THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

@Cycloptichorn,

Something else, it will take years to assess this war, good or bad, possibly decades. This war may have changed the dynamics of the Middle East, for the good, beyond your wildest dreams. Or it could be not that great, I do not honestly know, but I am hopeful for good results. If you admit it, you don't know either, cyclops. But history is history, Congress voted, Bush acted, and we may win, it looks like we are. Be happy.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Congress voted for the war. We are seeing hope of ultimate success. Why not be happy, cyclops. Give Bush credit. Did you want us to lose?

There is no 'success,' Okie, don't you understand that?

The government of Iraq today is corrupt as hell and a close ally of Iran. We aren't leaving behind a 'strategic partner,' we have created a different enemy, is all. We have angered millions of those Arabs who will now be more likely to fight against us than before. You don't even know what 'success' means, do you? What tangible gains have we accomplished by this war? Nothing.

Give Bush credit? I give him 'credit' for involving us in an idiotic war that has wasted our time, money and international goodwill, while failing to catch Bin Laden. He's a ****-up, Okie, and the fact that you are still sucking up to him doesn't speak well of your ability to accurately judge situations. You don't seem to know the first thing about what Iraq has truly cost this country. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as you seem to have completely lost any ability to discern fact from spin lately; Obama's victory has truly shaken you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Something else, it will take years to assess this war, good or bad, possibly decades. This war may have changed the dynamics of the Middle East, for the good, beyond your wildest dreams. Or it could be not that great, I do not honestly know, but I am hopeful for good results. If you admit it, you don't know either, cyclops. But history is history, Congress voted, Bush acted, and we may win, it looks like we are. Be happy.

Horseshit. 'It will take decades to know...' is the dodge of a failed group. It doesn't take decades to decide if a war is a success or not. Or a president. You're doing nothing but punting all the negatives down the road and praying that somehow, things turn out positive.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclop, your inability to comprehend that America's success in Iraq is worth America's effort in Iraq, is stupid. America replacing Iraq's dictatorial, mass murderering government with a representative democracy is a major achievement that alone justifies America's invasion of Iraq. America has trained the Iraq government to sharply curtail the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers by al-Qaeda. That too, is a major achievement that alone justifies America's invasion of Iraq.

Cyclops, your inability to understand the probably severe consequences of America not invading and succeeding in Iraq, is stupid. Your previous false accusations that America would fail in Iraq are stupid.

You're doing nothing but putting all your puky allegations on display on this topic and praying that somehow they will all turn out true. Sick!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

We have already failed in Iraq, Ican. You don't know the first thing about what success means, apparently.

Quote:

America has trained the Iraq government to sharply curtail the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers by al-Qaeda. That too, is a major achievement that alone justifies America's invasion of Iraq.

Somehow you manage to ignore the fact that AQ was not murdering Iraqis before we showed up.

You've been the biggest cheerleader for this failed and unpopular war, one for which there is no victor, Ican. And you've been consistently wrong. You were dead sure there were WMD there and were proven wrong. Sure that we would win easily, and proven wrong. Are you sure that we have not left behind another dictator? When did they last hold elections, Ican? How tight are they with Iran? You have no clue, yet declare us 'victorious.' It's idiocy and a complete failure of long-term, strategic thinking.

There's a reason that your political worldview has been soundly defeated, Ican, in our recent elections: it has been proven to be a sham. You are too deeply emotionally invested to admit it is so, but it is so. Republicans have not suffered two cycles of losses to this magnitude in 75 years. You think this is coincidence? Maybe 'THE MEDIA' is to blame? No. Incompetence amongst those who ran your party is to blame, and the failure that is the war in Iraq is to blame.

So, I tell ya what. You keep railing about how wrong my side and I personally am. We'll keep on running the gov't and winning more elections, and remove the troops from Iraq, try to rebuild our image in the world and make people forget that the Republicans ever got us in this mess in the first place. You keep right on ranting, and we'll keep right on winning. Works for me.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You, Cyclop don't seem to realize that al-Qaeda was murdering Iraqis before we invaded Iraq. Admittedly the numbers murdered were small from December 2001 to March 2003, but then you have no idea how big those numbers would have become had we not invaded Iraq. You seem to forget that Saddam was making up for the al-Qaeda's low rate of murdering during that period by murdering tens of thousands.

