|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 20th, 2004 05:23 PM | |
| Preechr | na na na na na na na nah LEADER!!! |
| Sep 20th, 2004 03:43 PM | |
| mburbank | only if you be the girl pantydude |
| Sep 20th, 2004 03:19 PM | |
| HNICPantitude | Make love to me max. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:58 PM | |
| mburbank | blip. bloop. bleep. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:46 PM | |
| HNICPantitude | Not trying to be funny. Merely paraphrasing your weak textbook argument. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:44 PM | |
| mburbank | I'm pleased to see your humor has matured since we saw you last, Pantydude. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:40 PM | |
| HNICPantitude | BLIP BLOOP BLIP |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:37 PM | |
| mburbank |
I think we should get out of Iraq. It's our mess but we can no longer do anything but make it worse. I think we're too tainted to do anny good at all, and I think our very presence makes things worse. I think we should get out and give buckets of money to any humanitarian NGO with the stones to even try. Unfortunately I believe if W. does do this it will only be with a mind to make trouble elsewhere. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think this gang has been at all humbled by their experience in Iraq. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 02:13 PM | |
| Brandon |
So Bush's cronies are really just planning to cut and run? So all that talk about "prevailing" was just a load of bullshit? God. We've really only got two options at this point, and they're both bad. We can either beef up our military presence in Iraq, take control of Fallujah and other trouble zones, and attempt to provide some stability and security for these people, OR we can just abandon them with the mess we created. The former will cost money and lives, and the latter will be an ENORMOUS blemish on our record -- a disaster that could come back to haunt us many, many times. Our Blessed Leader is taking the latter, and he probably won't tell us until after the election -- long after Kerry could capitalize on such a gross, callous, irresponsible move. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 01:30 PM | |
| Brandon | WHO CARES ABOUT AL QAEDA? WE'VE GOT GAY MARRIAGE TO WORRY ABOUT! |
| Sep 20th, 2004 01:01 PM | |
| Anonymous | I think I'm beginning to hate everything America stands for. |
| Sep 20th, 2004 12:59 PM | |
| mburbank |
Wow. Since W et al right now are bashing Kerry for saying he'd like to be out in FOUR YEARS it would take someone capable of saying one thing and doing the opposite for W to be looking at getting troops out in 1 year. Pretty hard to imagine. On the other hand, how are you going to Invade Iran if you don't get our army out of Iraq? nd think of the convenience factor! Their only a country away, and if you leave Iraq you've established a precedent for overthrowing and abandoning countries without stabalizing them. Oh, wait, we already established that precedent in Afghanistan! You know, Afghanistan, where Al Quaeda is? Al Quaeda? You know, Al Quaeda, the folks who actually attacked us? If Kerry had any brains he'd be talking about removing troops from Iraq in order to put them into Afghanistan and actually fight Al Quaeda. Al Quaeda. Remember, the guys who actually attacked us? Come on, America, we were just talking about them a couple of paragraphs ago! OH WAIT DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT VIETNAM?!? DID SOMEONE SNATCH A LITTLE GIRLS SIGN? WHAT?!? THE TERRORISTS WANT KERRY TO WIN?!? RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! |
| Sep 20th, 2004 12:02 PM | |
| Preechr |
Novak: Quick exit from Iraq is likely September 20, 2004 BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go. This prospective policy is based on Iraq's national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry's political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal. Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out. The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries -- especially Turkey -- that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations. This messy new Iraq is viewed by Bush officials as vastly preferable to Saddam's police state, threatening its neighbors and the West. In private, some officials believe the mistake was not in toppling Saddam but in staying there for nation building after the dictator was deposed. Abandonment of building democracy in Iraq would be a terrible blow to the neoconservative dream. The Bush administration's drift from that idea is shown in restrained reaction to Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power. While Bush officials would prefer a democratic Russia, they appreciate that Putin is determined to prevent his country from disintegrating as the Soviet Union did before it. A fragmented Russia, prey to terrorists, is not in the U.S. interest. The Kerry campaign, realizing that its only hope is to attack Bush for his Iraq policy, is not equipped to make sober evaluations of Iraq. When I asked a Kerry political aide what his candidate would do in Iraq, he could do no better than repeat the old saw that help is on the way from European troops. Kerry's foreign policy advisers know there will be no release from that quarter. In the Aug. 29 New York Times Magazine, columnist David Brooks wrote an article (''How to Reinvent the GOP'') that is regarded as a neo-con manifesto and not popular with other conservatives. ''We need to strengthen nation states,'' Brooks wrote, calling for ''a multilateral nation-building apparatus.'' To chastened Bush officials, that sounds like an invitation to repeat Iraq instead of making sure it never happens again. Copyright © The Sun-Times Company All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
