9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 08:01 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Unfortunately, Bush support Maliki. sob sob...

Unfortunately, Bush is incompetent. sob, sob, sob ...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 08:04 pm
George Soros doesn't know what he's talking about; "crushing the terrorists?" He's not a spokesman for anybody but himself. Terrorism around the world has been increasing since Bush started his illegal war. ROFLMAO. You must do better than that!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 08:26 pm
From page 2:

In the "Israel WW3 thread":
cicerone imposter wrote:
Why Israel will not have peace until they realize military might is not the answer.


ican711nm wrote:
Malarkey! Every agreement the Israelites negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs is followed by the Palestinian Arabs committing more mass murder of Israelies. The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs negotiate with the Israelis for only one reason: to fool the Israelis into thinking the Palestinian Arabs do not really want Israel destroyed, and thereby to fool the Israelis into relaxing their defenses.

Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.

ican really loves wholesale slaughter of a group of people whether they are innocent men, women and children. We should know by now that ican is a insane madman.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 08:35 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
George Soros doesn't know what he's talking about; "crushing the terrorists?" He's not a spokesman for anybody but himself. Terrorism around the world has been increasing since Bush started his illegal war. ROFLMAO. You must do better than that!

ican711nm wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:

...
IT WOULD BE BETTER IF ALL THOSE ROOTING AGAINST VICTORY IN IRAQ WENT AHEAD AND ADMITTED THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

_________________
He makes these stupid assumptions that he can't back up. I'd like to see him prove his point that anyone is rooting against victory in Iraq. Typical ican statement; no basis in fact.


"I'd like to see him prove his point that anyone is rooting against victory in Iraq. Typical ican statement; no basis in fact."

GEORGE SOROS in the 2003 edition of his book, page 15, [i]The Alchemy of Finance[/i], wrote:
My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.

"George Soros doesn't know what he's talking about; "crushing the terrorists?" He's not a spokesman for anybody but himself."

GEORGE SOROS in his 1995 book, page 145, [i]Soros on Soros[/i], wrote:
I do not accept the rules imposed by others. If I did, I would not be alive today. I am a law-abiding citizen, but I recognize that there are regimes that need to be opposed rather than accepted. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply. One needs to adjust one's behavior to the changing circumstances.


Bruck, in The World According to Soros, page 58, wrote:
Tividar [George Soros's father] saved his family by splitting them up, providing them with forged papers and false identities as Christians, and bribing Gentile families to take them in. George Soros took the name Sandor Kiss, and posed as the godson of a man named Baumbach, an official of Hungary's fascist regime. Baumbach was assigned to deliver deportation notices to Jews and confiscate Jewish property. [Baumbach] brought young Soros with him on his rounds.


Michael Kaufman in his biography of George Soros, page 293, [i]Soros [/i], wrote:
My goal is to become the conscience of the world


GEORGE SOROS in his 2000 book, page 337, [i]Open Society[/i], wrote:
Usually it takes a crisis to prompt a meaningful change in direction.


GEORGE SOROS in the Washington Post, page A03 of November 11, 2003, wrote:
Ousting Bush from the White House is the central focus of my life. It's a matter of life and death.


GEORGE SOROS in the 2003 edition of his book, page 15, [i]The Alchemy of Finance[/i], wrote:
My greatest fear is that the Bush Doctrine will succeed--that Bush will crush the terrorists, tame the rogue states of the axis of evil, and usher in a golden age of American supremacy. American supremacy is flawed and bound to fail in the long run.

What I am afraid of is that the pursuit of American supremacy may be successful for a while because the United States in fact employs a dominant position in the world today.


GEORGE SOROS on June 10, 2004 to the Associated Press, wrote:

These are not normal times.


GEORGE SOROS in his 2004 book, page 159, [i]The Bubble of American Supremacy[/i], wrote:
The principles of the Declaration of Independence are not self-evident truths but arrangements necessitated by our inherently imperfect understanding.


Quote:
In April 2005 the Soros funded Campus Progress web site posted this headline: "An Invitation to Help Design the Constitution in 2020" (This was an invitation to a Yale law School Conference on "The Constitution of 2020: a progressive vision of what the Constitution ought to be.")