Per your last request!

Cyclop, your inability to comprehend that America's success in Iraq is worth America's effort in Iraq, is stupid. America replacing Iraq's dictatorial, mass murderering government with a representative democracy is a major achievement that alone justifies America's invasion of Iraq. America has trained the Iraq government to sharply curtail the mass murder of Iraqi non-murderers by al-Qaeda. That too, is a major achievement that alone justifies America's invasion of Iraq.

Cyclops, your inability to understand the probably severe consequences of America not invading and succeeding in Iraq, is stupid. Your previous false accusations that America would fail in Iraq are stupid.

You're doing nothing but putting all your puky allegations on display on this topic and praying that somehow they will all turn out true. Sick!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Repeating yourself changes nothing, Ican, yet I note you do it frequently. If someone didn't read your post in the first place, what makes you think they will now?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Something else, it will take years to assess this war, good or bad, possibly decades. This war may have changed the dynamics of the Middle East, for the good, beyond your wildest dreams. Or it could be not that great, I do not honestly know, but I am hopeful for good results. If you admit it, you don't know either, cyclops. But history is history, Congress voted, Bush acted, and we may win, it looks like we are. Be happy.

Horseshit. 'It will take decades to know...' is the dodge of a failed group. It doesn't take decades to decide if a war is a success or not. Or a president. You're doing nothing but punting all the negatives down the road and praying that somehow, things turn out positive.

Cycloptichorn

I have talked to people that have more recently lived in Vietnam, taught there, and people that have traveled there. I was there during the war, and although I have not traveled there myself since then, as I said, I have talked to Vietnamese and other people that have been there, lived there and traveled there more recently, and they will all tell you that the effects of the war is still happening, that the war, the presence of the U. S. there has changed the country tremendously, in the long term.

For you to assert that we know all of the effects, long term effects of the war in Iraq now, that is totally wrong, and I think extremely naive. So whether you like Bush or not, you will have to give the man credit for staying committed to a cause, a cause that was voted affirmatively by Congress, many of which turned tail, but thanks to Bush we stayed the course, and along with any longterm good or bad, the man deserves the credit either way. If history says it was good, even great, Bush may still turn out to be a great president according to history. And your boy, Obama, perhaps was wrong, and the fact remains Obama has so far done nothing, except scare the bejeebers out of the financial world.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

And your boy, Obama, perhaps was wrong, and the fact remains Obama has so far done nothing, except scare the bejeebers out of the financial world.

Quote:

Stocks soared late this afternoon when news reports first started to surface that Geithner's nomination will be made official Monday. The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day up 494.13 points, or 6.5 percent.

It was very good news after two dismal days on Wall Street. Obama's Treasury picks seems to have pleased many investors who are apparently happy with Geithner's familiarity with the markets.

source

1 Reply

Baghdad bombs kill 20, 1 hits Green Zone entry

Quote:

BAGHDAD " A female suicide bomber blew herself up near an entrance to the U.S.-protected Green Zone and a bomb tore through a minibus carrying Iraqi government employees in separate attacks on Monday that killed at least 20 people, Iraqi officials said.

Three more people were killed in bomb attacks on police patrols in Baghdad and Baqouba, northeast of the capital, police said.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Repeating yourself changes nothing, Ican, ...

Repeating the truth, Cyclops, doesn't change the truth. Nor does your current adherence to falsity change falsity.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

Quote:
And your boy, Obama, perhaps was wrong, and the fact remains Obama has so far done nothing, except scare the bejeebers out of the financial world.

Quote:
Stocks soared late this afternoon when news reports first started to surface that Geithner's nomination will be made official Monday. The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day up 494.13 points, or 6.5 percent.

