I guess I’m supposed to care what Hillary said? Like her saying that “it’s working” adds validity to your argument?
Do you read what anyone says? Better yet, can you comprehend what anyone else says? It seems you read an individuals post and if it doesn’t jive with whatever world you’re residing in, you just conclude that he or she is a Democrat or liberal.
Is that Bos in your avatar? My wife had the biggest thing for him back in the day.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s the Boz. I’m getting into the college football spirit.
The opposition may have been greater but only after the U.S. military had been involved for about 10 years. With the late 60s marking the height of organization in protests.
Maybe the Martin Sheen types. I seriously doubt that extended to the thousands walking the streets in various cities in protest.
There were numerous protests before the war started that exceeded 100,000 people. I’m sure somewhere, there was some geek that gathered estimates on total number of protesters prior to the war (if I had the chance I’d do some searching). I would be willing to bet however, the total number (protesting across the U.S.) was approaching 1 million.
It’s irrelevant if it was 1 million or 500,000. The point is there was organized opposition to the war before it began. That’s never really happened before. I think it is a sign that things are changing.
I guess I’m supposed to care what Hillary said? Like her saying that “it’s working” adds validity to your argument?
Do you read what anyone says? Better yet, can you comprehend what anyone else says? It seems you read an individuals post and if it doesn’t jive with whatever world you’re residing in, you just conclude that he or she is a Democrat or liberal.
dusty bottoms
[/quote]
I was poking fun at you. You’ll end up voting for her no matter what she says.
I have to laugh out loud at hillary who is trying so hard to appeal to the kook liberal base, voting to withdraw funding, and THEN saying the Surge is working.
Further, you’ll see that she recently hinted there will be American troops in Iraq for the first two years of a rodham Administration.
It’s pretty funny that you and the other kooks will vote for her no matter what she says. Pretty clear indication that it’s party over principle.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
There were numerous protests before the war started that exceeded 100,000 people. I’m sure somewhere, there was some geek that gathered estimates on total number of protesters prior to the war (if I had the chance I’d do some searching). I would be willing to bet however, the total number (protesting across the U.S.) was approaching 1 million.[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
The war from the point of view of soldiers and NCOs who were actually THERE for 15 months:
[/quote]
“Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population.”
Let’s hope Petraeus is man enough to tell it like it is. We understand the competition is as much for the control and support of the American people as for the control and support of the Iragi people. Hopefully his presentation will contain more than “This is the coup in effect at this time.”.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
How can an op/ed piece be free of spin?[/quote]
I said political spin. Don’t skip the big words.
The piece does not align itself politically with either parties. No mention of Dems, Reps or any other parties; the only mention of politics is to say how surreal and detached the discussions in Washington appear to be compared to the day-to-day life over there.
Explaining life to you gets to be tedious, you know.
Funny how you refer to the anti-war ones as grunts, but to the pro-war ones as soldiers. As if, somehow, being concerned about the situation in Iraq, instead of a mindless cheerleader, somehow tainted their service.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Funny how you refer to the anti-war ones as grunts, but to the pro-war ones as soldiers. As if, somehow, being concerned about the situation in Iraq, instead of a mindless cheerleader, somehow tainted their service.
I’m just saying.
[/quote]
The writers of the op/ed piece used the term grunt. You did read the piece you cited, no?
I figured using the same term twice would have been overkill.
But thanks for showing your penchant for reading way too much into what was written.
After reading through most of the responses in this thread it seems that it has turned into an array of ad hominem attacks and personal quarrels. In an attempt to resurrect the vitality of this argument I would like to ask what winning the war in Iraq will look like?
I was poking fun at you. You’ll end up voting for her no matter what she says.
I said previously:
Do you read what anyone says? Better yet, can you comprehend what anyone else says?
Apparently not.
Jeff said:
It’s pretty funny that you and the other kooks will vote for her no matter what she says.
I said previously:
It seems you read an individuals post and if it doesn’t jive with whatever world you’re residing in, you just conclude that he or she is a Democrat or liberal.
Yeah, I was right once again.
dusty bottoms
[/quote]
dusty,
Let’s cut the crap. We both know that between rodham (democrat) and anyone else, you’ll pull the democrat bar.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
After reading through most of the responses in this thread it seems that it has turned into an array of ad hominem attacks and personal quarrels. In an attempt to resurrect the vitality of this argument I would like to ask what winning the war in Iraq will look like? [/quote]
From Bush’s perspective, it’s gotta look something like:
Having a pro-US regime in place,
Said regime should not align itself with Iran,
Having oil laws that put the interests of US corporations above that of Iraqis,
Being allowed to keep thousands of US soldiers in a few bases around the country,
A submitted Iraqi population.
Now, let’s wait for Gen. Petraeus to tell us how all those goals are potentially attainable given you throw at them enough resources…
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki rejects mounting US criticism of his government, as 14 US troops die in a helicopter crash.
Iraq’s PM Nouri Maliki has rejected US criticism of his administration, saying “no-one has the right to place timetables” on its performance.
Mr Maliki blamed the US presidential election campaign for many of the “discourteous” comments.
Speaking at the end of a visit to Syria he said Iraq would pay no attention and could “find friends elsewhere”.
On Tuesday, US President George W Bush appeared to distance himself for the first time from Mr Maliki’s leadership.
Mr Bush said the people of Iraq had made a great step towards reconciliation when they passed what he called the most modern constitution in the Middle East, but added that now the government had to perform.
He said there was a certain level of frustration with Mr Maliki’s leadership, but that it was up to Iraqis to decide his government’s fate.
Mr Bush’s comments came just one day after the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, urged the Iraqi parliament to evict Mr Maliki’s government and replace it with one considered less sectarian.
In other news in Iraq:
* Fourteen US soldiers were killed when a Black Hawk helicopter in which they were travelling crashed in northern Iraq. The military said a mechanical fault was to blame.
* At least 15 people were killed and 50 injured when a suicide bomber rammed a truck into a police station in the northern oil city of Baiji.
* The deputy US commander in Iraq told the BBC that the US has recruited 20,000 civilian volunteers to act as local police in sensitive areas of the country.
Bill O’Reilly, on June 20, talking about the war in Iraq:
"I�??m gonna tell you that the big picture is, the Iraqis have two more months. They�??ve got two more months. And if they don�??t step up and help more than they�??re helping �?? and by help, I mean, they have to pass oil legislation so everybody gets a piece of the oil pie.�?? He added, �??Their armed forces have to fight more aggressively and bravely alongside us, and if they don�??t do it in two months, it�??s over."
Now the question becomes: Can Muslims have a government that is a liberal democracy, where people basically leave each other in peace, to worship as they see fit, to live as they see fit, to do what you want as long as no one else is harmed?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Now the question becomes: Can Muslims have a government that is a liberal democracy, where people basically leave each other in peace, to worship as they see fit, to live as they see fit, to do what you want as long as no one else is harmed?
Don’t see it. [/quote]
Well I do not see that for the US or the EU in the near future either.
What about a semi-authoritarian but not totalitarian oligarchy that disguises itself as a Democracy and bribes its people with oil earnings?
They could even have a free press and all, once they learn to buy journalists instead of killing them.