Sam Hananel in his associated Press article, December 10, 2004, wrote:
On December 9, 2004, Eli Pariser, who headed Soros's group Moveon PAC, boasted to his members, "Now the Democratic Party is our party. We bought it, we own it."


If the Soros $influenced$ news media succeeds in persuading more than 50% of Americans to oppose Bush's plan, it will boost our enemy's effort and it will defeat America in Iraq regardless of whether Bush's "surge strategy" can work or not.!

"Terrorism around the world has been increasing since Bush started his illegal war."

Quote:
The Fatwahs Against American Troops in Saudi Arabia and Yemen
5. At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, Usama Bin Laden, working together with members of the fatwah committee of al Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed on the Saudi Arabian peninsula, including both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, should be attacked.
The Fatwah Against American Troops in Somalia
6. At various times from in or about 1992 until in or about 1993, Usama Bin Laden, working together with members of the fatwah committee of al Qaeda, disseminated fatwahs to other members and associates of al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked.
The Fatwah Regarding Deaths of Nonbelievers
7. On various occasions, an unindicted co-conspirator advised other members of al Qaeda that it was Islamically proper to engage in violent actions against "infidels" (nonbelievers), even if others might be killed by such actions, because if the others were "innocent," they would go to paradise, and if they were not "innocent," they deserved to die.
The August 1996 Declaration of War
8. On or about August 23, 1996, a Declaration of Jihad indicating that it was from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan entitled, "Message from Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden to His Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula" was disseminated.
The February 1998 Fatwah Against American Civilians
9. In February 1998, Usama Bin Laden endorsed a fatwah under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders." This fatwah, published in the publication Al-Quds al-`Arabi on February 23, 1998, stated that Muslims should kill Americans - including civilians - anywhere in the world where they can be found.
10. In an address in or about 1998, Usama Bin Laden cited American aggression against Islam and encouraged a jihad that would eliminate the Americans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bin Laden Endorses the Nuclear Bomb of Islam
11. On or about May 29, 1998, Usama Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and the Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
Usama Bin Laden Issues Further Threats in June 1999
12. In or about June 1999, in an interview with an Arabic-language television station, Usama Bin Laden issued a further threat indicating that all American males should be killed.
Usama Bin Laden Calls for "Jihad" to Free Imprisoned Terrorists
13. In or about September 2000, in an interview with an Arabic-language television station, Usama Bin Laden called for a "jihad" to release the "brothers" in jail "everywhere."


Quote:
13. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
TERRORIST INCIDENTS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1996

Note: All the following listed terrorist incidents exclude all terrorist incidents in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Israel.
Quote:
1996
June 25: Khobar Towers bombing, killing 19 and wounding 372 Americans.

1997
----

1998
August 7: U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, killing 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.

1999
----

2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.

2001
September 11: The attacks on September 11 kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

October 12: Bali car bombing of holidaymakers kills 202 people, mostly Western tourists and local Balinese hospitality staff.

October 17: Zamboanga bombings in the Philippines kill six and wounds about 150.

October 18: A bus bomb in Manila kills three people and wounds 22.

October 19: A car bomb explodes outside a McDonald's Corp. restaurant in Moscow, killing one person and wounding five.


Note: October 20, 2001: USA invades Afghanistan

Quote:
October 23: Moscow theater hostage crisis begins; 120 hostages and 40 terrorists killed in rescue three days later.


Note: December 20, 2001: Osama helps establish al Qaeda training bases in Iraq.

Quote:
2003
March 4: Bomb attack in an airport in Davao kills 21.


Note: March 20, 2003: US invades Iraq at the time al Qaeda controls about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northeastern Iraq on the Iranian border.

Quote:
2003
May 12: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.

May 12: A truck bomb attack on a government building in the Chechen town of Znamenskoye kills 59.

May 14: As many as 16 die in a suicide bombing at a religious festival in southeastern Chechnya.

May 16: Casablanca Attacks by 12 bombers on five "Western and Jewish" targets in Casablanca, Morocco leaves 41 dead and over 100 injured. Attack attributed to a Moroccan al-Qaeda-linked group.

July 5: 15 people die and 40 are injured in bomb attacks at a rock festival in Moscow.

August 1: An explosion at the Russian hospital in Mozdok in North Ossetia kills at least 50 people and injures 76.

