while the draw down process happens? Wouldn't keeping it a secret mean our troop would come under more attacks?
The only thing as far as I can tell that we did to the actual terrorists that attacked us by being in Iraq, was to save them travel time and costs.
As for the waiting till the job was done, well the job weactually, supposedly went in to do was achieved 6 years ago, and since then I've been told continuously that we have achieved the democracy goal that replaced the original "imminent danger removal" goal. So just what exact job has not been finished anymore than it would be if we stayed there indefinitely?
"Fox News screensaver"?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Where have you seen one of those?
"Being done" in Iraq was a constant subject of discussion between the media and the Bush administration; I can only believe you never turned on a television between the Bush and Obama inaugurations in order to claim you missed all of that.
Your taste aside, of course.
OMG, Obama has failed to assuage your concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocateYou don't worry. Me, I want to know just what these "terrorists" are going to "just lay low" for, seeing as I'm being told that will be the result of telling them we are drawing down.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
What goal would they try to achieve, apart from getting US troops out of their part of the world, that they are not trying to achieve now?
Let's just for the sake of debate say that these "terrorists" will lay low until our troops leave. Wouldn't that mean our troops are safer while the draw down process happens? Wouldn't keeping it a secret mean our troop would come under more attacks?
The only thing as far as I can tell that we did to the actual terrorists that attacked us by being in Iraq, was to save them travel time and costs.
As for the waiting till the job was done, well the job weactually, supposedly went in to do was achieved 6 years ago, and since then I've been told continuously that we have achieved the democracy goal that replaced the original "imminent danger removal" goal. So just what exact job has not been finished anymore than it would be if we stayed there indefinitely?
For quick relief, please access Joe Biden's website-
Wait, I have the number right here...
Oh, that's rich..."a constant subject of discussion between the media and the Bush administration"...like there was ever an actual give-and-take between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The last time Bush gave any clear indication about how the war was going was his famous "Mission Accomplished" fiasco in 2003.
For the next five years his administration never gave a single concrete example of what the ultimate goal or end point might be.
Rather than define the mission in any clearcut fashion, Bush spent all his energy trying to define those who questioned him as unpatriotic and cowardly.
You are in fact, fond of the same tactic.
Having broadly stated that the Obama financial aid legislation is going to be the biggest disaster in American history, you refuse to provide any metrics by which to gauge it's success/failure.
So, much like Bush- who's war would be over whenever he said it would be- Obama is a failure simply because you say he is.
Skizo said all the terrorist have to do is lay low until we leave if given a time frame. I asked a simple question of Skizo about this assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I will expand on the already unanswered question.
What is it that the terrorists would wait to do now they have been given a time frame that they wouldn't do if we just pulled out unannounced?
Some people like skizo said that terrorists have to lay low for a while till we are gone... actually u guyz dont leave the middle east... u can interrupt anytime u want even if terrorists show off there...U guyz had 520000 soldiers in saudi arabia probably still do..... still have an base in UAE and in other various countries...So Nothing big can take place in the iraq... only minor bombings
You guyz went Iraq for various reasons... the ones i can count...
1)The aggressive behaviour of Saddam to endanger the middle eastern countries which could rise the price of oil dramatically... u wanted to put an end to this...
2)Kinda to save the shii people from the totalitarian sunni dictatorship (sunnis was minority yet ruling class...)
3)Because of Al qaeda and Saddams support for Anwarul islam who was in touch with Al qaeda...
Impacts of this withdrawal?
1) U guyz kinda gave Bin Laden and people like Mullah Omer the right to praise themselves off this withdrawal. Mobilization will be easier...
2)Shii movements in the region might get higher and some Shiis might start to call others to stand up and fight... leading the shiis in the saudi arabia to be separated from saudi arabia...
3)Wahhabis in the saudi arabia will try to wahhabize the iraq...
4)Taliban will easily use the black market in the iraq via drugs or other staff... so heroin will be easy to find people will be poisoned easily et cetera...
