New Approach

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

I listened to the President's speech last night wherein he stated his "new approach". Surprisingly, I agree with some of his positions.
On moving forward with reconstruction, I agree. Let's start with New Orleans.
On "advancing liberty", I also agree. Let's start by repeal of the signing statements that allow his administration to monitor our phone calls and read our mail.
On Mr. Bush's definition of "victory" as " a functioning democracy that polices its territory, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people",
again I agree. Let's begin in the United States. This would be a "new approach".
I disagree with Mr. Bush's faith in Mr Maliki being able to bring resolution to the civil war that rages in his country. Mr Maliki has already demonstrated his competance in presiding over last weeks lynching, oops, execution of Saddam Hussein.
I alos will not bet on any horse that our President recommends. though he has finally taken the reponsibility for mistakes that have happened in the past, I do not wish to exonnerate him for his continuing ones. He's good at picking losers.
DTS

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

I heard nothing that gave me the slightest bit of encouragement...I didn't really expect it but still...I stopped watching Buffy reruns to listen to him...waste of time!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I heard nothing that gave me the slightest bit of encouragement...I didn't really expect it but still...I stopped watching Buffy reruns to listen to him...waste of time!

slept right thru it myself.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

slept right thru it myself.

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

Hold it awile,huh? There's more football games....how 'bout they reconvene Congress 2 days after the Super Bowl so's everybodys' hangovers will be gone!! I mean, geessh, let's have some priorities here,huh?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

so many have been sleeping for the past four years...time to wake up, Danzig, and all the rest.
America!!!!!! Don't hit the snooze button!!

dts, i get up before 3 am. i wasn't sitting up to watch that bozo. i knew i could read all the talking points today.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

lol. I was disappointed he didn't say lowering taxes on the rich would win the war.

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

[Downthestretch55]

Richard Durbin's response:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007..._official.html

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

Before Cowboy George got on the horse, our Middle East politics were a bit more subtle. We supported the Shah, then cut him off. We supported Saddam then had cut him off. It was all about money.

It would be naive to think Bush would do anything that could remotely be considered critical of the Saudis. Too many film clips of his father hanging out with les Sheikhs as well as far too many friendly fortunes made.

And maybe you and I are the only two people in the world that don't know that the war is going so well we are now ready to take on the
Iranians and Syrians.

I am all for winning wars but this has gotten ridiculous.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Before Cowboy George got on the horse, our Middle East politics were a bit more subtle. We supported the Shah, then cut him off. We supported Saddam then had cut him off. It was all about money.

It would be naive to think Bush would do anything that could remotely be considered critical of the Saudis. Too many film clips of his father hanging out with les Sheikhs as well as far too many friendly fortunes made.

And maybe you and I are the only two people in the world that don't know that the war is going so well we are now ready to take on the
Iranians and Syrians.

I am all for winning wars but this has gotten ridiculous.

Ridiculous...agree.

We just need to bring the troops home. Enough is enough. There will never be peace in the mid-east.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.
But then again, the second biggest backers of the huge national debt we are incurring is the Saudis (Sunni) the ones we are fighting this proxy war for, to prevent Iraqi oil from competing on the open market. hmmm....
Didn't Osama bin Laden come from Saudi Arabia? 16 of the 9-11 hijackers?
The clear thinking that went into this "new approach" astounds me!

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Sadr is a Shia, not a Sunni.

Correction noted. Thank you Rupert.

[Downthestretch55]

http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2007/01...ard.html#links

[SentToStud]

From the BBC.... Seems fairly balanced and summarily informative. It's not surprising (at least if you ascribe to this columnist's views) that things hinge more on politics, jobs and money than tends to get reported through the US media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254869.stm

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

From the BBC.... Seems fairly balanced and summarily informative. It's not surprising (at least if you ascribe to this columnist's views) that things hinge more on politics, jobs and money than tends to get reported through the US media.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6254869.stm

S2S,
That's an interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Now, for a minute, consider the game of poker.
The game begins and you sit with a big pile of chips after 9-11. You lose pot after pot, but you keep on betting. Bluff as big as the bluffer you want to see hung. He is, and you still have another card or two to play, one more hand, or maybe two.
Except, now you're going "all in", betting on Maliki.
To me, that's not a smart bet. And the "chips" are the additional soldiers lives that get thrown into the "game". They'll buy some time for the next hand, if it's dealt.
The next hand is already being stacked in the shuffle. The cards will come up Iran, Iran, Iran.
Seems to me that there just seem to be too many wars to start, too little time, and a horrible legacy to consider.
So, the Taliban is back bigger than ever in Afghanistan? So what?
So, Iraq is lost except for letting the next one pick up the losing cards. So what?
So, the "war on terror" is world wide and the dupes see it limited to Iraq. so what?
The next hand will be dealt, and it will be all about Iran.
Sad to say, this losing poker player is playing with our chips, and we'll all walk away from the table as much the losers as he is. But, so what?
btw, if you're a poker player and can read faces at the table, have a look at the video of his speech. It says it all.
DTS

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Taxes didn't come up.
Do any of you find it to be a little amazing that the US and Iran (Shia) are fighting a common enemy, the Sunnis (Sadr's), for which we are sending an additional 21,500 troops? That makes sense.

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

DTS this is flat out inaccurate. We are trying to stop the Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other. We have killed numerous Shiites while trying to protect ourselves. American troops are attacked by more Shiite militias than Sunnis. And the Shiites are fighting amongst themselves for power. It really is not fair to over simplify and then imply that it does not make sense.
BTW the man we would most like to kill is a Shiite... Sadr from that bopping of town of Sadr city.

oops did not read enough, Rupert caught it. And I also think we got more information out of the Bush adminstration as far as tactics than we have ever gotten before. At least we know how they are going to try to create safer areas and how this in turn might stabilize the country. Having said that I dont think its going to work. We have reached an extreme level of instability. Urban civil war.

P,
I noted the correction, post #26. What I meant to say was that the Iranian backed Shia are also those that the US is allied with against the Sunni.

To me, it is easy to justify genocide, whether the words are "surge", "escalation" or "augmentation" (like they need bigger boobs).
It make about as much sense.
Believe whatever you think is justified.
I don't.
Insanity is obvious.

[Downthestretch55]

Pgardn,
Two more questions:
1) Have you noticed that since the speech on Wed. there is a lack of reporting by all major US media on the situation in Iraq?
2) What do you make of this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/wa...rtner=homepage

I think the press, which I consider vital to this country, is being intimidated by this administration thru legal means. Witness what happened to the reporters in the CIA operative leak ordeal. Madness imo.

The press being able to accurately report situations is vital to the freedom of this country. I view the press as almost the 4th branch of government, even though they are not a part of the government... Terribly important to any true democracy. Almost all dictators, etc... countries that want tight control over everything, attack the intellectuals and press first.