August 25: At least 48 people were killed and 150 injured in two blasts in south Mumbai - one near the Gateway of India at the other at the Zaveri Bazaar.

September 3: A bomb blast on a passenger train near Kislovodsk in southern Russia kills seven people and injures 90.

November 15 and November 20: Truck bombs go off at two synagogues, the British Consulate, and the HSBC Bank in Istanbul, Turkey, killing 57 and wounding 700.

December 5: Suicide bombers kill at least 46 people in an attack on a train in southern Russia

December 9: A blast in the center of Moscow kills six people and wounds at least 11.

2004
February 6: Bomb on Moscow Metro kills 41.

February 27: Superferry 14 is bombed in the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf, killing 116.

March 2: Attack on procession of Shia Muslims in Pakistan kills 43 and wounds 160.

March 11: Coordinated bombing of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, kills 191 people and injures more than 1,500.

April 21: Basra bombs in Iraq kill 74 and injure hundreds.

April 21: Bombing of a security building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills 5.

May 29: Al-Khobar massacres, in which Islamic militants kill 22 people at an oil compound in Saudi Arabia.

August 24: Bombing of Russian airplane kills 90.

August 31: A blast near a subway station entrance in northern Moscow, caused by a suicide bomber, kills 10 people and injures 33.

September 1 – 3: Beslan school hostage crisis in North Ossetia, Russia, results in 344 dead.

September 9: Jakarta embassy bombing, in which the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia was bombed, kills eight people.

October 7: Sinai bombings: Three car bombs explode in the Sinai Peninsula, killing at least 34 and wounding 171, many of them Israeli and other foreign tourists.

December 6: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing 5 local employees.

December 12: A bombing at the Christmas market in General Santos, Philippines, kills 15.

2005
February 14: A car bomb kills former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 20 others in Beirut.

March 9: An attack of an Istanbul restaurant killed one, and injured five.

March 19: Car bomb attack on theatre in Doha, Qatar, kills one Briton and wounds 12 others.

April 7: A suicide bomber blows himself up in Cairo's Khan al Khalili market, killing three foreign tourists and wounding 17 others.

May 7: Multiple bomb explosions across Myanmar's capital Rangoon kill 19 and injure 160.

June 12: Bombs explode in the Iranian cities of Ahvaz and Tehran, leaving 10 dead and 80 wounded days before the Iranian presidential election.

July 7: London bombings - Attacks on one double-decker bus and three London Underground trains, killing 56 people and injuring over 700, occur on the first day of the 31st G8 Conference. The attacks are believed by many to be the first suicide bombings in Western Europe.

July 23: Sharm el-Sheikh bombings: Car bombs explode at tourist sites in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, killing at least 88 and wounding more than 100.
August 17: Around 100 home-made bombs exploded in 58 different locations in Bangladesh, Killing two and wounding 100.

October 1: A series of explosions occurs in resort areas of Jimabaran Beach and Kuta in Bali, Indonesia.

October 13: A large group of Chechen rebels launched coordinated attacks on Russian federal buildings, local police stations, and the airport in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria. At least 137 people, including 92 rebels, were killed.

October 15: Two bombs exploded at a shopping mall in Ahvaz, Khuzestan in Iran. Six people died and over 100 were injured.

October 29: Multiple bomb blasts hit markets in New Delhi, India, leaving at least 61 dead and more than 200 injured.

November 9: Three explosions at hotels in Amman, Jordan, leave at least 57 dead and 120 wounded.

December --

2006
January --

February --

March 2: Bombing in Karachi, Pakistan kills four, including a U.S. diplomat.

March 7: Bombings in the Hindu holy city of Varanasi, India, leave at least 15 people dead.


cicerone imposter wrote:
: Any fruitcake like Osama can make threats, ... the threat is mostly bluster without any way to carry it out.
...

"the threat is mostly bluster" Question Rolling Eyes

Let's examine that a little more carefully. A total of 20 suicidal terrorists, less one named Moussaoui, murdered almost 3,000 American civilians. Would it take 15 times as many terrorists -- 300 -- to murder 45,000 American civilians? Al-Qaeda trained more than enough in Afghanistan before 9/11: a minimum of 10,000 trained terrorists - 300 suicidal terrorists = 9,700 left over for more murdering still.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 08:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
From page 2:

In the "Israel WW3 thread":
cicerone imposter wrote:
Why Israel will not have peace until they realize military might is not the answer.


ican711nm wrote:
Malarkey! Every agreement the Israelites negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs is followed by the Palestinian Arabs committing more mass murder of Israelies. The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs negotiate with the Israelis for only one reason: to fool the Israelis into thinking the Palestinian Arabs do not really want Israel destroyed, and thereby to fool the Israelis into relaxing their defenses.

Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.

ican really loves wholesale slaughter of a group of people whether they are innocent men, women and children. We should know by now that ican is a insane madman.

I sincerely hope for both the sake of the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis that Israel will finally get some peace without exterminating the Palestinian Arabs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 09:12 pm
Two statements by ican, but one is an extreme from the other:
ican711nm wrote:
Malarkey! Every agreement the Israelites negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs is followed by the Palestinian Arabs committing more mass murder of Israelies. The truth is, the Palestinian Arabs negotiate with the Israelis for only one reason: to fool the Israelis into thinking the Palestinian Arabs do not really want Israel destroyed, and thereby to fool the Israelis into relaxing their defenses.

Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.

ican really loves wholesale slaughter of a group of people whether they are innocent men, women and children. We should know by now that ican is a insane madman.

I sincerely hope for both the sake of the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis that Israel will finally get some peace without exterminating the Palestinian Arabs.

Back-tracking a bit aren't you? LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 09:16 pm
From page 3:

ican: Who called "for a genocide on the Palestinian Arabs"?

Anyone who calls for a genocide on the Palestinian Arabs or on the Palestinian Jews is a genocidal maniac.


ican revealed himself to be the "genocidal maniac."

ican: Israel will finally get some peace only after it exterminates the Palestinian Arabs.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 09:19 pm
From page 4:

ican: Those who claim they are trying to stop the bleeding are frauds. Those who are trying to get the US to fail in Iraq are not interested even a little bit in trying to stop the bleeding. What they are interested in is gaining more power in the US government and over the American people. They think that there constant diatribes against the Bush Administration will get the American voters to give them that power--they may succeed using these despicable tactics. They know as well as I do that the US leaving Iraq before the Iraq government can stop--or at least control--the bleeding, will incease the bleeding in Iraq and increase the bleeding in America and the rest of the West. They simply do not give a damn about that.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 09:26 pm
From page 9.

ican posted this article:

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can't Be Accomplished -- It's Time for a New Strategy

By William E. Odom
Washington Post
Sunday, February 11, 2007; Page B01

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush's illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 09:34 am
I tell you I don't know why anyone turns on the stinking US news. Swiftboat stikes again.

Quote:


Links at the source
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:48 am
Just maybe, Bush is beginning to realize that without a viable government in Iraq, all military accomplishments does absolutely nothing for the Iraqi people.


Bush acknowledges frustration with Iraq

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago



President Bush acknowledged frustration with the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday but said it's up to the Iraqi people to decide whether to continue supporting him.

Bush was asked about the situation in Iraq at a news conference where he joined Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon in wrapping up a North American summit.

A day earlier, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged the Iraqi assembly to oust U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and replace his government with one that is less sectarian and more unifying.

Without the different sects wishing to find peace in their own country, no military force will bring peace to the country. It's a political issue, not a military one.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 11:10 am
Hamburger, I'd like to get back to our discussion about what is and is not "success in Iraq."

First, I wish to emphasize my recognition of the obvious fact that you like anyone else are as free as I am to define "success in Iraq."

My definition (shown again below) is based on my prediction that the Iraq government will not decide to ask the US military to leave Iraq until they are confident they can protect non-murderers from being killed by mass murderers in Iraq. If that prediction were to prove true and such confidence by the Iraq government were to prove justified, then when the Iraq government does make that decision, the US will have succeeded in Iraq.

However, what about the possibility that the Iraq government decides to ask the US to remove its military from Iraq before they can protect their non-murderers from being killed by mass murderers in Iraq? In that case, the US will have not succeeded.

Should the US leave when asked by the Iraqi government regardless? I say YES! Staying when we are asked to leave will not allow the US to succeed. We will be compelled to find an alternate plan to succeed in protecting American non-murderers from mass murderers in Iraq (or elsewhere) emigrating to America.

