Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Iraq critics concede military progress By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
 16 minutes ago
 


Even some critics of President Bush's Iraq war policies are conceding there is evidence of recent improvements from a military standpoint. But Bush supporters and critics alike agree that these have not been matched by any noticeable progress on the political front.

Despite U.S. pressure, Iraq's parliament went on vacation for a month after failing to pass either legislation to share the nation's oil wealth or to reconcile differences among the factions. And nearly all Sunni representatives in the government have quit, undermining the legitimacy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite.

Still, there have been signs of changes in attitudes, some on the ground in Iraq, some in the United States:

_Two critics of Bush's recent handling of Iraq, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both of the Brookings Institution, penned an op-ed opinion piece in The New York Times suggesting after a visit that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms." They recommended Congress sustain the current troop buildup "at least into 2008."

_Leading anti-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania predicted that U.S. commanders will begin drawing down troop levels early next year and that Congress can be more flexible in setting a fixed deadline for ending the U.S. occupation.

_Polls suggest that Bush has had some degree of success in linking Islamic militants in Iraq with the al-Qaida terrorist movement.

"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. "The administration has been making inroads on their Iraqi argument, particularly linking it to terrorism."

After sliding to just 28 percent in June, within range of an all-time low, Bush's job approval rating on handling Iraq rose slightly to 31 percent in July, according to AP-Ipsos polling. And a recent CBS/NYT poll showed an increase in the percentage of Americans who think the U.S. did the right thing in going to war with Iraq, up to 42 percent from 35 percent in May.

"I don't claim our recommendation to keep surging into 2008 is a no-brainer. That can be debated. But I think people's opinions need to catch up with the battlefield facts," O'Hanlon said in an interview.

The op-ed piece he wrote with Pollack has been widely circulated by war supporters but denounced by many war critics. "As long as people start to get a sense that what's happening on the battlefield is different and better than what it was, then I feel like we've made our contribution," said O'Hanlon.

O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but they have been sharply critical of the administration's handling of the aftermath.

Like the Iraqi parliament, Congress has recessed for the rest of August, to return in September ? when an eagerly awaited progress report on Iraq will be presented by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Bush previewed that report on Thursday, telling a news conference, "My own perspective is that they (Iraqis) have made some progress but not enough. I fully recognize this is a difficult assignment."

What lawmakers hear from their constituents during the next month could do a lot to shape the Iraq debate ahead of receiving that report.

Visiting Iraq, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said Wednesday from Baghdad that American-led forces were "making some measurable progress, but it's slow going."

"As our troops show some progress toward security, the government of this nation is moving in the opposite direction. This is really unsustainable with the American people," Durbin said in an interview with National Public Radio.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said that Petraeus' plan was "producing good results. And the troops have achieved tactical momentum against al-Qaida. ...We're anxious to see what General Petraeus has to say in September. It will be a watershed moment in our efforts in Iraq."

Petraeus asserted that "we are making progress. We have achieved tactical momentum in many areas, especially against al-Qaida Iraq, and to a lesser degree against the militia extremists." Still, he told Fox News on Tuesday that "there are innumerable challenges."

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said, progress there "is a very mixed bag." After visiting Iraq, Cordesman cited recent military successes against al-Qaida terrorists ? but said there has been less progress against Shiite extremist groups.

"I think senior Iraqi political leaders are talking to each other, but they're doing it around the prime minister (al-Maliki). It's not clear the prime minister is exerting any great leadership toward conciliation," Cordesman said.

"Barring a miracle, there will be very little political progress to point to in mid-September," Cordesman said Thursday in a briefing on his trip.

Michele Flournoy, a former Pentagon defense strategist and now president of the Center for a New American Security, said that "the clock in Washington is running down pretty fast. There's sort of a wall next March-April. That's when they'll have to start replacing units, which will hit the 15-month mark." Bush recently extended tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months.