It was very good news after two dismal days on Wall Street. Obama's Treasury picks seems to have pleased many investors who are apparently happy with Geithner's familiarity with the markets.

source

Small consolation so far, revel, if you look at the overall trend leading into the election and following. I think the market is looking for anything, something, to be optimistic about in terms of stability, any confidence in anything, so after staying silent about economy, anything at all from Obama in regard to the future will inject something, but after this is done, then the realities of his actual policies will begin to settle in during the next weeks and months.

Interesting he is not saying he will raise taxes right now on businesses and on higher incomes, if I am correct, because I think he is afraid to. So inasmuch as his polices mirror conservative policies, the market will respond. If he begins to talk about punishing businesses and capital gains more, markets will respond negatively.

3 Replies

@okie,

okie, Your dorkyness gets tiresome; you can't see that Obama is recruiting the best and brightest to help the recovery of our economy. Bush, on the other hand, failed most workers and the retirement plans by failing to create jobs, security in the markets, and increase in unemployment.

Get your head out of your arse.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Your dorkyness gets tiresome; you can't see that Obama is recruiting the best and brightest to help the recovery of our economy. Bush, on the other hand, failed most workers and the retirement plans by failing to create jobs, security in the markets, and increase in unemployment.

Get your head out of your arse.

dorkyness, ha ha, LOL, okie common sense may be dorky, but it works.
Such as central planning does not work, free enterprise does work, call it dorky, but it works. Don't spend more than you make, call it dorky, but it works, ci. And if you tax productivity more, you get less of it, that is a principle, call it dorky, but its true.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote: (My response in green.)

Quote:

Small consolation so far, revel, if you look at the overall trend leading into the election and following. I think the market is looking for anything, something, to be optimistic about in terms of stability, any confidence in anything, so after staying silent about economy, anything at all from Obama in regard to the future will inject something, but after this is done, then the realities of his actual policies will begin to settle in during the next weeks and months.

Obama is not the current president, and he cannot set policy until he does.

Interesting he is not saying he will raise taxes right now on businesses and on higher incomes, if I am correct, because I think he is afraid to.

Obama is not "afraid to" anything. He arrives at his decisions based on what he sees as the best avenue to promote his economic agenda. You are oblivious of his strategy.

So inasmuch as his polices mirror conservative policies, the market will respond. If he begins to talk about punishing businesses and capital gains more, markets will respond negatively.

Please explain how his policies mirrors conservative policies?

1 Reply

@okie,

Weak, okie

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If the policies Obama institutes were to copy conservative policies such as obey the rule of law, the market will begin to recover.

If the policies Obama institutes were to copy socialist policies such as the redistribution of wealth, the market will continue its collapse.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Conservative policies like cutting taxes while the budget deficit grows?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, You have no idea what "the rule of law" concept is; Bush should have been charged with crimes for ignoring both the Constitution of the US and International Laws.

Illegal wiretaps, ignoring the Geneva Convention, and habeas corpus is but three of the many laws ignored by Bush and his criminal gang.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Bush is not a conservative. He invented his own version of conservatism--compasionate conservatism. It did not include obedience to the rule of law. It did not include obedience to the Constitution of the USA. The same is true for both Carter and Clinton.

Much Federal Spending advocated and authorized by both the Democrats and the Republicans violated the rule of law by violating the Constitution of the USA.

Fanny&Freddie, Farm Subsidies, corporation subsidies are just a few of the violations of the rule of law by both.

On the otherhand suspension of Habeas Corpus for prisoners of war is not a violation of the rule of law. See Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the USA.

The USA never signed a treaty wherein it specifically agreed to obey so-called international law. Few countries, if any, signed such a treaty. Generally, a country's leaders are only obliged to obey their own country's laws.

The Constitution is a contract between the federal government, the states, and the people. That contract is violated when the federal government repeatedly and continually violates the Constitution of the USA. The Constitution requires that all taxes on each and every dollar of income be uniform. Also the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government the power to transfer tax revenue to individuals or groups of individuals that are not employees of the federal government.

1 Reply

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know