I'm more than willing, as I have from the beginning, to consider that
they have indeed screwed the pooch, in more ways than one, on how they
conducted the war.
Are you willing to at least consider what effect a precipitous
withdrawal might have on the entire region, even globally?
and btw, while a majority believe the war was a mistake, a much
smaller percentage want us to pull out immediately. But as I've said
on many occasions, the significant portion of Americans who answer
polls are retards.
Every poll ever taken has shown that of these same people who answer
poll questions and pull levers each november, a majority can't name
the vice presidident, can't name either of their senators or their
congressman, or even what party they belong to, don't know what the
bill of rights is, let alone what's in it. So, please, don't bother
me with your polling data.
If you're goal is to win elections, stick your finger in the air and
ask what the retards want. If your goal is to make the world a better
place, make up your own mind and stand on principle. That's what a
statesman would do.
On 4/30/07, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rick, are you willing to at least consider the other possibility? The
possibility that GW is performing right in in line with his history?
That just maybe GW is the one that has it wrong and that the *huge*
majority of Americans are now realizing it?
rick baird wrote:
> Buck,
>
> On 4/30/07, Buck Calabro <kc2hiz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> who would want to put their life on the line for a conflict that is
>>> right on schedule to be lost in 6 months?
>>>
>> I am starting to get grumpy over the repeated thought that the
>> Democrats are traitors who specifically want to kill US soldiers and
>> weaken the United States in order to get back at the President.
>>
>
> I won't go that far, but it's certain that what you describe above
> sure appears to be at least part of their strategy. I won't seriously
> call them treasonous, but they're as heavily invested in hoping and
> working towards this going badly for bush as bush is invested in it
> going well.
>
> Did you watch any of the dem presidential debate last week? every one
> of them shaped the answers to every question as a referendum on Iraq
> in general and bush in particular.
>
> Someone should have mentioned to them that Bush isn't running in '08.
>
>
>> Here is a very serious question.
>>
> [...]
>
>> It's 6 years later, the Republican President and Republican Congress
>> have decided to get out of Iraq. After appropriate deliberation and
>> all that -- we've seen progress and it's finally time to leave.
>>
>> How could it happen without setting a 'date certain?'
>>
>
> Very easily.
>
> Since when does any reasonable and logical person make a decisions
> about 6, 8, 24 months in advance, set them in stone and then wait for
> that date to roll around and complete the decision without
> reevaluating the circumstances?
>
> If things were to go as you describe, troop rotations would quicken,
> with fewer and fewer replacing them. If conditions on the ground
> waranted, temporary increases could be deployed or resources
> maintained and shifted to other concerns without having to first ask
> congress' permission,
>
> It would then be a decision based on reality rather than based on the
> arbitrary nonesense they're talking now.
>
--
---------------------------------
Booth Martin
http://www.Martinvt.com
---------------------------------
--
This is the Open discussion among iSeries Users (CPF0000) mailing list
To post a message email: CPF0000@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/cpf0000
or email: CPF0000-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/cpf0000.