"They're going to have some very tough choices then. Either the 'surge' will de facto end and they'll start bringing people out because there's no units to replace them. Or you're going to have to have a presidential decision to extend tours from 15 months to 18 months," Flournoy said.

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank that follows defense issues, cites "significant progress" on the military front. "There's the backlash against al-Qaida in Anbar Province. There's a reduction in attacks in Baghdad. And there's the ongoing stabilization efforts in the suburban belt around Baghdad," Thompson said.

"The problem is that nobody in the United States sees any significant progress on the political front. The Shiites and Sunni factions in the government don't seem to be able to get along. And that makes Congress wonder whether we're making any real progress. Because, even with better security, the country can't figure out how to take care of itself," Thompson added.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070809/ap_on_go_pr_wh/iraq_attitudes

The surge is working. Also I think this is because the Iraqis themselves are starting to wake up. But the Govt needs work still, they're a mess at the moment.

While its great they are making progress, the real AQ is in Pakistan/Afghanistan.

Even if we "win" in Iraq, it'll never be worth the price we paid for what the end results are:  more terrorists, more people who hate us.  It was/is a huge mistake.  Right now they are just trying to fix it.  I'm hopefully skeptical about all of this.

What bullshit.

(1) There will never be a Western-style Democracy in Iraq.
(2) The invasion was based on lies and deceit.
(3) George W. Bush is a war criminal.

Surge me once, shame on you. Surge me twice...

The surge is working great, as I knew it would; everything is going as planned ...



... if your an extremist bent on killing americans.

recycled 10U+00b910U00b9

Stop being the optimist, we have too many of them around here  :hihi:

Can you refute any of those claims?

 ::)

1. Been into the future have we? Jim Crow would have told ya blacks would never vote in a US election....

2. There were no lies and no deceit in the invasion, only the most morose thought this was anything but an attempt to get oil. You were ''decieved''? :confused:

3. Bush is a war criminal? What countrys legal code are we going by here? America's? North Korea's? A mistake maybe but he was legally entitled to do so and everythings been ratified

Three years ago all this Iraq basing might have been intresting - now, who cares? Let em get on with it - if Al Quaeda is happy enough to blow up mosques with thousands of US tropps about god knows what they'd do if they were to leave.

Like it or not, but basic human decency says if you make a mess - u clean it up

Great point.  Its just like how war opponents in 2003 would have told you the Iraq invasion would be disastrous.  Others insisted that the invading forces would be greeted as liberators.  Youve chosen your camp apparently.

 There were no lies and no deceit leading up to? the invasion?

What color is the sky in the universe which you live? Also, might want to look up "morose" before you use it.

And everything Hitler did was also legal, by Nazi-Germany's laws.

no - if u were stupid enough to believe this was a war for liberation or WMD's etc, thats your fault



One of the fundamentals of justice is that it must not act retrospectively - you dont arrest people for things that werent crimes at the time they happened.

There isnt some superhuman 'lawl' that covers us all - yanks own guns, they'd get 5 years minimum over here for doing that - are all yanks criminals?

Moaning about Iraq (morose, eh?) is so very boring now - hasnt it already been said?

Iraq = bad, Bush = bad - most of us have GOT IT by now. Do you feel the need to endlessly say it just in case you forgot its still going on?

Personally the pure evil of a great many Iraqis is the real issue - not the half witted nature of US policy, Iraqis had, and squandered, the opportunity for a better life - blaming America for it all is so very boring now

oh shut it

I'm neither for or against the war - i honestly dont care, after so many years its old news, an old issue - and its all been said before

What I do take issue with is the absurd way people react to it - this bleeding heart defeatism or gung ho extremism - 'boo, America evil, they kill kittens! or 'more troops, death to Buddha, bomb Iran!'

There is a middle ground to be had which no one seems intrested in finding

Dude, normally I agree with you, but applying that logic, the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal are null and void. Many Wermacht/SS soldiers could have claimed that ?defense, and they did, but they "swung by the rope" anyway. That is bullshit, if one is a Pig, one should swing.

