LOL - please pay attention. You're lost, but clearly playing the part of the doomsday liberal who will say anything no matter true or false to bring down W or the country as a whole.
If we continue the war, I want the UN involved. If it means amputating Rummy and sending his parts across the 4 corners of the world, so be it. Screw the power plays, people are dying. It removes one public front and brings some unity on the supposed targets of terror. Most of all, it'd mean that Americans aren't in it for the oil as any agreement would significantly reduce our spoils.
I would've suggested putting Rumsfeld's head on a pike, but you know how those Europeans are against capital punishment.
The GDP has maintained it's growth due to increased real estate investment and unsold inventories. All indexes of consumer spending (latest yearly report- rose 0.3% against 2.3% rise in Consumer Price index)and real wages have decreased. So trumpeting the rise in GDP can be very misleading if you don't examine the individual components. Massive deficit spending and trade deficits do not indicate a robust economy.
Thanks again, biggie. You can always be counted on for a good chuckle with your Royal Matrimony of insecurity and blind devotion, showcased post after post. The former with regard to your cursory economic study which apparently consists largely of a few years at some lesser institution of somewhat higher learning, and the latter of course with regard to anything Republican (I would say 'Conservative,' however, you apparently do not advocate anything closely resembling fiscal conservative policy). But if nothing else, your presence with us at least here, if not at the local nudey bars frequented, is undoubtedly 'Royal'. Your effervescent drive to stand out, at least here if not at Treasure's or the Pink Poodle, is what separates you from the other partisans. In fact, I believe we should just give you what you so covet. You've earned it, bro. You are finally somebody: I hereby annoint and crown thee to thine throne......King of Gregonomics and W-horing
Actually I have posted both negative and positive things about the war in Iraq. I started a thread about one of the prisons in Iraq that was in sharp contrast to AG. It was a totally positive thread. I posted links so that people could listen to the full audio of it. I also mentioned specific instances in which I thought troops should be recognized beyond just general support. I mentioned that the brave soldier who reported his fellow soldiers at AG prison should reveive a medal. He had the guts to stand up and do the right thing. It was actually you bigtexxx in that thread that wouldn't support that soldier for having the guts to do the right thing. mcmark had a great reply. What we are posting are facts. If you have facts to the contrary please post it. But once again speaking out against a war, and posting factual information to back it up is not unpatriotic or loving Saddam, or loving Al Qaeda.
I thought this thread was resolving things once and for all? Can we just get the pinko libs on the left and the fascist neo-cons on the right already? Damn...
I hope it still will. Either people will provide evidence for the accusations they make, and we can debate it, or they won't provide any evidence, and we can judge the value of their accusations from that. This is a golden opportunity for those who feel that opponents to the war are unpatriotic, and helping the enemy or supporting Saddam to explain clearly what leads them to believe that. It is also a chance for the accused to discuss why they hold the views they have, and we can either agree to disagree, possibly understand where the other side is coming from, or not. But at least everyone will be able to lay their cards on the table and let folks judge for themselves.
Geez, FB. Can we cut and paste? I hate the idea of writing everything again for the bazillionth time. keep D&D Civil.
Sure, but as I indicated above - dissent that says the war is not being run well or that it wasn't justified properly, is not the same as that which says 'withdraw now.' Again pointing to my argument above, one necessarily emboldens our enemy and one does not necessarily do so. As I said earlier, one could dissent and say we should have MORE troops in Iraq. That is not the kind of dissent that emboldens Al Queda.
I see the distinction you are making. But I think one can dissent and say that the war isn't being managed correctly or wasn't justified and we need to withdraw now. Stating an opinion on how to deal with Iraq isn't emboldening our enemy any more than saying we will stay until Iraq is stable. I say that because if your faction happens to be out of power and not getting the concessions it wants, all it has to do is keep things unstable and Iraq will always be an occupied territory that isn't self sufficient. If they know that troops won't be there indefinitely there is an incentive to come to terms with other groups so that Iraq can rebuild and sustain itself. Withdrawing now isn't my advice, nor do I think it is wise. But it is preferable to staying the course which leaves us somewhere in the middle having neither stabilization nor our troops out of harms way. 1. Get in enough support to do the job correctly and stabilize Iraq. 2. withdraw now 3. Stay the course using Bush's current plans. That is the value I place on possible options.
I should have macros for the standard arguments to bring out again and again. I don't mind typing over and over because maybe it will help keep things at least a little on topic.
Uh, you're ignoring my argument. Empirically actions similar to 'withdraw now' HAVE emboldened external enemies. In this case Al Queda specifically. You can say it doesn't but how about an argument about why that's the case. I've given you a recent on point example where it HAS done so. That makes a reasonable case for withdrawing immediately from Iraq doing that same thing. OTOH, why would saying we are staying the course embolden AQ? That doesn't make any sense. I don't know what you mean by 'my faction' or what 'concessions' you're talking about. Can you rephrase or explain further? I didn't say there should be no timetable. Not saying 'withdraw NOW' doesn't inhibit putting SOME plan in place. 'Staying the course' can have a timetable, and there is no reason why it means there won't be stabilization. For example, AQ is encountering a split from the indigenous insurgents. The indigenous insurgents are moving toward the political solution rather than armed struggle. 'Staying the course' gives us a chance to both stabilize and cripple (symbolicly and literally) AQ. Squawking 'withdraw now' emboldens AQ and their support, and doesn't give us a chance for stabilization. There is no reason why 'staying the course' means staying forever. I agree there should be a more pronounced 'exit strategy,' but any such strategy won't come close to 'withdraw now.'
