|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 14th, 2006 06:27 PM | |||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 14th, 2006 04:00 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 14th, 2006 03:22 PM | |||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 14th, 2006 02:57 PM | |||
| mburbank | shhh. She's only going to answer. | ||
| Dec 14th, 2006 02:40 PM | |||
| ItalianStereotype |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 14th, 2006 02:24 PM | |||
| mburbank | Fox news? Isn't that an oxymoron? | ||
| Dec 14th, 2006 02:05 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
I was just referencing headlines like this one: "Saudis funding Al Qaeda is a sticky situation" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,236400,00.html That was one version of how the story was reported, but when you read the text of the article, it never really mentioned Al Qaeda at all. I have no problem if people want to call Sunni militants by the banner Al Qaeda, but some people do. Your view seems a bit "Americentric. Your complex soap opera scenario doesn't even address the obvious - Saudi Arabia is a Sunni state, their allegiance with Sunni's is a natural one. It would be bad for them if they lost control over the Shia population, or worse, that Shiite Iran expanded and threatened Mecca. Some things can be taken at face value. |
||
| Dec 14th, 2006 09:36 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I haven't seen any press reports about the Saudi's allying themselves with Al Quaeda. If you have, post them. I have seen multiple press reports about threatning to support the Sunnis, which would be different. And alliances are always built on the premiss that mutual interests are served. They are often built on both promising more than they give and attempting to get the better deal. In addition, the alliance between the US and the Saudis has always been more about an alliance between the Bush family and the Saudi Royals than about the actual interests of either country. A Saudi threat to back to Sunnis is a powerful incentive to 'stay the course'. As I said before, that doesn't mean they don't mean it. I just think it serves the interests of team Bush as well. This is how alliances work. |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 08:20 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx | I'd like to hear more about this theory that Cheney requested the Saudi's should threaten that they might "allign themselves with Al Qaeda" as the press reports it, and back the Sunni side. I mean, what about the Saudi interests or their behavior would suggest that's not their own self serving intention? Wasn't the entire premise of a Saudi friendship working in the best interest of the USA a farce to begin with? Now you're arguing that they would take the fall and suggest that their threats to undermind the US are just a choreographed favor...because last I checked, that's what the Saudis do best...they undermind us and act self serving. Then again, what could the Saudis want with a Sunni-Shia civil war? It's not like Mecca is at play or anything. Oh..wait. | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 04:51 PM | |||
| Lenor |
Honestly, max Since when is it really news that a large amount of random people got blown up somewhere in iraq because they were just there... Bush will keep on intimidating for as long as he can, trying to keep his new 'order' on track. When Japan pulled out more then a year ago, should of been an indication that, not only is he pissing off his own country, but pissing off alot more. A few months ago maxim came out with an article on several countries that are against the US and bush, and how they could Fuck the shit outta us 3 ways in 3 seconds... Dont know if anyone read it? It seems more likely that whenever the blocks get put into place, iraq is going to come pounding back at us hard with several countries backing them up with their own reasons... Like I said befor.. I just hope I can get across the border befor that happens! |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 04:43 PM | |||
| mburbank |
Here's an interesting new wrinkle: BAGHDAD, Iraq - A new round of car bombings and other violence struck Iraq on Wednesday, with 55 people killed or found dead as the Iraqi government unveiled a plan to assume responsibility for security in Baghdad by early next year. Is this a cooperative part of the 'new way forward' or is it a surprise? Since Iraq has sovereignity, we are in no position to tell tem they can't asume control of Bahgdad security, but what would that even mean? And would it include the Green Zone? I think probably it's symbolic, control in name only, or control as long as they don't mean it in any way that included telling American troops what they could or couldn't do anywhere, anytime. |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 04:26 PM | |||
| Lenor |
Yeah, thats fucked.. I get 'warned' by kevin because of my supposed 'derailing' in my post. ... Yet, Since when did my boobs become political? |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 04:23 PM | |||
| sspadowsky | I think it's a fantastic poetic coincidence that Max uses the word "bosom," and the next person to post is Lenor. | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 04:01 PM | |||