So because Bush's lies were so severe and the American people should have seen right through it, they weren't really lies?

ahhh, okay... :no:

Wasn't there an abudance of people claiming the war was about lies and no WMDs were in Iraq?  Weren't there congressman who voted against the war based on that premis.  I distinctly remember rallies and debates about this around the country.  Hell, I hosted a debate show in College and I had the leader of the anti-war network say everything in early 2003 that all of you claim now.  If you were deceived, you were lazy.

However, I believe intel stated that there were weapons there.  Bush was warned that the intel may be bad, but enough people (remember Colin Powell) thought it was strong enough to act upon. 

This is why a president can't run a war through a democracy.  People choose to be ignorant and go with the quick and easy choice.  People wanted to go to war with Iraq so we sent the troops over.  Now that the war isn't the hollywood movie most people thought, they want out.  Problem is you just can't cancel and quit a war like you would a baseball or football game due to lightning.

Continue to look at yourself as a victim if it makes you feel better, but no one has any excuse (sorry Hillary) or reason to claim they were misled.  People chose who they were gonna follow and on what criteria.  No one force them.

in regards to the whole "you're lazy if you believed all the BS in 2003" nonsense.  I love how thats the rights new drum to beat on.  So its OUR fault for letting the war happen!?!?  :rofl:  Sounds like something Coulter or O'reily would say.  In other words, its fucking retarded.

its easy to look back 4 years later, but go back to the political climate at the time.  anyone who spoke out against the war hated america, didn't support the troops and was a huge bleeding heart liberal pussy.  Freedom fries anyone!!??!

Then perhaps you should heed your own words:




Im sure the families of the thousands of dead troops and casualties will be delighted to hear this.


Why?  Is it because you lack the intelligence or interest in developing an informed opinion and would rather do whats easy: spout lazy, apathetic cynicism?  You dont have to think or take a side, and you get to feel that youre above the fray when youre actually too slight to even approach it.



 : ok:

So what?

 the war drums were being beaten so loud the anti-war side wasn't heard.  it was total bullshit to be attacked for speaking out against the admin.

I am not claiming it is your fault. ?I'm simply stating that you're not a vicitim like you and many others would want to be. ?Your pals on this board were against the war, they seemed to have the facts. ?Basicially what your post says is that you were peer pressured to support the war. ?So you're ok with sending other people to fight all under peer pressure, cause that is what your post says. ?The information was available for you to look at. ?I'd set my watch and warrant that you did no research at all; you just sat at home and went along with it.

Ultimately it was congress and the President who sent us to war. ?They did have the information and it was their job to do the research. ?Some voted against it, most voted for it based on the intel they had. ?Personally I don't believe that the intel against WMDs was very viable, I believed that there were WMDs over there. ?No intel is 100% and unfortunately this time the intel was inaccurate. ?But to call Bush a liar and claim he openly deceived the nation is wishful thinking on the parts of millions of wannabe intellectuals.

My point is people had all the information they needed in 2002, 2003. ?People went either way on the issue. ?The majority of Americans went with the government's final decision which again, strengthens my argument that no one was deceived. ?Do you really think for a moment if the intel was obviously that bad, that the Democrats would have let the GOP bang the drums of war?

I'm tired of heraing people say they were duped when they took no effort whatdoever to look at it themselves. ?I bet you were chanting freedom fries the whole way Butters. ?Me, I was against the war from day one. ?Not because I care about Iraq but because I see no reason for a nation not to be allowed to defend themselves with WMDs. ?If Iraq had made a threat to harm us, then we could attack, but Iraq was a soverign nation and I couldn't have cared less about risking my own hide to remove a dictator that tortured people in another land. ?

However, the time for debate ended in March 2003 and it is now my responsibility to do what is necessary to protect America from future attacks and carry out the current orders. ?I personally think the war has been advantageous in that it has consolidated the terrorist effort in one central location. ?I'd rather fight them in their breeding ground (and remember, the leaders are coming from Syria and Iran - they aren't being made in Iraq) then in my hometown. ?I place a value on America and its allies lives that I don't on our enemies.

