basso, that article you posted yesterday seems to be nothing more than support wack-a-mole strategy. it admits that the iraqis are no more closer to governing themselves than when the war started. how is it a sign of progress? from the article "Despite political setbacks, American commanders are clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up—with local groups joining or aiding U.S. efforts to root out extremists—rather than from the top down, where national leaders have failed to act." "Efforts at Iraqi reconciliation saw another blow Monday: Five Cabinet ministers loyal to Iraq's first post-Saddam Hussein leader decided to boycott government meetings, further deepening a crisis that threatens Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The boycott would leave the Shiite-led government with no Sunni participants, at least temporarily." seriously, where's the progress p.s. I apologize if this has been addressed since, sincerely
More poo, persoanlly, I don't take anything you say seriously after your opening response to me was "you are a fool". Way to start off a civil debate. One thing you have to hand it to basso, he's far more civil despite your ugly attack on him.
It's interesting isn't it. We speak about military progress and allowing the military more time, here's the reaction: 1. No, the reports are false, it's all lies and Bush propaganda 2. No, it's just the positive news which is nothing compared to all the other negative news 3. No, it's still a failure, because we're just arming the Sunnis and the general is incompetent. 4. Ok, so the surge may have worked, but Iraq will still fail because of the political situation. That's not looking good, so the military progress is irrelevant anyway and we should just give up now. 5. By the way, since you now support giving more time, you're a flip-flopping fool I see how the liberal posters here work.
I know logic is useless here but I'll just point out that the reason for the surge (in the words of the president) was to give the Maliki government breathing room so they could do their jobs. Obviously that has not happened as the government is now fracturing with no progress on the benchmarks set out by the administration to gage success. Ergo the surge has failed It's really quite simple even for you.
I'm just skimming this thread but I can't believe people still bring up this comparison. Tell me which foreign power was occupying the early US? The comparison of the post-revolution US with Iraq is ridiculous given how fundamentally different the situations were.
even more ridiculous given the fact that in the past basso has gotten his panties in a wad when someone dares to compare iraq to vietnam. didnt you know its only ok to compare iraq to other wars when basso does it? ive seen him compare iraq to WWII, the revolutionary war and vietnam. but anyone else does it and basso is the first one to chide them for it. and the basis of this thread is ridiculous given the fact that basso is on record saying "new york times, stuck on stupid". i suppose they are only "stuck on stupid" when basso doesnt like what they are saying. and the arguments that people like basso and new yorker make regarding "liberals" wanting iraq to go bad just to make bush look bad are ridiculous given the fact that leaders of the republican party have actually called for more terrorist attacks to make bush look good and they dont seem to mind. i havent seen any war-opponents say they want troops to die just to make bush look bad. but we do have republican leaders wanting american citizens to die just to make bush look good. why doesnt basso condemn this?
What attack on basso? Accusing me of supporting terrorists, and wanting our troops to fail, is hardly more civil(or accurate) than anything I've done on these boards to basso or anyone else. As for calling you a fool, I would call anyone a fool who still listens to what Bush and his toadies are claiming is going on in Iraq when there is evidence to the contrary out there, buy people who are much more credible. The post you referenced doesn't fling any poo at you. It merely tries to explain the value of sincere and honest debate.
yes, quite. you'd almost think they don't want to win. [rquoter]"The administration is aggressively engaged in shifting (public) attitudes. And our side has been less aggressive than it needs to be," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake.[/rquoter] who's on "our" side?
i don't think the arkansas state party chair really counts as a "leader", and even that comment is about expectations, not wish fulfillment.
LOL, but in your previous post you claimed you were sickend that I was trying to take a higer ground. Make up your mind.
what about him? he's no longer in office. and once again, he was talking about what he expected to occur, not what he wanted to happen. i think you're intelligent enough to get that.
I really dont' think anyone cares about what the guy from Arkansas said, but he most certainly "wished" for an attack. He point blank said we needed it. "At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country"
you're taking a very literal reading of the word "need" in this statement. it's pretty clearly meant in the sense of "all it would take"- try context clues- they're a big help to reading comprehension.
Look the quote doesn't matter at all. he's just a random guy from Arkansas. And if you really wanted to understand him, you'd probably need to hear his voice inflection and hear what words he emphasized. Hence its ridiculous enough to speculate on the meaning. he said something stupid and interpreting what he said is worthless. It was a dumb thing to say, regardless of his intention or the situation.
