Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Agressiveness will be the only thing that will end this. Kill anything that doesn't follow thru with the instructions...<<<
Again........problem is that those who won't follow instructions blow up first themselves, then other Iraqis and US troops before anyone has a chance to get aggressive with them. Or they park a van full of TNT on a street corner and wander off into the crowds where they look like everyone else.
Seems like a simple enough concept to me but not to you for some reason: How do you fight and defeat an enemy you can't identify?
So how do you suggest Israeli tactics be applied in Iraq? Specifically?
>>>I understand what your saying but there are ways to clean this up.<<<
Such as?
You misunderstood (I think). We know 70% of Iraq's population opposes the occupation so you could say they also constitute the enemy. Question is..........how do you identify those who are violent before it's too late? An Iraqi who supports US troops looks the same as one who's driving a car full of explosives.
>>>20k troops is really not much......200k that would make a difference. Overwhelming firepower then go in and clean it up.<<<
They've had overwhelming firepower all along and still do but what good is that when they have no idea who the enemy is? 200K more troops don't exist so scrap that idea. Sounds like it's a struggle adding even 20K or 30K but if they do, what makes you think that addition will make a difference in identifying civilian cars loaded with explosives or anticipating where the next i.e.d. will go off?
It was thought of as a liberal cliche' for a while but now you're starting to hear it from republicans too: No military solution to this.
>>>But was it smart, OR wise to actually do so?<<<
Not smart or wise in terms of how most people quantify smart and wise but smart and wise for a politician with 4 years of politics that screwed 90% of the population. As a politician, you're doing something right if the people you spent your first term thumbing your nose at begs you to keep doing it for another 4 years. But then.........smart or wise is relative here since america has the dumbest electorate in the western world and Bush would be driving a taxi in Crawford without em'.
>>>They are neither smart, NOR wise.<<<
Smart and wise enough to flim-flam the votes from 59 million americans for a second term. As he was already a year and a half into the chaos in Iraq with most of the lies exposed and things going to hell in a handbasket.
>>>He really thinks he's the "Little Emperor".<<<
"JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY: You know, the fact is, this president has an obsession with this concept of an absolute ruler, the absolutely president. And he‘s surrounded himself with fairly radical law professors who told him what he wanted to hear, that you could take a citizen off the street, unilaterally strip him of all of his rights, hold him until you wanted to release him, if at all.
And people like Viet Din (ph) and others told him that. And so they facilitated this obsession. And you still see that. He will not let go of this idea that he has this type of Caesar-like authority."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16485120/
tks......I see that 2 senators with presidential ambitions (McCain & Brownback) are among those who wouldn't change a thing. Good luck...
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2771576&page=1
Hard to believe. 43 senators - knowing now that Iraq posed no threat - would still spend 2 TRILLION, kill 600,000 Iraqis, kill 3,000 US troops and maim 30,000 others to remove SH. I need to find out if any of those idiots represent my district.
I'd sure like to hear from someone among the 7% who disapprove of his handling of Iraq but approve of his presidency in general. What's the rationale? "So he's responsible for the biggest foreign policy blunder in history but guess what..........he vetoed stem cell research".
lol....I think you nailed it. By the way, congrats on Jim Webb. Can't tell you how impressed I am with this guy. My favorite politician in the country right now........he just grows bigger every time I hear him speak. Pot-loads of guts, obviously VERY smart and obviously a man of great integrity. He also seems genuinely compassionate about the average citizen. I emphasized genuinely because every politician pretends to be but we all know how genuine that usually is. He talks a lot about the growing gap between the haves and have nots in this country and how he feels this is a long term threat to a civilized society. I agree with him.
>>>She must really touch a nerve with you and your ILK as you complain so much about her.<<<
I'm not complaining about her. I'm interested in why you're not embarrassed posting her trash here daily. Why should any attention be given to a columnist who pretends to engage in serious debate and at the same time calls the watergate scandal a fantasy dreamed up by partisan democrats?
I knew it....:)
do you read what Coulter writes or are you just smitten by her looks and style and post anything she writes?
"Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate..."
So Nixon resigned voluntarily over an invented crime?
that would work too but you'll be as frustrated as nosey about the lack of global unity over that solution..... :)
>>>The world has not unified to fight this evil.<<<
You mean they haven't unified on your terms? Ever hear of BRIG? He used to post the exact same views on the w.o.t. here as you do and there are plenty of others like him. Guess what you all seem to agree on when pressed on the issue? That ultimately the only solution is to rid the world of muslims. Think maybe that's why you don't see the unity you're looking for?
>>>anyone who believed Cheney's well published line..'we will be greeted with flowers..'<<<
lol....extel lecturing the board on name calling and spelling. What's next........hap preaching the virtues of peace on earth?