Congress was weak and complicit, but it was the administration that pursued the agenda in a reckless manner.  That agenda was in place from the start of administration - before, actually - and their cherry-picking of intelligence was dishonest and dangerous.  I dont see the good in lazy, vague "Bush lied" chants, but I do think its wrong to argue that his administration wasnt dishonest, not to mention crass, in their pursuit of war.  Instead of carefully considering the implications of intelligence they didnt favor, they cherry-picked and crudely capitalized on the sensitive political climate so they could rush in. 

I agree that the "everybody else was doing it" argument deserves little sympathy.

as do i.  you articulated my point better than i did.  i was actually for the war in the beginning b/c of all the lies and misinformation.  silly me to trust my government.

my point was those who were speaking out against the war weren't listened too.  they were labeled unamerican and not patriotic and so forth.  THAT is lazy.

How many times do you have to ignore the facts?

That facts are that Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, not anybody else.

The facts are Bush lied about the connection to AQ and Saddam. Saddam was a secularist who despised Al Queda, just as the Sunnis do now.

The facts are that Bush was told by CIA not to use the intel, that it was shaky, not to be trusted. But he turned around and used that intel anyway.

The facts are that congress voted to give W authorization to go to war as a last result, after diplomacy was exhausted. Bushie turned around and kicked the inspectors out and went to war.

The facts are that Bush's war for the "Hearts and Minds" in Iraq is nothing more than a powerful recruiting tool for AQ and young Muslim men. Nobody in the Muslim world believes we are there to spread democracy. They see us as occupiers, and as an attack on Islam.

The facts are that Sunnis hate AQ and want them out, that AQ makes up less than five percent of the "insurgents" in Iraq. They can deal with the AQ element themselves, without our help.

The facts are that our presence in Iraq goes beyond Osama's wildest dreams. It's more than he ever hoped for.

How many times do you need to be told that your loosely correlated and poorly proven evidence does not count as fact?


Right, cause they couldn't get access to the areas they needed to and Hans Blix id jack shit.


Bush never came out and blamed Iraq for 9/11.  There was some evidence that AQ had met with Iraqi leaders, but you're right, Sadam did not want religious extremist in his country.  The whole "Bush/Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11" is over played.  Granted, they didn't go out of there was to deny alot of Neo-Con pundits, but AQ ties were never a primary factor.  The whole Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq is about as accurate as Farenheit 911's claim of Al Qaeda ties to Bush.

The fact is one member of the CIA told Bush that the intel was not strong enough to use as the basis for the war.  Amazing how you take the word of one person over a hundred others.  Again, you cherry pick your information to confrom to your preconceived ideas and beliefs.

Congress knew we were going to war and they were signing off on it.  To claim anything less is a play on symantics and intellectually dishonest.  It's about as believable and upholds as well as Clinton saying "that depends on what the definition of [is] is."  Congress approved and condoned the war.  They supported it until it started goign south and then the excuses came flying.

  I'll give you this, because I personally believe this.  but as someone who has spoken to actual people who live in the Middle East, it's a mixed bag.  They love us, but they hate us.  They don't draw this left and right line that you'd like to create.  Those most adimantly against our presence there are the same folks we'll probably invade next (read Iran and Syria).

   This is a hard one to prove.  If one is influence by Al Qaeda or the same belief structure as AQ, do they count?  Civilians aren't learning how to make IEDs (which are responsipble for 70% of our casualties), they're being taught by an outside source.  That source is AQ and Iran.

Nah, Bin Laden dreams of a Islamic run world where you and I have long been killed.  He's hoped for alot more, but you're right. He's definitely happy.  However, we keep killing em as he keeps making em.  Eventually he's gonna run out.

It's good to see you being honest for a change (ie, name change.) I'll be back to answer your typical poop response later when I'm in the mood (once I hit my thumb with a hammer or something.)

I've always been honest.  Some people can't make that same claim (at least while being honest).

