KrustyKidd

Yes and also read the political news as well. It's insurgent activity with retaliation against percieved and supected perpetrators, not a country wide movement with three opposing sides 'hunkering down.' It is not out of control and there is a main core government comprised of the overall demographical population representatives. Name a few from the last fity years. Ok, that takes care of one from before the above time frame. So, your point is that Iraqis must go through a 'hazing' period of a half million deaths? You're not the Iranian President are you?

Agreed. And ..... His leadership has been unfaltering and, the courage to undertake this endeavor is visionary, I also believe that another would at this point in time be more effective. Provided they continued with the course laid out with the same steady purpose and conviction. My goodness Gerry, you certainly read me to be a predictable two dimensional cartoon character. No, if Bush is taken down, another will take his place. It is not his personal decision that is effecting world events. It is the accumulation of hundreds if not thousands of people who, with training in political, cultural and military events and history probably amount to the most qualified group on the planet to advise any person on such matters. His decisions are akin to you taking your lawyers or doctors advice. I mean, unless you are a doctor, you get it explained and then follow the advice given. If you have say, fifty doctors each specializing in matters of the body and mind with one or two as the head, you would take their advice would you not? Or, would you wander off taking your own course countering their advice and hope for the best? Myself, I believe that any President save Carter would have done what Bush did. In fact, Clinton made regime change in Iraq US policy minus the use of force. 911 changed a lot of things and, that caveate went with it. The right blames Clinton wrongly for a lot of things including not taking care of Iraq but, once again, 911 changed a lot of things. For example, Clinton sent cruise missiles against Afganistan when the Towers were bombed, he didn't take care of the problem the right charges. Think about it, how could he have mustered support for an ivasion without a large scale event such as 911, To do so would have been insanity and, political suicide. Clinton, despite the bull crap impeachement put forth against him was a fine Democratic President. Weak on defense, you had to remember the times though with the Soviet Union dismantling and all, he could afford to be and look inward for growth. Bush's problem (or rather main problem) is that he does not have the gift of Clinton - an ability to speak and make his ideas known and understandable. I believe he is known as the 'Great Communicator' and, with good reason. He has style and charm and, was well supported at home. Bush on the other hand should have fired his PR team back in January 2001. Possibly earlier. It's for the above reasons that I firmly believe that Clinton would have handled the War on Terror better than Bush. However, would he have the courage to go to the extent Bush has? I think so, after all, he initiated a lot of it. Certainly, he would have been able to mobilize more of the US population behind him (or at least less of them opposing him) through better explanations and, been able to work better with other countries. Would another President do better if Bush and Cheney were replaced tommorow? If they planned on staying the course they would in that they would provide a fresh start in the political arena domestically as well as internationally. New broom sweeps clean they say. Even if it's the same brand.

Which side Lonius? You would have Warlords aplenty in every nook and cranny, all with no central command. Yes indeed, I remember Canada's bloody civil war in which our forefathers died. And pretty much every other democracy, how they were born of fire, disease and death. Get real. Nowhere is death a prerequisite for a democracy to occur. How about letting them continue with the political process? I mean, a quarter to half a million lives saved, it's pretty much there already but you think that going back to less than square one and letting people kill themselves in Stalinistic proportions is the way to do it? The end result will be a desert of death and cities out of an end of the world appocolyptic movie, completely mixed in with a religion of death and oppression. Hardly conductive to building anything much less a democracy.

No. You started the side track when you said that Bush was dumb enough to believe that Al Queda was going to take over Iraq when he said they were fighting the people who attacked them on 911. Obviously those who did that are dead and therefore cannot be the same ones in Iraq. Therefore, he would have to be referring to mean the same type of people. You mean he believes they are fighting ghosts? Edit: Correct. However, not fear mongering but simplification of a message that took me an hour to write last night and, would more than likely go over the heads of most people. Therefore, a more simpler message is Terrorists bad. Leaving Iraq would leave Iraq in hands of bad people. Therefore, leaving Iraq in the hands of terrorists = Iraq in the hands of bad people. (which is obviously bad) Now, without getting out pie charts and confusing people with a message of Iranian involvement as well as the fourteen hundred year old difference between Sunnis ands Shiites as well as the Kurdish fourth world nation's concerns, economic and how conservative Wahabbism comes into play, he just says the above. Here, you try it. Answer this assertation why the US should stay in Iraq with one easily deceminated phrase to say why the US should leave. In Iraq, all sides are comming to the negotiating table historicaly for the first time to create a free, democratic government and, to leave now would for certain, allow sectarian violence to take place, with the victor, if any, being totolatarian without reguard for human rights, ruling by fear and terror and, as such, would be an enemy and threat to any freedom loving people.