>>>You are such a fool....<<<
A few posts of yours from the past:
"You really should save your time and not post at all if you have to use these NAME calling techniques to try and make a point...."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=14269718&txt2find=name
"You always end up NAME calling don't you?"
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=14231621&txt2find=name
"Do you have to use derogatory foul words to post here?
And I was cautioned for telling someone the were "clueless".
Maybe you need to switch to decaf and
Please see #msg-10168336 :
Posted by: midas98
In reply to: None
Date:3/15/2006 9:01:41 AM
Post #of 36291
A quick note to the board, calling posters NAMEs, however harmless you may feel the "NAME" is DOES NOTHING TO ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE DISCUSSION. Please refrain from doing so. The posters on this board are intelligent enough to know better and can articulate their points without going down that road. A few posts were removed last night.
The discussions on this board are some of the best on any of the political boards, but let's keep in mind the respect we should have for each others opinions. As a sidenote, do not discuss the deletions on the forums if someone is upset over a deletion, please feel free to pm me or AK if you feel I was incorrect in my actions.
Respectfully,
Dave
et
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=10248871&txt2find=name
I'm the fool?
>>>It'd be kind of sad if it actually did though... This seems to be what we've come to.<<<
Good, steady supply of haps, ieddies, extelecoms and rawnocs out there. About 30% of the population to be more precise. If the light isn't bright enough for these patriots to see by now you have to say there's no hope.
>>>Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence........that was where he went wrong<<<
Isn't that what I said? Iraq was turned inside out and upside down and not a trace of weapons were found even at locations guaranteed to have them. But we have new standards for going to war now and it has nothing to do with defending ourselves. Iraq didn't have it's paperwork in order so we go in and slaughter 3% of its civilian population, lose 3,000 soldiers in the process and maim another 30,000 at a cost that will approach 2 TRILLION dollars in short order.
Interesting in its own morbid way that some still think this useless bloodbath represents america at its finest.
>>>I think it was because SH failed to cooperate<<<
From the second paragraph of the story you posted:
"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
You keep citing lack of cooperation as the reason for the invasion and yet every account available by the inspection team describes near perfect compliance. The only one complaining is George Bush who as usual has nothing of substance to offer so he whines about lack of acceptable accounting and verbal assurances by SH.
In other words, Bush essentially argues that Saddam Hussein's book keeping and word of honor would have carried more weight than actual findings and assessments by UN inspectors. And you seem to agree with him.....??
A few valid questions I grant you but not as valid as this question which if answered truthfully would render the rest of the questions moot: Why were the weapons inspectors - having found not a trace of WMD - forced to leave instead of being granted the requested 3 month extension to submit their final report? Anyone with a working brain knows the answer but the diehards still try to fix history with theatrics and games.....and it's not working.
"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.
Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct."
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
From the Iraq war resolution:
"The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."
Incidentally, a full team of UN weapons inspectors were hard at work getting unrestricted access and finding no weapons when Bush asked them to leave so he could start his war. Does that count as a diplomatic effort on Bush's part and why didn't it count as willingness to comply on Iraq's part?
So what happens to a congressional war resolution if it's violated and/or abused by the c.i.c.?
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,"
See anything applicable to Iraq in that paragraph?
Just for you extel....the Ann Coulter fan club: http://tribes.tribe.net/anncoulterfanclub
>>>If you honestly think the NYT is pro BUsh and pro war, I really can't do anything to help you<<<
They may not be pro Bush or pro war now but the facts speak for themselves: They were instrumental in building national (and global) support for the war when Bush needed it. So what's your complaint about? He got the world's most influential newspaper to print his war propaganda with few questions asked and 4 years later you bitch about them talking about tunnels that haven't been secured against future terrorist attacks? You're one ungrateful prick that's all I can say.
>>>It's their anti- Bush agenda that ends up giving support to the terrorists<<<
That's the same anti-Bush NYT that printed so much bogus Iraq war propaganda to help get the war started in the first place they later had to wash their hands in public?
"Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.
........we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1400990400&en=94c1...
>>>it's more serious than a congressman bleating about something he knows next to nothing about<<<
Congressmen know the mexican border provides easy terrorist access and they know nuclear power plants make easy targets and they eagerly announce it all on the floor. What more do they need to know to make that message clearly understood by any evildoer?
Considering that the NYT is the highest profile media outlet in the highest risk terrorist target in the country, what do you think motivated them to publish the article in question: Their blatant support for terrorism or their obligation to expose government foot dragging in safeguarding known terrorist targets?
>>>they need to be hit with an ice cold dose of reality<<<
hap.........I think the war in Iraq looks like one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in US history and Bush looks like the worst president in US history. So what's the ice cold reality I should be hit with?
So it wasn't classified and only told terrorists that the target they picked the first time is still a good one. As if they don't get that kind of information daily from Washington. And you still haven't answered my question. No matter how the Times obtained the story, why is it any more scandalous than the daily banter by congressmen and senators on how a ship with a nuclear bomb can easily dock anywhere along the US coastline and kill millions because the ports aren't protected?