Lets not get carried away now...

Where did Flagg go?

Now it's Walter 'eh?

ok the simple questions that should be answered by everyone

was saddam a bad guy?

would teh US ended up in Iraq at some point in the future?

would it have been better to go on 03 or wait for something to come up to go in and take him out?

can you support troops and not the war?

now, I support the US troops and their military commanders in Iraq and the Ghan. I support colation troops in there as well. I beleive that the intel used was crap and bush fucked up.... plain and simple. However I also understand from everything about saddam that he was a bad guy and needed to be taken out in 91....... and he remained bad up to and including the 2003 invasion. Did he deserve what he got?..... ya i think so. I feel taht the US and her allies would have ended up in Iraq at some point in the near future regardless, simply because of the crap that sadam was pulling/had pulled/ and could attempt to pull in the future. Even with bad intel with the global stand up of the US and her allies made 03 the best time to say hey we should take care of him now and get it done. You can support teh troops and not the war..... but i support both in the sence that saddam got ousted......

Now here is something I said b4, on several occasions, dating back to before the 03 invasion................... not enough troops to provide security for a country the size of Iraq...........Rummy fucked up and asked "what is the min amount of boots on teh ground to overthrow saddam.........and he never asked how many will i need to  be able to secure and provide security after the destruction of saddams regieme. thats why the surge is working, and troop levels need to be matained/increased through 08 and into '10. If you can give the goverment of Iraq the ability to matain security for her people the people will respect the goverment more, and the goverment will actually start to be able to lead.......well maybe

Interesting video of Dick Cheney from 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emydd%2Ecom%2Fbb

I didn't have to click the link, to know that it was, "that dick Cheney". :hihi: :hihi:

You never did respond.  Can't say I'm suprised.

haha


now thats some ironic shit..... i can barely remember watching that back in the day..... and had totaly forgotten about it... good find man

You see, I have responded, to your same lies, and strawman arguments for years now.

What you posted is no different than anything else you have posted since day one. It's mostly straw man bullshit: false accusations that you argue against using the same old lies that this administration does. Fox news, bullshit du jour, repackaged crap that is fooling nobody. Same pig, new lipstick.

The difference today is that I'm sick of regurgitating it all for you-it simply is not worth my time.

Mr. Big soldier man who still hasn't set foot in the quagmire he so proudly promotes.

Tsk tsk.  Still unable to reply intelligently when challenged.  As you know through our PM (which you initiated and I politely responded too), my "service" in Iraq is beyond my control.  I'll be there soon enough, but the powers that be changed some things around.  Good to know you're the same old SLC, never lacking in stall tactics and regurgitated statements.  Whenever you get called out, you just lash out.  Soon you'll begin the next step and have one of your "minions" make false accusations against me on your behest.  You're a true gentleman and scholar.

Well starters I don't believe you. You have lied so often in the past.

Second: You are lying about me, which backs up my first comment (see above.) Anybody here knows I post sources, links, and provide plenty of valid arguments through the years (all of which turned out to be correct btw.) Yet here you still are lying about my conduct.

Third, as I've said, I've replied to this shit before. Let's do a quick run down, shall we?



CIA officials (plural) coming forward to say that they told Bush that the WMD bit was simply not true before the invasion. This was reported by CNN, CBS, and so on. As it turned out, there was no fucking WMD, so logically that would bring one to believe what? That those guys giving interviews are what? Ding DONG!!! Telling the the truth!



Huh? English? What?

They were co-operating with Blix. Bush kicked the inspectors out-period. Not Saddam, which was one of Bush's many lies.


No shit. More strawman bullshit from you. Nobody said he did. But he and his administration danced along that line and blurred it all up. Hinting often that there was a connection, then taking it back later. Just like you.


Yea, overplayed by Bushco and Fox, nobody else.


False claims and accusations. There have been plenty of whistle blowers over the years. "Hundreds of others"? Who? Where? When? Kind of like that bullshit you guys say about "The whole world was behind us and believed the same intel." What a load of crap.