Yes, very interesting. However, planes hit the towers and they fell down. If not from the planes and the resulting structural trauma then what? You can discount government involvement unless of course you can somehow portray a scenario how the operation would have taken place, then provide a motive, then providea risk vs reward assesment. Of interest as well would be how the government would turn a blind eye to al this, preferring to risk being executed for treason and murder as well as risking a revolution in the USA with the republican party dead forever while they controlled the executive and two houses. Strange behavior indeed. And, also explain why the Clinton administration would have been in on it as they immediately knew who did it, blaming Al Queda rather than the CIA or other secret organizations. Guess what I'm saying is that if you can work this idea from the other end, you might find a more receptive audience for this stuff. As it stands right now, it is of mild coincidental interest. Not ground breaking. When things happen, strange things often happen too. Present some rationale and method, not just coincidences.

For sure yea of the closed mind. Cheney did his telekenisis act on them all. Even did Clinton too as he told an audience in Ottawa he knew as soon as the second plane hit that it was Al Qeda. Try to not be so close minded and, do some reading. And reading. Oh, don't forget to read, and open that ...... well you know what I mean.

Uh huh. So did Bush. He said He also said I would imagine that like you have made the same error as he "leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over" and him not being specific whatsoever that Al Queda would take over Iraq but rather those with the same ideology (oppression and totolatarianism) would rule Iraq. Al Queda is in Iraq at this time operating so, if the US did leave, it would leave an active Al Queda behind. It's all semantics. Hence, his words are accurate but really Gerry, I believe you are stretching it and I wish a couple of other members would come in and give some weight to this as it is wasting both our bandwidths picking fly shit from pepper on this point.

Sure, I'll take a stab. It's imaginary as it is not even a possibilityas the US is not going anywhere unless Kaptain Kangaroo gets elected but I'll see if I can take a guess with reason. Please don't quote me for any future arguments as I'm just going to go off the top of my head without going to the books on it. Giimie a few and I'll edit this with a scenario of sorts So far; That's it for now. If you like, I'll speculate on further reaching consequences later.

I'll be honest Gerry. This means shit. The US is at war with the the entire western civilization at stake and you and your ilk are playing games. I stated once before that AL Queda is a valid threat in that it is a logical and sane idea that has a real possibility of succeeding. The attoricious acts they have committed in dozens of counrtries are not random, they are designed to weaken the goverments hold on the people and pave the way for a domino type effect if AQ can take and hold Saudi Arabia where they have massive unofficial support, even amongst many of the disenfranchised extended Royal Family. If they can do that, then the whole thing starts to come together as they form a shodow government and have acces, through petro dollars to arms, military and political force as well as being able, for the first time, to export items other than death to become a social force as well. All with the aim of taking over first, the former Caliphate and then, working on the rest of the world. Now, we could simply leave them do it and drive Hugos but, eventually, with the money they wold ontrol they would also control stock markets in countries al over the world and hold many countries financial hostage. So a wire tap. Well, if AQ is successful in even part of what I described, you will see a totolitarian backlash in the western world with a Patriot act that even Orwell couldn't envision. So yes, I don't put much seriousness into the wire tapping. Lincoln imprisoned journalists and exilled dissenting congressmen. Gerry, when it goes to court I'll decide when the jury comes in with the verdict. Until then, it's all talk and, like the lawyers of the more than 90 countries heads of state that helped the US invade Iraq privately and publically, I'll assume that they did their job properly and made sure their heads of state wouldn't end up in the UN docket at the Hague beside the late Milosivik.

Nice stretch Gerry. I suppose if it feels good you should go for it. Sure he din't mean idealology? Or did he specidficly say Al Queda will take over Iraq? Do they have that many guys to do it with? I mean, is there 150,000 AQ Waffen SS troopers there to begin with? .

Ya, looks like it will be a crappy week. This is bad. Al Sadr was always a hothead. Well, since he sliced off the other cleric's head anyhow however, he was a calming force during the mosgue bombing but, seems to have once again become part of the problem. However, I wonder what would happen if he were taken out, it would probably get worse as the Shiites would have no control whatsoever.

Nice attempt to get out of this by feigning indignity Gerry. You stated that Bush said Gerry He did not did he? His entire tirade was to state that the forces opposing the democratic process were a melange of people who did not wish to give freedom to anybody. And, were in fact terrorists. Funny, I think I even said that in this thread even when you knew most of the characters and the threat they posed.. KK

Ok. Well, it sure seems like the Left is growing more frustrated that none of their digs have worked in over five years. Now this latest joke of impeachment being talked about (seemingly in every place but in a court) is being picked up by any leftist willing and desparate enough to grab a thread in order to hold their failing, and flacid cause together. Unfortunately, they fail to realize that the reason they have no strength is because they have for over five years now, forgone anything that can be construed as constructive and simply attempted to degenerate the sitting president's authority. This is but another rallying place to gather for the left and sing Kumbyah. Enjoy it, love it. And rejoice in the knowledge that there will be two more years of these meaningless, yet morale boosting theatrics.

Obvious? It seems Bush is taking this in stride pretty much and, the desparation seems to be on the side that has for years, been doing whatever they could to put the screws to him without success. So, desparate for who Gerry? You are touting that 'if' the Dems get this, then they can maybe do that, if this and that are here and there, all the while he is just getting on with being president so ..... desparate for who? Oh, wondering, what ever in the world happened to the Haliburton thing with Cheney? That was another 'desparation' thing going with the Left if I do remember right. More will come to me I'm sure as we go over this.

I agree. Oh well, only so much you can do in such a short period of time and the screwed up system that had been in place for all those years before. I think the dots are getting connected a lot better now though.

Desparate for who? Like I said, the Left has been talking for years. Bush Doesn't seem desparate From your 'proof' on the 72% thread. Oh ya, he's sweating bullets.

The course is to stay in Iraq until it stabilizes enough so that it can stand on it's own. With all parties now comming together in both the negotiating table and joining in the political process it is working. If you cannot see that then obviously the whole concept will be fairly confusing for you. Hang on a second Gerry. You said For proof, you give You making your own shit up Gerry? Is that what you have to do to make your argument valid? Here is the context of the comment. Next para; And finally, your To somebody who has a predisposition for failure and thinks two dimensionally, I can see where you might make that connection. You probably believed Saddam was responsible for 911 too right?

Ah some sanity. Sure there is as contrary to your previous misinformed post about how "Well, I guess I don't read the same news you do because I haven't seen four years of impeachment talk. " there was. And, it went nowhere. And I'll sum up; Like preivous talk, it will go nowhere.

No. He gets briefings from the heads of the departments and then takes recommendations and makes a decision. Once done, the workings of the process would generally be left up to whoever was running that particular operation. Ok, what is the 'course' Gerry? And, is an Iraq in turmoil with iranians running it productive for your vision? I did not. Flounder your argument with your own words, don't mince mine. Well then, seeing as how both of us get our info from different sources and come to the same conclusion, it makes me more secure in my argument then. What in hell are you talking about? I don't recall any sort of speech saying the above. North Korea - returning to six party talks Iran - direct negotiations for the first time in decades. Iraq - three elections and moving on. Yes, quite bungled. A very screwed up way to measure success you got there Gerry.

No? Downing St Memo, WMDs and such? Pick up a paper sometime. I don't read bloggers but would be interested on these legal experts you 'hear' from. 'All except those on the President's payroll' indicates you have quite the legal staff retained there. Fill me in on this one Gerry, you are beggining to intrigue me. Does your army of slip and fall abulance chasers do divorce? I suppose in your world it would make more sense to not tap phones and let suspected or real terrorists do whatever they wish while time was wasted getting orders. Glad you only run that battalion of lawyers rather than national security. Always that hope.

Of course you do as you think two dimensionally. Red cars this week right? No. If I did that I would still be looking for WMDs and wondering how they tied into the War on Terror. Pulling out would not be a defeat but it certainly would be detrimental to the overal progress made. If that is in line with your'neo-conBush narrative' it is by ocincidence rather than going along with it as the information I put forth is not comming from them. See, this is most of your problem Gerry. You take this whole affair personal. You don't like Bush therefore, this whole thing is an anti Bush mission and information gathered is only gathered if it has this one end result - 'get Bush' and discount or discredit anything else that comes along. I never mentioned Bush here. In fact, in another thread I believe I called him a 'chimp' as I don't think he is not the brightest bulb in the box. He does however, have some good people and has been the one thing that has been steadfast throughout this affair, ignoring polls and working through an election to see this mission through to this point. I imagine he is fairly pleased with the way things are going right now as they are certainly birghter than they were a couple of months ago. As for 'looking like a doofus' I hardly think he is worried about that. Probably that would be the only thing on your mind if the positions were reversed as that is the way you think Gerry. Rule by polls and react rather than plan. Very two dimensional. No you don't. Already have people who know far more than I there. You think he plans all this by himself while sitting on the crapper? I actually doubt that he makes any more than say a couple of decisions a day on this entire War on Terror, Iraq included. He has a staff that does all this stuff so, once given resposnsibility, the person in charge of that segment is making the decisions and giving the briefings to appraise him of how and what is going on. Therefore, it minimizes what has to be wieghed.

WTF?!!! Lonious, you have a whimsical side that is unfortunately rarely shown. Thanks for that. Love it when people think outside the box and, you just did in a big way. Interesting for sure but, Bush is no power sucking gravitational black hole. The guy's a chimp who got lucky and set on a daring, yet logical course which he has stuck to. Hardly a threat to future generations of Republicans as a back stage power broker.

Sorry, just remembering the last four years of impeachment talk and all with what - WMDS and stuff missing. Ya, things start with talk but you have to admit, the Democrats sure do a lot of yapping and get no results. This time's going to be different right? I mean, this time, you have a guy who is tapping phone calls of suspected terrorists whereas before, he was only supposedly making up reasons to send a country to war. Yes, very serious in comparrison.

And the question was? I would be very interested to see the question posed to the guys and how or what the choices were. Now, did those soldiers take into consideration events unfolding in countries outside of Iraq that are part of the reason for the action there to begin with? I doubt it as you seem to be under the impression that Iraq is the end result of everything when it is only a benchmark in the War on Terror. Kind of like blue printing an engine and realizing you have the wrong gasket. You hit a snag and work around it, ultimitely getting the job done. The mechanic doing the work though feels that it may be a crisis as that is his role and his entire being is in that engine job. The rebuilding of the engine was never the purpose or end result but, it made the antique Ford a much nicere display vehicle to take to shows around the country and produce millions of dollars in advertising revenue. The engine job was pricesless in the grand scheme of things and, to scrap it would have turned the entire ad campaign off and necessetated revamping it - a very costly proceedurre. You have to go beyond what is put in front of you Gerry. No Gerry, I do get what you are saying - that US troops should leave Iraq because the soldiers there feel that they are having little or no effect. I get it. And, what's more, can understand why soldiers would feel that way. What you don't get is that this is only a part of an entire global operation that is succeeding. And, events of late have shown that it is going quite well, much better than I anticipated, even in Iraq for reasons that these soldiers would have absolutely no knowledge of unless they werre privy to inner circle briefings of the President and Iraqi, Iranian and other top bureaucrats You yourself were under the impression that Iran was so happy the US were supposedly wasting their time and resources yet are obvisously so distrought they are actually doing direct negotiations with the US as Iraq is going the US's way and not Iran's. So, if a well read politicaly interested person such as yourself doesn't have a shmick, how do you think a soldier in the feild who has no interest would? Kind of like this 'nonsensical' post you can't seem to understand. Your argument Beggining to make sense now? The soldiers are, by nature soldiers and as such, only deal with tactical information and situations. Thus, are not qualified to make accurate assesments on strategic issues. Read the above quote of the car factory analogy and, if that makes sense to you to allow workers to make management and marketing decisions from the factory floor then I suppose no argument will disuade you from your reality. And, please tell me as you only have one 'fact,' and therefore must know it from top to bottom, what was the poll question?

Well, i seem to be in a time warp or something watching you begin this thread all over again making the same points. I suppose I will simply restate what I have already said. That is that it is only a human interest poll in that the soldiers do not have the full information to base their sucessfulness on as the overall success goes well beyond Iraq and the immediate here and now. Without the training, information, political contacts, both front and back door as well as the authority to deal with presidents and statesmen they don't have the full picture nor are they expected to. Leaving them to gague their opinion on whether or not they got shot at that particular day, a method of deciding the left likes a lot as it is pure emotionalism without full facts. No. Soldiers are human and humans like comfort. When I was one I did my best to stay dry.