You're so conditioned to the Bush WH train of though you can't see straight. If the US press acted in strict compliance with George Bush we'd have to read foreign newspapers to find out US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Local newspapers expose bad politics to their readers. That's their job. It stirs debate and often get things fixed. This was a New York problem so the NYT spoke up. Wanna bet those tunnels will get some attention now?
>>>I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.<<<
>>>The 40 % reduction just brought it back down to previous levels.<<<
Why is that such natural progession to you? Slashing high risk New York's budget in favor of low population, low risk hick towns?
>>>Again, tell me how it was OK for the Times to print information that was never intended to be released publicly.<<<
Who decided that nobody could talk about the fact that tunnels in NY that have already been targeted by terrorists are as vulnerable today as they were then? Was it classified information or were some bureaucrats trying to save face?
And again........politicians from both parties scream all day about the lack of progress in securing borders, ports and air cargo but that's ok with you because it's not the New York Times?
>>>These tunnels are the same as were targeted by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists captured overseas earlier this year who planned to set off bombs aboard PATH trains - which carry 230,000 passengers each day<<<
Textbook serving of Bush republicans first choice in trying to win public sympathy: Senseless, phony outrage. The NYT reports about tunnels that have already been targeted by Al Qaeda but are still vulnerable after Bush's own homeland security slashed New York funding by 40%.
"WASHINGTON, May 31 — After vowing to steer a greater share of anti-terrorism money to the nation's highest-risk cities, Homeland Security officials today announced grants to New York City and Washington that would be slashed by 40 percent, while dollars headed to spots including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., would surge."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/washington/31cnd-grant.html?ex=1306728000en=e83b18ae7741a494ei=508...
So why is the NYT story different than politicians - republicans and democrats alike - talking daily about how ports and airline cargo are still as vulnerable today as 5 years ago and how border security is a joke?
>>>He can't get too much lower...or can he?<<<
>>>the dems cannot afford to lose another war<<<
What's the scenario under which the democrats will be responsible for losing the Iraq war? Military commanders, republicans, neocons and take your pick say the war has already been lost in the hands of a republican president, a republican secretary of defense, a republican congress and a republican senate.
>>>War Profits Trump the Rule of Law<<<
the day of reckoning is near....
"The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration’s running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue.
There’s the response to Hurricane Katrina, government contracting in Iraq and on homeland security, decision-making at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, and allegations of corporate profiteering, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.
“I’m going to have an interesting time because the Government Reform Committee has jurisdiction over everything,” Waxman said Friday, three days after his party’s capture of Congress put him in line to chair the panel. “The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15657198/
"The three unreleased sections of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s controversial “Phase Two” report on the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence are headed for circulation next year, incoming Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told The Hill late last week.
“One does not want to spend all one’s time looking back, but the history of all this evolution of the war has to be brought to full accountability,” Rockefeller said in a Friday interview."
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121206/phase2.html
>>>how inappropriate to turn this into a personal attack on a lowly reporter who was just making a joke.<<<
Never misses a chance to pick on a reporter. He hates them with every fiber of his body.........probably because their probing and reporting stand between him and his dictator aspirations. Has there ever been an elected official so visibly uncomfortable before the press? The wimp......
>>>'I have no future' -- Jeb Bush tells reporters<<<
Jeb may feel better blaming his brother but his future got chit canned by his own values before 43 finished him off. Jeb like McCain talks softly and comes across as caring and sympathetic but just like McCain, he's a hard right ideologue........way right. He led the fight for Terry Schiavo which ended up with a 90% disapproval rating by the people and check out his 2002 appointment for head of Florida Department of Children and Families. Some floridians actually thought this was a joke when it was announced.
"Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) is under fire for appointing a Religious Right activist as head of a state child welfare agency even though the man is accused of backing harsh physical punishment of children and male supremacy in marriage.
Bush's appointment of Jerry Regier drew fire in August after a 1989 manifesto that Regier endorsed containing controversial opinions came to light. The piece, "The Christian World View of The Family," advocates spanking disobedient children even if it causes "temporary and superficial bruises and welts," attacks legal abortion, assails gay parenting and says women should work outside the home only in cases of extreme financial hardship and that they should consider such work "bondage."
After the COR document was exposed, other writings by Regier soon came to light. In a chapter he authored in a book titled Biblical Family Norms, Regier asserted that a "breakdown in traditional sex roles" has destroyed families. He accused "aggressive and competitive women, unconcerned with motherhood" of spawning "more ruthless men -- and a society so competitive that it disintegrates."
Elsewhere in his writings, Regier called for reducing benefits for women on welfare who have children outside of marriage. He asserted that husbands must have authority over their wives and children and called for shutting down schoolbased sex education clinics."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200210/ai_n9126322