| Lenor | preechr.... he'll be dead by then | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:59 PM | |||
| Preechr | Team Bush© hasn't really been known for their willingness to talk about the specific details of anything, so I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting to hear what the new plans are gonna be like. I'm still holding my breath waiting for a press release concerning the old plans. | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:56 PM | |||
| Lenor |
Yeah, exactly what you just quoted out of washington, with the majority of the country all fucked up cause he took this way too far, Hes going to need to save face or step right the fuck down! Of course hes going to wait to comment, With the reality that his dumb texan hick ass threw a million kids into a 'war' that actually wasnt, their parents pissed (whom are the majority of voters) and his shit gettin blown up all over the place... Whatever way he decides to go is going to be a breaking point.. and in the next couple of years is going to decide where the US stands, since hes got free rein on terrorist actions.. I wouldnt be surprised if he hired some serial killers to use their usually large amount of inteligence and not his own 'crew' ... |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:47 PM | |||
| mburbank |
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he would "not be rushed" into a decision on a strategy change for Iraq, saying that in a round of consultations he heard both some interesting ideas and some "ideas that would lead to defeat." "And I reject those ideas," Bush said after meeting with top generals and Defense Department officials at the Pentagon. He said those ideas included "leaving before the job is done, ideas such as not helping this (Iraqi) government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job." |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:43 PM | |||
| mburbank |
I'm betting on nothing. Sure, there will be some new freshly branded rhetoric, but it will boil down to no serious changes at all. There will be some noise about talking to Syria and Iran, but only if and after they do stuff we already know they won't agree to. There were some trial balloons out of the Pentagon yesterday about 'doubling down' which would be tough guy speak for sending in a whole bunch more troops for a major offensive in Anbar province, but A.) I don't think he has the sack, and I know he doesn't have the credability and B.) We already tried to sell that as a turning point in Fallujah, and while we were totally sucseful battle wise, no points got turned. And I can't imagine he'd ever endorse any sort of draw down or publicly accept that 'victory' is no longer on the table. He's left himself nowhere to go but 'stay the course and call it something different'. I could be wrong, but that's my prediction. |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:43 PM | |||
| Lenor | can you say: Intolerable reaction to the masses | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:41 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Can you say "pre-submit discretion"? | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:36 PM | |||
| Lenor | I have nightmares that I wont make it over the border in time to switzerland or holland when ww3 really breaks the fuck out! can you say : extreme revolutionary dominance ... | ||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:32 PM | |||
| Preechr |
I have nightmares that Dubya's "Stay The Course" mantra will end up like his dad's "No New Taxes" pledge. One of the talk shows today had a caller that wondered if Sadr might be taken care of before the speech, but I still say that'd be a mistake. I really have no idea what he's gonna come up with. It could be anything at this point. |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:29 PM | |||
| Lenor |
I do belive, bush has started to retract alot of the bullshit hes been doing lately, most likely hes going to get shot and ill laugh! And didnt cheeney fuckin shot someone anyways? But, since the iraq shit isnt working out obviously the way it was so perfectly planned to have done so, hopefully that shit gets done and over with and someone starts hitting up the other obviouse WAR on drugs.. since spending billions to get people not to smoke weed, isnt working to well!! The pharmacutical companies are really the actual drug dealers, with the amount you have to pay for a script its fucked up.. which I do belive bush is also involved in... |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 03:21 PM | |||
| mburbank |
Seriously? I think at Chenney's meeting, what, a week prior to the announcement, Chenney asked them to say that. It's a pretty poiwerful argument for 'stay the course' ain't it? And awfully odd and threatening coming from our bossom allies the Saudis. Doesn't mean it's not possibly true as well, but you knw how intertwined I think the Bush machine and the Saudi royals are. |
||
| Dec 13th, 2006 02:30 PM | |||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Max, what do you think of the Saudi threat to enter Iraq once we leave? | ||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
