El Presidentes last stand...Follow

Well there it is!

He admits he got it wrong by not having more troops in Iraq.

There was 160,000 when they had elections. There are now 132,000.

He's going to send another 21,500 making the full complement of 153,500. Wich is 6,500 less than at election time.

And the Iraqis are gonna add 10,000 to 12,000.

And this is going to help how?

Much as I would love to see peace and prosperity come to the people of Iraq, I'm failing to see how adding more guns and bombs is going to achieve anything more than a lot more dead people.

I cant get the image out of my head of a gambler, having lost everything he has, bets his house, his car and his children, on one last hand.....'cos you never know when your luck is going to turn.

Except its not his children, or his house or his car....

What a fucking asshole. I would like to personally stab every single person that voted for him.

Edited, Jan 10th 2007 10:35pm by Brill

paulsol the Flatulent wrote:
Quote:
And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
Israel.
You want Bush to prevent Israel from gaining nuclear weapons?

I know you arn't being serious Joph. But Just in case anyone else missed the ironic tone......Link to explain the bolding

Meh, I'd be happier without a nuclear Iran and I don't have any real objections to Israel willingly doing the dirty work. Lord knows Israel will be happier without a nuclear equipped Iran as well.

Like it or not, Israel is our only major true ally in the region and, until some other nation in the Middle East wants to reform itself into a western style democracy, that's how it's going to stay.

You do mean the Saudis here dont you? Or who?




I have read and re-read this passage. And I must confess to having no idea whatsoever what your trying to say!

But, but, but.... thats just crazy.....

Zarathustra pointed out that sometimes people muddy the waters in attempt to make themselves appear deep. Gbaji is one of those people.

You're a waste of humanity gbaji.

Please tell me you don't have such a simplistic view of world politics as to assume that actions by dissident ex-patriot Saudis have anything at all to do with the Saudi government itself. The fact that you even made this comment speaks volumes about your lack of understanding of this issue and full willingness to simply repeat rhetoric instead.


[/quote]


Let me put this plainly. Prior to the 9/11 attacks, Al-queda had not yet flown planes into buildings and killed 3000 people on US soil, correct? But it still was a threat and should have been dealt with, right?

My point is that on Sep 10th 2001, Al-queda were not yet responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Those attacks didn't exist yet. But that did not mean that they were not a threat to us. Thus, we can't decide that an enemy is only going to attack us if they already have. This should be obvious to most people, but apparently is not to you, so I'm being *really* clear here. You can't argue that we should only deal with people who were responsible for 9/11, since that same argument would invalidate dealing with Al-queda prior to 9/11 itself.


If we rolled time back to 1998 and I argued that we should invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power and get rid of Al-queda, you'd be sitting here arguing that we shouldn't. Exactly as you are arguing it was wrong to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power (and presumably did prior to the invasion itself).

You would have been wrong the first time. I believe you are equally wrong in the second. You just don't know it because we did invade Iraq, and we did remove Saddam from power, so you and I and a bunch of other people did not end up suffering the likely attack that would have eventually occured. The connection between 9/11 and Iraq is not a causative one. Iraq did not conduct the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks serve as a reminder of what happens when we ignore an enemy and give them chances to hurt us over and over again. As we did with Al-qaeda and Afghanistan. It's about recognizing the patterns around us and learning from them.

Thought it was pretty obvious. Clearly, Al-queda is not the only possible source of an attack on the US. Ignoring everything else and just going after Al-queda is a huge mistake.

You've won me over. When do we invade China and North Korea and Somalia and Syria and Lebanon and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Kenya and Egypt and Libya and Algeria and Sudan and Yemen and Nigeria and the Philipinnes and Uzberkistan and Jordan and Columbia and Venezuela and Cuba and Belarus and Russia?

and Guess what!>? It's STILL going to be happening eventually. We don;t have a magic cauldren that we can pull troops out of? what are we going to do? perpetually police state the middle east?

How long until Americans either are fully brainwashed and believe that it is our jobs to uphold a police state or start waking up?

doooooom and gloooooom

Well, gbaji falls into the Rush Limbaugh category of people who's sole goal in politics is to win the political "game." They don't really have much regard for what the best course is, so long as their side wins. And being able to blame past democrats means their side wins.

I think we are all missing what Gbaji's getting at.

I think that his levels of paranoia are such, that what he is suggesting is that whenever a country, or even, say for example, a person from a country, or even a person from one country, but actually residing in another country, or indeed, a person from one country, but residing in another country who has a friend in a third country, looks like he may at some time in the future, do something that may cause harm to someone who lives in the US, or even looks like he's thinking of doing harm to someone in the US, it is perfectly within the rights of the US to hunt down and kill anyone who either comes from that country, or any other country, or in fact slightly resembles a person from that (or any other) country, by merit of their hairstyle, mode of dress or style of temple that they choose to worship in.

That way when everyone else (except Gbaji and a few select 'in the know' /nod /wink people who look and think exactly like he does) are dead, then, and only then will he be able to conclusivly say 'the job is done', mission accomplished', 'The War Against Terror is won!' 'there are no more threats to our existance'.

Because after all when you've killed everyone in the whole wide world who doesn't look like, speak like and think like you do, then how can you possibly be in danger ever again?

He still hasn' tried to explain to me how 20,000 extra 'targets '(sorry, I mean mothers' sons, and daughters, made out of flesh and blood, with sisters brothers and yes, even kids of their own!) are going to be able to rescue George W Bush's ego (oops! I mean war effort).

He's probably waiting for O'reilly or Hannity or some other 'believer' to explain it to him.