Quote:
old europe wrote:
ican, how would you define "success in Iraq?"


ican711nm wrote:

(1)The mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers is reduced to less than 1,000 per month;

(2) the Iraq Government continues for one year after that to reduce the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers; and

(3) al-Qaeda continues for one year after that to be denied sanctuary anywhere in Iraq by the Iraq government.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 01:22 pm
ican wrote :

Quote:
However, what about the possibility that the Iraq government decides to ask the US to remove its military from Iraq before they can protect their non-murderers from being killed by mass murderers in Iraq? In that case, the US will have not succeeded.

Should the US leave when asked by the Iraqi government regardless? I say YES! Staying when we are asked to leave will not allow the US to succeed. We will be compelled to find an alternate plan to succeed in protecting American non-murderers from mass murderers in Iraq (or elsewhere) emigrating to America.


certainly a very straight-forward and honest answer !
thanks , ican !
hbg
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 02:44 pm
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/145934.shtml

Quote:
In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significant weight with his party's most conservative members. They would "want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:04 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/145934.shtml

Quote:
In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significant weight with his party's most conservative members. They would "want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.


I think you will have a difficult time specifically naming Dems who are claiming that the 'surge is working.' There may be a couple, but the vast majority don't believe this.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/145934.shtml

Quote:
In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significant weight with his party's most conservative members. They would "want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.


I think you will have a difficult time specifically naming Dems who are claiming that the 'surge is working.' There may be a couple, but the vast majority don't believe this.

Cycloptichorn


Then you think wrong.

Here are just a few top dems that are saying the surge is working...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293815,00.html

Quote:


http://www.onelocalnews.com/prescottherald/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=150003

Quote:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_iraq_baird.html

Quote:
"One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ... and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."


And at the national VFW convention in Kansas City,even Hillary on monday said the surge was working.

So,there are just a few dems now saying the surge is working.

Also,why are many of the dem candidates now saying that we cant leave Iraq immediately?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:40 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/20/145934.shtml

Quote:
In late July, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said an upbeat assessment from Petraeus would carry significant weight with his party's most conservative members. They would "want to stay the course, and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn told The Washington Post.


I think you will have a difficult time specifically naming Dems who are claiming that the 'surge is working.' There may be a couple, but the vast majority don't believe this.

Cycloptichorn


Then you think wrong.

Here are just a few top dems that are saying the surge is working...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293815,00.html

Quote:


http://www.onelocalnews.com/prescottherald/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=150003

Quote:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_iraq_baird.html

Quote:
"One, I think we're making real progress. Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ... and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."


And at the national VFW convention in Kansas City,even Hillary on monday said the surge was working.

So,there are just a few dems now saying the surge is working.

Also,why are many of the dem candidates now saying that we cant leave Iraq immediately?


I don't know why they are saying that. My guess was that some of them have bought in to the dog-and-pony show a little too much.

A question for you, to see if you grasp the situation correctly: what is the goal of the 'surge?'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:47 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

...

Also,why are many of the dem candidates now saying that we cant leave Iraq immediately?

Some of the Dems are now saying the present Iraq government must be replaced, or failure in Iraq is certain.

I bet the Dem leadership has devised a new way to attack the Repubs.

Oh! But never forget: regardless, of course it's all Bush's fault.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...
mysteryman wrote:

...

A question for you, to see if you grasp the situation correctly: what is the goal of the 'surge?'

Cycloptichorn

Laughing
Mysteryman, I recommend you don't tell Cyclo the answer! Make him guess. That way we can see if Cyclo grasps the situation correctly.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Why are so many of the dems now saying that the surge in Iraq is working?

Especially since one dem leader (James Clyburn D-SC) has admitted that if it is working it would be "very difficult" for the dems.

...

Also,why are many of the dem candidates now saying that we cant leave Iraq immediately?

Some of the Dems are now saying the present Iraq government must be replaced, or failure in Iraq is certain.

I bet the Dem leadership has devised a new way to attack the Repubs.

Oh! But never forget: regardless, of course it's all Bush's fault.


It isn't specifically Bush's fault that the Iraqi gov't is corrupt and won't get their act together. But it is his problem to deal with, and if he refuses to do so, the Dems will, in a fashion he doesn't like.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 02:18:34