"Several British government memos from the period prior to the war?s beginning, leaked to the press earlier this year, make clear that the British government did not agree with the Bush Administration?s assessment of Saddam Hussein.  Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Blair, told the Prime Minister in a memo that ?the [Bush Administration?s] case was thin.  Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.?  He also noted that ?the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.?

(Memo, 7/23/02, as reported in The Sunday Times, 5/1/05)

"Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Prime Minister that ?there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Osama bin Laden] and Al Qaida? and that ?in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action.?

(Memo, 3/25/02, provided to Los Angeles Times, 6/15/05)


You want semantics, look in the mirror.

?Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence  information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material?Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.

Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.  In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not include in the NIE.  And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information has not been cleared for release.?

(Washington Post, 11/13/05)


Senator Clinton:  ?I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.  Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.? (10/10/02)

Senator Lincoln: ?Today, I make a difficult choice.  I choose to give our President the authority to take military action against Iraq if necessary because I believe him when he says he does not want to go to war.  I take our President at his word that disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully is his first choice.  I support the notion that a unified Congress sends a strong message to our allies and gives our Secretary of State more leverage as he negotiates a new and tougher U.N. resolution that mandates weapons inspections in Iraq with military consequences if Saddam resists.? (10/10/02)

Senator Schumer:  ?Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.  The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make demands of the civilized world mean something.  I will, therefore, take the President at his word and do my very best to hold him to it.? (10/10/02)



The latest NIE report said Iraq has become the recruiting ground for Islamic nut jobs. Absolutely what OBL wanted. That's been front page news-are you going to claim I pulled that out of my ass too?

on 2nd thought, why even bother

I had a nice reply written up, but it wasn't worth it.  You can't/won't participate in civil debate, so now you're calling me and my stated occupation lies.  I'm not gonna make the same mistakes others have made.

You asked for facts, I gave you facts. You have lied in the past, sorry, but that's the truth.

Don't ask for something you don't want to read brah.

I've never lied on here, never had a reason too.  You on the other hand, well, c'mon.  You can call it playing games or justify it however you want, but I've never lied here.  But I'm done refuting something that I shouldn't even be refuting in the first place.  But don't you see how just simply calling me a liar is intellectualy dishonest?

Who is being dishonest here? If you believe your deception(s), does that mean they are no longer lies?

Ok, so I'm a liar based on my political beliefs and interpretations of events and political climate.? The only deception I have ever committed (and I never attempted to truly deceive) was come back after you threw a fit and had me banned.? I made an argument personal after you and your pals went out of your way to make it personal.? You then took it to a whole new level and deceived everyone to make it appear I had done something much worse than I did.? Now I hear you're doing to someone else the same thing you claimed I did.? I guess you take no responsibility when you have Bud Fox come on here and claim I stalked your family and threatened your life - something you know is absolutely false.? So you want to call me a liar, take a long look in the mirror pal.

I simply want to participate in discussion on issues such as the title of this thread and read what's going on with my favorite band.  You seem to want to go out of your way to hinder that.

Guess you don't want to talk about Iraqi war critics who concede to military progress anymore huh?



That's a total load of poop.

You asked for a reply, and got it. Want me to hold your hand at the same time? Smile at you?

You deviated from the issue by calling me a liar.  Don't point blame at me when you're the cause of the off topic discussion.

I'd call this a false accusation. You do it all the time, so often in fact, that I'm sure you don't even recognize it for what it is.


When in fact, I give plenty of sources, a valid arguments. You claim I never do, which is false, and you know it is.

Why not just address my reply? Instead of steer off course?

Edit: Stay the course!!  ;D

After that slice of humble pie, I doubt I would have an appetite either.

How rich!

Here is one of Cheney denying he made the link between AQ and Iraq.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ&mode=related&search=

btw, the usa is about to list the Revolution Guardians (the official army attached to the Supreme Leader in Iran) as an terrorist organisation ....
(and the W Post says this decision comes from Congress pressures ....)

what the fuck is your governement thinking about ? starting world war 3 ?

