So posts have to only concentrate on one solitary idea? Why can't folks appreciate the good news and make observations that delve a little deeper as well. Talking about two things doesn't mean any lacks appreciation of the good news.
Not one shred of proof? How about 4 posts for ya? No problem, FrenchieBlade. Here is the evidence. IF concedes to it being a small step, but only after 3 sentences of negativity around the situation. Oh, then he follows up his small step comment with more negativity. Did you miss that, FB? Yes you did. RM Tex's sarcasm meter points to high as he anticipates the worst possible outcome. mc mark laments the fact that the Iraqis are SAD AND WRONG, and how the US will be there for 50 years. He has no proof to back up his 50 year claim, but the negativity is what he's after, and he's found it. mc mark doubles dips in his "morning of negativity" and states another claim that is intended to emphasize failure. Nice work, mark. FrenchieBlade, it is obvious that when people only focus on the negatives, despite the fantastic news of the election turnouts, that they are hoping for the worst. If you can't understand that, then you have a lot to learn. You need to go ahead and reset my meter to -4, and your "blinded by bias meter" is now set to 1 (ignoring all past transgressions, since I'm a nice guy). FrenchieBlade blinded by bias meter reading: 1
You really have a knack for reading what you want to hear don'cha texxx? delusional as ever I said the elections were a good thing. What I said was sad was their hopefulness of the US leaving. We aren’t ever leaving.
mc marc already posted an excellent response to his quote. Invisible Fan said it was a small step. Are you upset because he wasn't happy ENOUGH about the good news? Because saying that it is a small step is certainly acknowledging the good news. I might grant you RM Tex's statement and based on an actual substantive response for you deduct one from your accusations without proof meter.
damn pangloss, you never cease to be an enigma. i really can't tell if you're totally dense or just a loyal servant of right-wing propaganda. please quit slandering people, you're hurting america.
BTW texxx A quick google search brings up a plethora of articles about permanent military bases in Iraq. Here's one... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0815-04.htm Permanent U.S. Bases in Iraq? Experts See a Political Minefield by Ronald Brownstein President Bush and his top advisors have never said the United States wants to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. But they have never ruled out the possibility either. Should they? Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, thinks so. In fact, he considers it a crucial step toward ending the insurgency. Diamond is an expert on promoting democracy and the editor of a respected journal on the subject. Though he considers himself a Democrat, he works as a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. There he came to know Condoleezza Rice during her time as a Stanford professor and administrator. In November 2003, Rice asked Diamond to help the Coalition Provisional Authority design plans for holding elections and constructing a permanent Iraqi government. Diamond had opposed the war but accepted the assignment, and he spent three months in early 2004 in Iraq as a consultant to senior U.S. officials charting the path toward Iraqi sovereignty. Diamond recently published a gripping book on his experience, which balances praise for the commitment of his co-workers with disillusionment over the administration's postwar planning. His title efficiently summarizes his conclusion: "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq." In articles discussing the book, Diamond has laid out four principles "for diminishing the violent resistance in Iraq." He believes the United States should "declare some sort of time frame" — but not a rigid deadline — for withdrawing troops. He thinks the United States should negotiate more with Sunni political groups connected to the insurgency, and he wants to enlist other countries as an "honest broker" in such efforts. But at the top of Diamond's list is an unambiguous, unconditional pledge from Bush not to establish permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. "Intense opposition to U.S. plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency," Diamond wrote last week on the liberal website TPMCafe.com. "Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion — by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely — is essential to winding down the insurgency." Other experts question whether such a pledge would calm the insurgency as much as Diamond hopes; certainly many of the foreign fighters strapping on suicide bombs don't need much incentive to kill Americans beyond the fact that they can. But Diamond believes that explicitly rejecting an open-ended military presence could widen the opportunity for negotiations with pragmatic elements in the Sunni community that could ultimately isolate the insurgents. So far the administration has downplayed the possibility of permanent bases without excluding it. In Senate testimony in February, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said flatly: "We have no intention at the present time of putting permanent bases in Iraq." Pentagon officials echo that insistence today. But Rumsfeld last winter said he could not rule out the idea because the United States and the permanent Iraqi government would make the final decision. Bush took a similar line in January in an interview with Arabic television. "That's going to be up to the Iraqi government," the president said. "[It] will be making the decisions as to how best to secure their country, what kind of help they need." Leaks from the Pentagon have deepened the uncertainty. In May, the Washington Post reported that military planning did not envision permanent bases in Iraq but rather stationing troops in nearby Kuwait. But the report noted that the Pentagon was also planning to consolidate U.S. troops in Iraq into four large fortified bases. On the theory that concrete speaks louder than words, critics see such work as a sign the administration is planning to stay longer than it has acknowledged. John E. Pike, a defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, points to another indication. Although the United States is systematically training Iraqis to fight the insurgents, he notes, the Pentagon has not taken key steps — like making plans for acquiring tanks or aircraft — to build an Iraqi military capable of defending the country against its neighbors. To Pike that means that although the United States might reduce its troop level in Iraq, the fledgling nation, like Germany or South Korea, will require the sustained presence of a large American contingent, perhaps 50,000 soldiers. "We are building the base structure to facilitate exactly [that]," he says. Whatever Iraqi politicians say publicly, Pike believes, in private many will prefer such a long-term U.S. presence, which might also provide insurance against a potential military coup. Diamond says he takes Pike's point, but still thinks the United States would improve its leverage in Iraq by making clear that Iraqi, not American, needs will determine the circumstances of our departure. "I don't know why," Diamond says, "we just can't say, 'It is not our goal to set up for the indefinite duration military bases in Iraq, from which we can operate in the Middle East for our own geopolitical purposes. Our goal is to help the new Iraqi state secure the country and defend itself, and once we mutually judge that goal is achieved, we will leave.' " The dispute over bases parallels the debate over setting a deadline to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. In both cases, war critics believe that signaling America's determination to leave will help marginalize the insurgency. War supporters fear the same signal will embolden insurgents to try to outlast the United States. The most ominous, and perhaps most likely, possibility is that insurgents and Islamic extremists will wage war against an Iraqi government allied with the United States whether we stay or go. Permanent U.S. bases might stoke the fire, but it is probably too much to hope that it will burn out without them. © 2005 Los Angeles Times
thexxxy....this will be the outcome, unless Bush's friends go Florida on the Iraqi ballot boxes. Then the Iraqis will have this fine upstanding truth telling man among men as their leader: Then, during the next election cycle, the following bumperstickers will begin to appear on the streets of Baghdad: Either way, Islamist Theocracy or Chalabi-led corruption, the Iraqi people are just as screwed as they were under Saddam. Deal with it.
Wasn't this mission called "operation iraqi freedom" ?? I have a co-worker who was born in Iraq. Every day he thanks his God for what we did. Before us, his family could not return for fear of death (his father was part of a anti-saddam political party). They have since went back and seen family they have not seen in years.
Very glad they voted. But success isn't assured just with voter turnout. This is like step 3 out of 9000 to get things back to normal. Now if only WE would go to the polls and vote (4% voter turnout for the Houston municipal elections.. PATHETIC)
No kidding. It is certainly nice that the Iraqis are turning out to vote. It doesn't come anywhere close to justifying the war, but hopefully this development will help to speed the process of getting our troops out of harms way.
Those elections were for a temporary body whose primary duty was to come up with a constitution. These votes are the first under said constitution.
No problem. Once those Iraqi oil spigots start paying for everything, the price of gas will slide to 30 cents a gallon, and then MPG won't matter, right?
