pbleighton Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 "Bush is now unilaterally sending another 24,000 troops to Iraq. That has everyone's attention right now, for some weird reason. Do you support this?" Still waiting, Mike ;) Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 [....]2. I consider communism and socialism as being a self-limiting concept that has repeatedly failed due to the will of the individual wanting freedoms of choice, speech, and dissent.[......]The concept of capitalism - free enterprise, low taxes, high promotion of basic rights, and the emphasis of self-service over government control, to be is nearly unlimited. Funny, to me you sound like a liberalist, alas in the way we use the word here in Europe. I know this is not so relevant in an American context, where you are consider "liberal" if you have anti-liberal attitudes to many issues such as gun control and taxes. But whatever name you use for it, isn't the current government pretty much the anti-thesis of what you write here? The central government under Bush has a high level of spending, it doesn't excactly give a high priority to basic human rights whether at home or abroad, and it seeks to interfere in everything that in a freedom-seeking mind isn't the central goverment's business:- whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term or not- whether researchers use embryo-derived stem cells or not- what NYT feels like publishing- whether condoms play a role in AIDS prevention strategy or not, and what scientific goverment instutes publish about the relative efficacy of alternative strategies- whether NASA's next Mars mission should be manned or unmanned- whether people burn some piece of textile that happens to be decorated with some stars and some stribes- whether people sniff cocaine or not Yes, I know you have strong feelings about some of those issues. I have strong feelings about a lot of issues with which a central government should not interfere. For example, I hate most aspects of popular culture, such as religion, violent computer games and drugs. Yet I would never vote for a party that seeked to prevent people from doing such, IMHO, discusting thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I hope it works. I do not understand enough about the plan to support it or not.It seems the Iraqi army lives in open sewers with broken rifles and a sever lack of leadership, bullets and equipment. How are they going to take the lead?IF the war is unwinable we should start pulling out troops but the consquences will be horrific with the aftermath similiar to vietnam with regional wars where millions may die. If this is one last effort to win(whatever that means) I can only hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 The best way to maintain control is to ensure that there is no one (competent) to pass the baton to....... As far as 20,000 more...to pacify Baghdad? Next it will be 5,000 more to pacify the "green zone"...its all a smoke screen....buying time until their next little "surprise" is ready. It may have to be a rush job so be ready to look closely at it, the clues will most likely be there.....but will we be able to do anything with them??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 I don't think 20K is enough frankly. Granted the head honcho from EUCOM is coming to CENTCOM (an Admiral thing-a-ma-bob) which is encouraging to me; I simply hope that finally we can release our fighting forces to WIN. We'll see; I am not that overly encouraged as of yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Share Posted January 11, 2007 This plan is horrible. Gee, I've made a mistake before so to fix that I'm going to send more US soldiers into death... I feel sad for all the soldiers who have been sent to Iraq and their families, as well as for the Iraqi people. Why can't we all just... get along? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 12, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 12, 2007 There were two points about last night's broadcast that were hone-in points. Point 1:The first was the almost offhanded way Bush charecterized Iran as the true bad guys who were funding and supporting the insugerncy - he said little more than that, but now it is officially "in the record" that Bush warned us about Iran's role in the insurgency. He also said he had move an additional aircraft carrier into the region. It is also interesting that Israel "let slip" about three weeks ago that they had nuclear weapons and then promptly denied it, after which the Brittish press got wind of an Israeli plan to use low-yield nukes and bunker buster bombs to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure, which is mainly underground. If that were to occur, would Bush and co. do anything other than side with Israel once again? Is the increase in forces and the added Navy hardware simply a threat to keep Syria on the sidelines when Israel attacks Iran? Are we there to safeguard Israel when Israel goes on the offensive? Point 2:After the speech, on the channel I was watching (can't tell you whcih, but the only one my poor t.v. could get without cable), there was a retired something-or-other from one of the armed forces - most of what he said was just mumbo-jimbo until he got to the end, and then he spilled his guts - he said that 65% of the world's oil reserves are in the middle east so the security of this region was vital to the national security of the U.S. So that poses all sorts of interesting questions - for one, no matter who is in control of a country, would that country ever cut off oil supply to the U.S.? It would be somewhat suicidal to do so, in that the U.S. is such a major consumer of oil that the lost revenues would cripple the withholding country, would it not? Because the U.S. still relies on oil, does that give the U.S. the right to intervene in its national security interest in a region simply because of that region's oil? I can guarantee to one and all that if the entire world's population of Muslims would simply convert to Baptist and give us all their oil, there would be no more wars, and there would be a lot more drunk ex-Mulsims on Saturday nights. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 In a similar fashion, a lot the allegations of bias have to do with the use for banners and graphics rather than specific statements by the individual anchors. For example, check out the following banner that was displayed yesterday when Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker http://www.newshounds.us/Pelosi%20Banner_0001.jpg Do graphics that run during Shepard Smith's broadcast conform to the rules of this "challenge"? (Yes I know that this is Hannity and Colmes, not Shepard) Amused to see just how FOX is spinning the Libby verdict: http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/11999/2001883825464813443_rs.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 31, 2007 Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Take a lesson from the Ethiopians: they are fighting to win resoundingly, and are getting the job done. Why won't we unleash our forces to do the same? One word: politics. Bunch of pussies our generals and admirals are becoming - stop reasoning and start fighting. Dwayne I would have thought that at least one of the lessons from Iraq had become perfectly apparent by now: Its relatively easy to seize territory and kill people. Creating a stable society is hard work. "Nation building" requires time, effort, lots of money, and a sustained commitment to process. The Ethiopians are in the same position that the US was 4.5 years ago. They seized a lot of territory. However, its far from clear whether they will be able to stablize Somalia or even Mogadishu. Only time will tell... Thought it might be worthwhile to revisit and earlier discussion...Recall the glorious offensive in Somalia? http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...6521278,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted March 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2007 Yes, and there seems to be a slight problem here, as well: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.h...8d841dc&k=21972 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 I don't think it made the papers here - and Pravda -er, Fox, - surely didn't report it.who did report it here? also, i'll repeat a challenge i've made before: show me an example of biased reporting by the anchor of fox news, sheppard smith, in his role as anchor... Given the recent decision by Fox "News" to exclude Ron Paul from the upcoming Republican debate it seemed reasonable to revist an old thread: Don't get me wrong... I think that Ron Paul is a complete whack job. None-the-less, his fund raising has been extremely impressive and his polling / performance is clearly better than some of the candidates who are being allowed to participate in the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 no argument here, excluding him was just wrong imo... btw i heard a rumor that paul is actually doing quite well among the younger college kids Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.