Don't worry, it'll be over in six weeks and we'll be greeted as liberators.

great post  : ok:

Their weapons will be easy to find as ""They're in the east, west, south and north somewhat."

 :hihi:

oh and dont forget thei enrichment locations... got to nuke em to take them out.... they are located in Tehran, Mashhad, Tabriz, Kerman, and Yazd. Due to thier location it has been deemed a low loss of cvilian life will occur as all on the surface will actualy be memebrs of the RG and technicians working ot this loactions.......

So the deadliest attack of the ENTIRE war is considered progress eh?

I love how before any real investigations are taking place we're blaming AQ (but not many complete that thought by saying AQ in Iraq).

Lets not forget, before the invasion, there WAS NO AQ in Iraq...

progress!!!   ::) Approx 500 dead.

ya they were kurds..... i blame the turks....... tring to insight the kurds into a big home front run so they can cross the border......but hey i got no evidence....

Evidence?  pffff  SOOOOOO over rated...

all you need is faulty intelligence, a lot of fear mongering and tons of speculation. 

Don't forget a lazy, corporate whore media, who fails to do their job and question anything...

well it seems that you all agree ... so why the fuck is your congress/governement still playing it wrong? i thought we/you were in a democracy ....

I read an article on Le Monde Diplomatique of July about the "left/alternative" groups in the USA unable to provoke any change and unable to raise awareness/actions.
It seems that, even the rightwingers here are aware of the nuttiness of your govnt actions, the rest of the country/public opinion are not aware of the facts and thus is just showing consent ...

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_Chomsky_and_the_Media

Same thing is happening in France, the public opinion is slowly but surely shifting to the right ...

Discussion implies a certain amount of give and take.  What you seem to want is to force your ideals and opinions down everyone's throat, and portray anyone who feels differently are fools, idiots, or liars....with no evidence to support that other than being able to point to the fact they disagree with you.

I do have to say, I find the whole "SLC's Minions" argument pretty funny.  I can honestly say SLC has never, ever, ever contacted me to ask for assistance in arguing a point.  I think SLC is a big enough boy he can handle himself.

However, he's not the only person who's going to argue against this administration, and it's fuck ups. 

I was going to respond to your points, earlier in the thread, but SLC ended up saying pretty much exactly what I would have.  Many of your "points" are old Fox news talking points that have LONG since been debunked....

I have no problem giving and taking.  But when someone present a conspiracy theory claiming that the US govt murdered its own people, I'm going to call them an idiot or fool.  When SLC comes here with his holier than thou attitude and calls me a liar and offers no other form of response to the question, I'll call a spade a spade.  Basically if you're argument is something found in the World Weekly News, I'm gonna call bullshit.

You have a long history of pretend objectionism on this forum.  If that past week hasn't shown you anything, it's that SLC isn't the nice, intellectual forum goer some would like to believe.  I never claimed SLC or anyone else had to have others post for them with regard to replies to actualt topics.  I simply stated the obvious, their is a group of followes here who repeat the exact same crap verbatim and are willing to make blatant lies and false accusations to take a topic off course.

Other than that, there is no reason for me to coninue in this who did what shit.  It's obvious how I and others feel regarding each other's behavior.  I'll probably reply to your retort, but I love how another topic that goes against what the liberal leader believes has gotten sidetracked.

Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy to me.

"THERE OUT TO GET ME!!!!!  THEY WON'T CATCH ME!!!!!'

 :rofl:

well if you want to get back on topic, lets talk about the 500 dead in the latest attack.  that doesn't sound like progress to me.  Or lets talk about the video of that woman from fox news walking in the iraqi market surrounded by blackhawks and marines saying "things are improving" while all the iraqis around her are saying how scared shitless they are.

if the surge is working, its at a snails pace.

Your the one who comes in here with all the ad hominem crap trying to turn this into a "Punk" bashing thread.

You don't?  Look back at the exchange in this thread.  Certainly seems like you have some problems....and when your "evidence" was ultimately shredded (and not from the Weekly World News)...what happened?  Certainly not what any reasonable person would term "discussion".

 You're not calling a "spade" a "spade".  You're saying if you disagree with me, you're a idiot or a fool. And by doing so, you pretty much eliminate any chance for real discussion.   Because your news comes from Fox, and someone else's comes from someplace else, they're instantly wrong, and idiot, a conspiracy theorist, etc.  That's precisely what I said.  If you want to call bullshit on someone, perhaps it's time to look in the mirror.


The word you're looking for is objectivity.

Pretend?  Pretend because I disagree with you, largely, on the social issues, you mean.  I'm a registered independent.  Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative. Never claimed to be anything but (But don't think I didn't notice the sly attempt at an ad hominem attack, rather than addessing the points of the post). NOT objective, independant.  I think we've covered the difference before...if not with you, personally, at least in a myriad of threads in the past.

  But lets face it...you couldn't determine Objectivity if it bit you on the ass, anyway.  You're so far from objective (which isn't the problem), and so far from being capable of reasonable discussion (which IS the problem), as SLC said earlier, it's pointless to engage you.  It's not "wimping out" when people fail to respond....it's being tired of banging our heads into the same wall over and over again.  You post, someone responds, and suddenly it decends into madness.  You tend to drag it there. You did it as Flagg...you're doing it agan. You want to complain about "off topic"?  How about you stay on topic, dispense the ad hominem attacks, the baiting, the sarcastic crap, the antagonizing, and the hostility...and simply talk about the topic?  When presented with credible, competent responses, with legitemate facts,  how about providing more than just your opinion to refute it?  In other words...engage in the civil give and take I mentioned originally.


I don't think SLC has ever claimed to be nice.  We've had discussions, before, when I think he's gone a bit too far (but I take them to PM....another good suggestion for keeping threads on topic).  But he is smart.  I don't care HOW deeply you disagree with him, you have to give him that

You accused SLC's "minions" of accusing you of things, falsely.  Sounds pretty similar to me.

As opposed to you repeating the exact same crap in every post, making false statments (knowingly or not), and telling blantant lies (depending on ones perspective)?  You villianize people for something you do , constantly, simply because they think, and believe, differently than you do.  Pot. Kettle. Black.. 


The topic got side tracked, originally, with these words:

"How many times do you need to be told that your loosely correlated and poorly proven evidence does not count as fact?"

"I've always been honest.  Some people can't make that same claim (at least while being honest)."

and finally, your attempt to bait SLC:

"You never did respond.  Can't say I'm suprised."

Notice, up until that last one...up unti YOU decided to ASK him to basically smack you down....it had pretty much stayed on topic.

But you couldn't...or rather your ego couldn't...just let it go.

So..here's my suggestion:  If you want the thread to go BACK on topic...let it go.  Get back to discussing the topic.

What a think tank here.? Geez!? Very angry posters will solve the worlds problems.. haha later
 ? ? ? ?

by that do you mean masterbation?

When this surge began, we were told that it would be given a few months and then be evaulated by a non partisan military to determine further actions; whether to "stay the course" or start pulling troops out. Now comes a report from The LA Times that  administration will be the the interperter of the data and author of the report:

LA Times Aug. 15 '07

This from an administration that continuously manipulates and distorts the truth anytime that truth is in contradiction with it's own preconceived ideals ... half truths, mistruths, and out right lies. I wonder what this report's recomendations will be when presented?

These criminals have to go ... now.

The problem is people are willing to line up over on sidewalks and sleep on the street over night for an iPod or for the next star wars/harry potter movie, but won't do the same to stop our troops from being killed for nothing and billions of dollars being spent a week....

Yeah, women selling their bodies for only $8 to feed their kids = progress in ANY invasion!!   ::)

But I guess CNN is just another bullshit left wing source....

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/15/iraq.prostitution/index.html