Reply
Wed 22 Nov, 2006 04:03 pm
Well, now I think it's just a matter of trying to cover asses and save face. I think even Bushco knows the days are numbered there, but they have to do it so that it looks like it was their idea to withdraw all along, and it has to be gradual enough so that they can adapt their line of bullshit to fit the withdrawal (you know - strategy for victory, and all that).
I disagree, Snood. I don't disagree about their pathological approach to problems--to attempt to produce the best spin rather than actually attempt to solve them. But i think in the case of Iraq, they've painted themselves into a political corner. Moving from the "Bring it on" phase, to the "Building democracy" phase, to the "Stay the course" phase--they ended at the "No cut and run" phase.
They have effectively assured that there is no plausible way for them to pull out, in political and ideological terms, and it is antithetical to a core goal of the neo-cons, which was to establish military bases in southwest Asia. They're not into problem solving, only ideological description. They're like a bunch of kids who have broken something, and rather than facing up to it, or looking for a way to fix what was broken, they're only concerned with the excuses they make up to cover their asses--but they've already taken away their own ability to excuse a withdrawl.
We're there to build a Starbucks on every corner.
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. (Albert Einstein)
The corollary is:
Intellectuals solve problems: geniuses prevent them. (Albert Einstein)
Morons create them then blame others for not staying the course.(parados)
We're staying in Iraq to make Iraqi people just like wholesome Americans! I envision the day when the Iraqi people drink Budweiser beer, eat Dunkin Donuts, and play American video games! The day will come when Iraqi men mow the lawns with their American made lawnmowers and drink lemonade with their lovely wives who no longer have to keep their faces covered because they are all good Christians and worship the same God Americans worship! I foresee an Iraq in which Bush becomes the patron saint and they all sit around singing "God Bless America" while watching the ball game on TV!
And they have free elections so they can vote idiots into office like we do!
Won't that be swell???
I think that when the Baker Commission makes its official "report", Bushco will have something to point at and say "now we think this is a good idea - staged withdrawal". I think they already all know we're leaving there in the next two years, but they need the bipartisan smokescreen of the Baker deal to cover their retreat.
Perhaps because we think the democratically elected government isn't strong enough to withstand the insurgents and foreign players. It seems to me to be uncivilized to be indifferent to democratic governments in danger of being overrun by barbarians.
oh brandon join the dam army and go there would ya?
Brandon9000 wrote:Perhaps because we think the democratically elected government isn't strong enough to withstand the insurgents and foreign players. It seems to me to be uncivilized to be indifferent to democratic governments in danger of being overrun by barbarians.
You mean when other countires don't like democratic elected leaders and try to undermine them? Is that the type of barbarians you are referring to?
Nah, the US would never work to undermine a democratically elected government. We think all democratically elected governments should be supported by the US. Don't we Brandon?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:oh brandon join the dam army and go there would ya?
You asked a question. I answered it. Your idea that one cannot approve of the military without being in it, is merely silly. Are you unable to respond to the idea I asserted in my post? If you don't want other views, don't solicit them.
parados wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Perhaps because we think the democratically elected government isn't strong enough to withstand the insurgents and foreign players. It seems to me to be uncivilized to be indifferent to democratic governments in danger of being overrun by barbarians.
You mean when other countires don't like democratic elected leaders and try to undermine them? Is that the type of barbarians you are referring to?
No, I mean when some elements within a country, or people from other countries, try to prevent that country's citizens from having a government of their own choosing.
parados wrote:Nah, the US would never work to undermine a democratically elected government. We think all democratically elected governments should be supported by the US. Don't we Brandon?
No, why should we? However, we do support the form of government in all democracies, and their citizens' right to choose their own leaders. We can believe that a country has the best possible form of government, without automatically supporting everything that country does.
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:oh brandon join the dam army and go there would ya?
You asked a question. I answered it. Your idea that one cannot approve of the military without being in it, is merely silly. Are you unable to respond to the idea I asserted in my post? If you don't want other views, don't solicit them.
absolutely correct Brandon. I apologize.
I find your reply and assertion almost as full of **** as our president.
Better?
Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:oh brandon join the dam army and go there would ya?
You asked a question. I answered it. Your idea that one cannot approve of the military without being in it, is merely silly.
Brandon offers his full support:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:oh brandon join the dam army and go there would ya?
You asked a question. I answered it. Your idea that one cannot approve of the military without being in it, is merely silly. Are you unable to respond to the idea I asserted in my post? If you don't want other views, don't solicit them.
absolutely correct Brandon. I apologize.
I find your reply and assertion almost as full of **** as our president.
Better?
Well, you stated that I am incorrect, but strangely say nothing about how I'm wrong. What, exactly, is the flaw you find in the answer I gave to the question you posed?
That Doonsesbury cartoon hits the mark. Man of the people in the war are there under the great promise of education benefits. I know a Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq but was still denied going to college. Seems the GI Bill simply won't pay for him because of certain rules which are convoluted.
Seems like this administration loves the troops-- when they're troops and serving as their catspaws-- but doesn't much care for the veterans of their misadventures.
NickFun wrote:That Doonsesbury cartoon hits the mark. Man of the people in the war are there under the great promise of education benefits. I know a Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq but was still denied going to college. Seems the GI Bill simply won't pay for him because of certain rules which are convoluted.
Yeah, I'm going to go have to go ahead and call bullshit on that. It seems none of the other typical lefty "anecdote police" have yet so I will.
Here's a good reason to stay in Iraq:
Quote:Lockheed Martin is the world's largest defense contractor (by defense revenue). As of 2005, 95% of Lockheed Martin's revenues came from the U.S. Department of Defense, other U.S. federal government agencies, and foreign military customers.
Source
Quote:Financially, the world's largest defense contractor realized $25.3 billion in 2000 revenue, almost flat compared to 1999 revenue of $25.5 billion. The company saw a net loss of $519 million, compared to 1998's $382 million in net earnings (which had plunged from 1998 earnings of $1 billion).
Source
Quote:
2001:
Lockheed martin reports first quarter 2001 earnings per share of $0.25; earnings per share of $0.23 excluding nonrecurring and unusual items
Generates $1.4 billion of free cash flow
Reaffirms 2001 free cash flow guidance of at least $800 million; free cash flow estimate of at least $1.8 billion for the two years 2001 and 2002 combined
Reaffirms 25 - 30 percent increase in 2001 recurring earnings per share outlook from 2000 results of $1.07; 2002 earnings per share growth of about 20 percent from 2001
Source
Quote:2006:
Third quarter earnings per share up 52% to $1.46; Year-to-date earnings per share up 47% to $4.12
Third quarter net earnings up 47% to $629 million; Year-to-date net earnings up 43% to $1.8 billion
Third quarter net sales up 4% to $9.6 billion; Year-to-date net sales up 7% to $28.8 billion
Cash from operations of $652 million for the third quarter and $3.5 billion year-to-date
Source
Cha Ching.
Iraq has been good to LM.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace