Democrats want U.S. Iraq withdrawal

[Leafless]

Democrats said Sunday said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

Do this and all the effort concerning the 'war on terrorism' in Iraq could be a lost cause.

In fact with Saddam out of the way and the pull out of U.S. troops, Iraq could become a more organized potent force than under the leadership of Saddam.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

[jdobbin]

Democrats said Sunday said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

Do this and all the effort concerning the 'war on terrorism' in Iraq could be a lost cause.

In fact with Saddam out of the way and the pull out of U.S. troops, Iraq could become a more organized potent force than under the leadership of Saddam.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

So Iraq cannot and will not take care of itself? Ever?

[Leafless]

Democrats said Sunday said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months.

Do this and all the effort concerning the 'war on terrorism' in Iraq could be a lost cause.

In fact with Saddam out of the way and the pull out of U.S. troops, Iraq could become a more organized potent force than under the leadership of Saddam.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....xml&src=rss

So Iraq cannot and will not take care of itself? Ever?

This depends how you view and personally want the world to evolve.

If you feel the world should be dominated and ruled by terrorist rather than the system currently employed by the free world, that is your decision.

I am certain you realize that there are groups in the world that would tremendously desire to take what we have built.

[jdobbin]

This depends how you view and personally want the world to evolve.

If you feel the world should be dominated and ruled by terrorist rather than the system currently employed by the free world, that is your decision.

I am certain you realize that there are groups in the world that would tremendously desire to take what we have built.

I don't support terrorism. However, I don't think we can prevent someone else's civil war either.

[Leafless]

I don't support terrorism. However, I don't think we can prevent someone else's civil war either.

I have already pointed out it is obvious Iraqi's cannot handle freedom.

This is not a real civil war but an internal conflict based on an abnormal pursuit of power and greed.

How can you whip down primitive people to forcefully make them understand that there is a more civilized way of understanding and doing things.

The answer is you cannot and if you do you are viewed as some countries already view the U.S. and it's allies as thugs.

The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries.

BTW- there is no such word as "else's".

[jdobbin]

I have already pointed out it is obvious Iraqi's cannot handle freedom.

This is not a real civil war but an internal conflict based on an abnormal pursuit of power and greed.

How can you whip down primitive people to forcefully make them understand that there is a more civilized way of understanding and doing things.

The answer is you cannot and if you do you are viewed as some countries already view the U.S. and it's allies as thugs.

The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries.

BTW- there is no such word as "else's".

Internal conflict is by its nature civil war. And if it is a no win situation, why stay? Will it improve security for the U.S.? The Pentagon's own research has said no.

As far as "else's" goes, I see it in the style guide for the Washington Post and the New York Times. They're wrong in its usage?

[Leafless]

I have already pointed out it is obvious Iraqi's cannot handle freedom.

This is not a real civil war but an internal conflict based on an abnormal pursuit of power and greed.

How can you whip down primitive people to forcefully make them understand that there is a more civilized way of understanding and doing things.

The answer is you cannot and if you do you are viewed as some countries already view the U.S. and it's allies as thugs.

The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries.

BTW- there is no such word as "else's".

Internal conflict is by its nature civil war. And if it is a no win situation, why stay? Will it improve security for the U.S.? The Pentagon's own research has said no.

As far as "else's" goes, I see it in the style guide for the Washington Post and the New York Times. They're wrong in its usage?

Civil war is a word pertaining to people who understand what the word MEANS and understand it's cause and what it will produce.

Ive already answered why the U.S. must stay in Iraq: "The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries." Security will not be improved, not in the immediate future.

But I have this to say. When the world comes to grips concerning the growing Muslim problem in countries like Britain and France it could be eventually acknowledged by free democratic countries that extreme action could be desirable and deployed against growing Islamic aggression.

If you say the Washing Post or the New York Times want to use "else's" it is SLANG and technically wrong, but if they do use it I suppose it's their business.

But the fact remains there is no such word as "else's".

[jdobbin]

Civil war is a word pertaining to people who understand what the word MEANS and understand it's cause and what it will produce.

Ive already answered why the U.S. must stay in Iraq: "The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries." Security will not be improved, not in the immediate future.

But I have this to say. When the world comes to grips concerning the growing Muslim problem in countries like Britain and France it could be eventually acknowledged by free democratic countries that extreme action could be desirable and deployed against growing Islamic aggression.

If you say the Washing Post or the New York Times want to use "else's" it is SLANG and technically wrong, but if they do use it I suppose it's their business.

But the fact remains there is no such word as "else's".

Sure looks like a civil war to many observers. Of course though, to some observers, the U.S. civil war wasn't really a civil war.

I don't know that your reasoning is going to satisfy even President Bush now. "We have to stay and get killed even though it won't solve anything." I guess we should be thinking of who the next Democratic President of the United States will be in 2008.

Here is someone else's view on the subject.

http://www.answers.com/else's

http://www.leafless.justgotowned.com/

[Leafless]

Civil war is a word pertaining to people who understand what the word MEANS and understand it's cause and what it will produce.

Ive already answered why the U.S. must stay in Iraq: "The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries." Security will not be improved, not in the immediate future.

But I have this to say. When the world comes to grips concerning the growing Muslim problem in countries like Britain and France it could be eventually acknowledged by free democratic countries that extreme action could be desirable and deployed against growing Islamic aggression.

If you say the Washing Post or the New York Times want to use "else's" it is SLANG and technically wrong, but if they do use it I suppose it's their business.

But the fact remains there is no such word as "else's".

Sure looks like a civil war to many observers. Of course though, to some observers, the U.S. civil war wasn't really a civil war.

I don't know that your reasoning is going to satisfy even President Bush now. "We have to stay and get killed even though it won't solve anything." I guess we should be thinking of who the nest Democratic President of the United States will be in 2008.

Here is someone else's view on the subject.

http://www.answers.com/else's

http://www.leafless.justgotowned.com/

American's know what their civil war was and it's cause.

We refer to the Iraqi's fighting among themselves as a civil war.

Iraqi's dont know what a civil war is much less what their fighting over.

You have a thick head. There is no such word as "else's".

All you have to do is rephrase your original two sentences which was incorrect anyways as you have two separate thought patterns in the same paragraph which is another error.

"I don't support terrorism. However, I don't think we can prevent someone else's civil war either."

[jdobbin]

American's know what their civil war was and it's cause.

We refer to the Iraqi's fighting among themselves as a civil war.

Iraqi's dont know what a civil war is much less what their fighting over.

You have a thick head. There is no such word as "else's".

All you have to do is rephrase your original two sentences which was incorrect anyways as you have two separate thought patterns in the same paragraph which is another error.

"I don't support terrorism. However, I don't think we can prevent someone else's civil war either."

American's. I think you mean Americans. It's. I think you mean its.

Dont. I think you mean don't.

I just sent you a link on else's.

"When a pronoun is followed by else, the possessive form is generally written with the 's following else: That must be someone else's (not someone's else) book. Both who else's and whose else are in use, but not whose else's: Who else's book could it have been? Whose else could it have been?"

[Black Dog]

I have to ask: where are the great defenders of the Iraqi people here?KrustyKidd, for example, is usually pretty quick to tar anyone who says that conditions in Iraq ain't good for democracy as unrepentant racists or paternalistic boobs. Yet here's a guy openly saying that Iraqis are essentially dumb animals and, to coin a phrase, the silence from the right is deafening.

Anyway...

This is not a real civil war but an internal conflict based on an abnormal pursuit of power and greed.

When it comes to human events, the pursuit of power and greed are about as normal as breathing.

How can you whip down primitive people to forcefully make them understand that there is a more civilized way of understanding and doing things.

Uh...buh...wha...huh?

The Iraq situation is a no win situation but that is the reason the U.S. and it's allies must stay as we cannot allow or give the opportunity concerning terrorist barbaric actions to destroy or control free democratic countries.

I think you need to look up what "no-win" situation means.

http://www.leafless.justgotowned.com/

The best thing about that link is all the use we can get out of it.

[Leafless]

"When a pronoun is followed by else, the possessive form is generally written with the 's following else: That must be someone else's (not someone's else) book. Both who else's and whose else are in use, but not whose else's: Who else's book could it have been? Whose else could it have been?"

Else's is NOT a word.

Check it out in your blooming dictionary.

What 'else's' is though is a 'IDIOM' and not defined as a single word.

http://www.linguarama.com/ps/295-6.htm

[jdobbin]

"When a pronoun is followed by else, the possessive form is generally written with the 's following else: That must be someone else's (not someone's else) book. Both who else's and whose else are in use, but not whose else's: Who else's book could it have been? Whose else could it have been?"

Else's is NOT a word.

Check it out in your blooming dictionary.

What 'else's' is though is a 'IDIOM' and not defined as a single word.

http://www.linguarama.com/ps/295-6.htm

Please show me in your links where it says that.

American Dictionary:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/E0096400.html

http://www.dailygrammar.com/406to410.shtml

[Leafless]

Please show me in your links where it says that.

I don't have a link.

I have a Concise 'Oxford Dictionary' and there is no plural of else as a word that stands alone as else's.

What you are describing forms an 'idiom'.

Why don't you ask GREG for a position as a 'word cop'.

We are off topic and I will not be entertaining your word fun any further.

G'BYE.

[jdobbin]

I don't have a link.

I have a Concise 'Oxford Dictionary' and there is no plural of else as a word that stands alone as else's.

What you are describing forms an 'idiom'.

Why don't you ask GREG for a position as a 'word cop'.

We are off topic and I will not be entertaining your word fun any further.

G'BYE.

No link as I expected. Thanks. On the other hand, I did give you a dictionary reference.

When a pronoun is followed by else, the possessive form is generally written with the 's following else: That must be someone else's (not someone's else) book. Both who else's and whose else are in use, but not whose else's: Who else's book could it have been? Whose else could it have been?

This is not an idiom. This is the possessive rather than plural.

And that is in my Oxford Dictionary.

You are wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8274...&size=LARGE

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-8274...&size=LARGE

"The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (I936) permits "else's,..."

Now you can say good bye.

[Apropos]

I have to ask: where are the great defenders of the Iraqi people here?KrustyKidd, for example, is usually pretty quick to tar anyone who says that conditions in Iraq ain't good for democracy as unrepentant racists or paternalistic boobs. Yet here's a guy openly saying that Iraqis are essentially dumb animals and, to coin a phrase, the silence from the right is deafening.

My first read here and I come across a spat about the usage of else/else's!!

You are correct about the righty poster though. Seems to have as much knowledge about Iraqi/Mesopotamian history (re civilization) as the illustrious leader down south who until after he decided to invade was faced with the realization that there is this fundamental schism within Islamic/Muslim theology that just might be in play. That would of course be the Sunni/Shia divide.