My personal view on the matter on a bigger scale... is that Al qaeda or the similar organizations achieve the desired effect... and get nuclear arms to fight back.... and bring this order into an end... why? because the worlds richest three persons wealth is equal to the gdp of worlds poorest 48 countries... and one more thing... damn law is there to protect the riches of those privilidged.... anyway last part was kinda irrelevant though..
nice to be back... luv this place no matter how they see me...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bilkenter
Only one reason sir, oil....
Bush called someone "cowardly"?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
"Unpatriotic"?
When?
Where?
Bush was constantly buzzed by the media for an answer to the question, and gave various answers at various times, given conditions/circumstances/situations.
Don't pretend he never entertained the question.
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
There is no "metric" for that which has never occurred before, so this is how I figure it:
Socialism is counter to capitalism.
Capitalism gave us trains, planes, and automobiles, and a cornucopia of goods and services.
Socialism has given us nothing.
Socialism is in financial straits wherever it is currently practiced; think in terms of the US Postal Service, hitting us up for more cash every year or two, and now threatening to fold their tent on Saturdays to ensure financial viability (until next year...maybe).
Then look at UPS, a private enterprise that kicks ass and takes names - given open and unsubsidized competition between the two, the USPS would be toast immediately.
Socialism is in financial trouble all over Europe, and it's gonna get lots worse, 'cuz B.O. is gonna hack the guts out of our capitalist-funded defense capability, which means the Europeans will have to foot their own defense instead of spending every spare cent on their panoply of social programs, programs that only got off the ground because US defense spending afforded them the leeway.
Gee, though, no more Soviet nuke threat, no more need for our umbrella, and everyone can fly on their own, now (fine with me).
Now, given all that, we're supposed to believe socialism will work here, because B.O. is the man with the plan?
That he's smarter than all who have gone before (and failed miserably)?
Bullshit.
Now comes Gordon Brown, to tout an international "New Deal"?
Bullshit.
FDR's efforts to thwart the depression were an utter failure; WWII ended the Great Depression, nothing else.
If Obama wants to do something, let him figure out a way to make war bad for business.
That'd be something, now, wouldn't it?
And "socialism" gave the tracks that trains run on, the air traffic controllers who direct the planes and the interstate highways for the cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
All funded and maintained by the government.
Actually, for most things I much prefer the USPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
So does a friend of mine who's wife runs a eBay store from home and thus, ships a lot.
He HATES UPS.
Basically, the US has had socialistic programs in place for decades (Social Security, anyone?), so the current outrage from the right seems like mere posturing to me.
that is the most known one how could i kinda not remember? yet they already have oil for security agreements all across the region so... i dont consider it is done for oil at least not significantly...Quote:
Originally Posted by lamullerQuote:
Originally Posted by bilkenter
Only one reason sir, oil....
Main "Socialist" Country is China (although I can't think of many less social places..).Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
The Chinese economy grew a whopping 9.9% in the first three quarters of 2008.. :whistling
Portugal is also Socialist, and has been hit less hard than most of Europe in the current downturn. Although it started off at a disadvantage, it was a couple of years ahead of clearing all of its international debt too.
Truthfully?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skweeky
Civil War within 3 years in Iraq.
Edit:
Qualifier: Unless someone takes control of the Country that is as big a bastard as Saddam was.
Lets wait for the report from your State Department next week huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skizo
It's expected to show a 30% in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000..
Considering the number was a 423 high in 2000, 346 in 2001 and 199 in 2002, there must be something that happened to create such a "surge" in the last few years..
None of that is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Now, if you had said, 'funded by the American taxpayer', or 'built by private contractors' it would have been closer to the truth, but Socialism has had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
And Ike was a Republican, wtf.
You'll note that I had socialism in quotation marks.
Unlike you, who seems to think that Obama is actually a Socialist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Okay - have it your way.
Obama is a "Socialist".
No, he's a Democrat.
Who just so happens to be President.