Forums | MacLife

With Iran now apparently involved, it's rather regional.

"Cut and run" as in cutting our losses.  As opposed to accruing more.

Makes perfect sense to me.  What the hell is there to gain there?  Regardless of what the future borders of Iraq turn out to be, the Iraqis have demonstrated their universal hatred of us. We deposed Saddam. He and his invisible WMDs are no longer a threat to us.  Mission accomplished.

meat > "'saddly u.s. government', for 200, alex."

alex > "ill advised iraq boon-smurfing-doggle."

meat > "what u.s. citizens will be known for? alex."

alex > "good for 200. go again meat."

meat > "'saddly u.s.' for 400, alex."

alex > "no shred of credibility, anywhere."

meat > "what the u.s. will be known for? alex."

alex > "good for 400. go again meat."

...

dood! you hit the daily double!

blank kludge wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

So remind me of a foreign military adventure in the past that evolved into a civil war and where it was to our advantage to remain involved.

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

-------
Like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642/
..."The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war.""
-------
well?

I'd say that was a very real concern that would have devastating effects not only for the people there but the entire world.

but they could not present it as just liberation or freedom for iraqis, because congress likely would have given them the thumbs down.

so make some smurf up about the weapons no one had been able to show existed, nor were even believably suggested as effective leftovers from the kurd gassings.

say "iraq ... terrists ... wtc ... saddam ... terrists" over and over until they are eternally linked in the minds of the dog brains the voted for you.

it's just too bad saddam didn't want gay marriage...

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

oh, and wiki is a liberal-commy-pinko conspiratorial tool.

I know. Got the NS* briefing.

Farmerkev wrote:

blank kludge wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

-------
Like this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642/
..."The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war.""
-------
well?

I'd say that was a very real concern that would have devastating effects not only for the people there but the entire world.

You're throwing around a lot of "what if" scenarios today.  How do you plan on convincing 60% of your fellow citizens (and shrinking daily!) that they're sons and daughters need to be dying for a "what if"?  Is that like the domino theory?

Words = "Who could imagine."...

Deeds = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 11_pf.html
..."In interviews with intelligence officers, Suskind often finds them baffled by White House statements. "Why the hell did the President have to put us in a box like this?" one top CIA official asked about the overblown public portrait of Abu Zubaydah. But Suskind sees a deliberate management choice: Bush ensnared his director of central intelligence at the time, George J. Tenet, and many others in a new kind of war in which action and evidence were consciously divorced."...

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

So remind me of a foreign military adventure in the past that evolved into a civil war and where it was to our advantage to remain involved.

I'd venture the threat here is more one that a civil war could grow into a conflict that involves the entire region including the current Israel situation. More simply, keep it small versus large.

Which is why a dictator was useful in this area.  Duh.

D'OH!

i knew there was a good reason rummy was offering the gladhand way back when...
on the other hand, why the hell was it even a remotely good idea to support a person we already knew was an unstable ego-maniacle despot? (intelligence reports regarding saddam  and his rise to power)
because the purse stings demanded it.
"big o, now!"

in god we trust?

so far he's been a big let down. i'm willing to bet even if we all became "christian" we'd find a way to war amungst ourselves.
"jesus was a peacenick" vs "god helps those that help themselves" (what the hell does that even mean!!?!?

and here my, seemingly pointless, disjointed rant, appears to end..?

Farmerkev wrote:

Not the correct word but no more inflammatory than others and the words they choose.

Did you really just make one of 'those' arguments?  Did I accuse Gingrich of saying the 'worst' thing ever, unparalleled by anyone else in the discussion at any point?



Yes, other people say stupid things as well.  However, this thread was intended to be about Gingrich's comments specifically (and the larger hypocrisy of crying "cut-and-run" while planning to do the exact same thing).

Another symptom of GOP desparation :  http://rawstory.com/comments/17730.html 

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll of Americans age 18 to 24 found Bush's approval rating was 20 percent, with 53 percent disapproving and 28 percent with no opinion. That compares to a 40 percent approval rating among Americans of all ages in a separate Bloomberg/Times poll.

The next question is how many of these are voters.

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

You're throwing around a lot of "what if" scenarios today.  How do you plan on convincing 60% of your fellow citizens (and shrinking daily!) that they're sons and daughters need to be dying for a "what if"?  Is that like the domino theory?

Tell them the truth, a regional war in the middle east means $10/gallon at best, no gas at worst, widespread economic upheaval at best, worldwide depression at worst. Have the networks run a Madmax marathon

I think a regional war is inevitable. What we are doing now is like firefighters putting out spot fires in a massively over grown forest.
Delaying the inevitable wild fire will just make that resulting fire bigger and hotter.