Bush trip to Latin America

[Tom]

Bush is touring Mexico and yesterday, he visited the Mayan Ruins.

After seeing them up close, he put his arm around a local farmer and vowed, ”We will hunt down those evil doers responsible for this!”


* * *

And while he is in Mexico, isn't this a perfect time to build that fence?:lol:

[46zilzal]

These people understand evil incarnate.


MAYANS TO 'CLEANSE' BUSH SITE
Monday, March 12, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Mayan Indian leaders have vowed to "spiritually cleanse" an ancient site in Guatemala after U.S. President George W. Bush visits during his seven-day, five-nation tour of Latin America. Bush's visit to the ruins at Iximche, a one-time capital of a Mayan group, is part of an effort to show the administration is interested in all its neighbors in the hemisphere. -CNN

[JustRalph]

These people understand evil incarnate.


MAYANS TO 'CLEANSE' BUSH SITE
Monday, March 12, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Mayan Indian leaders have vowed to "spiritually cleanse" an ancient site in Guatemala after U.S. President George W. Bush visits during his seven-day, five-nation tour of Latin America. Bush's visit to the ruins at Iximche, a one-time capital of a Mayan group, is part of an effort to show the administration is interested in all its neighbors in the hemisphere. -CNN

have you ever been to Mexico? If they are going to start cleansing, spiritually or not........they have a lot better places to start.............

[Show Me the Wire]

Yes, spiritually cleanse a site where the inhabitants offered human sacrifices, via cutting out beating hearts from live victims. You are right zilzal thay understand evil.

[46zilzal]

Priests to Purify Site After Bush Visit

By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA
The Associated Press
Friday, March 9, 2007; 12:20 AM

GUATEMALA CITY -- Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

[Tom]

Coming soon, to a neighborhood near you.....:eek:

[Show Me the Wire]

Priests to Purify Site After Bush Visit

By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA
The Associated Press
Friday, March 9, 2007; 12:20 AM

GUATEMALA CITY -- Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.


Migrant brothers? Is the U.S. persecuting legal residents that have migrated from Mexico?

How will the Mayan priest purify the site, with a human blood sacrifice? This article illustrates the ignorance of the press and the "idiot" left about history to portray a negative image of Pres. Bush. They actually want the American public to believe a spiritual cleansing by a cultural that practiced large scale human sacrifice is more politically correct than preventing illegal entry into the U.S.

[Secretariat]

Priests to Purify Site After Bush Visit

By JUAN CARLOS LLORCA
The Associated Press
Friday, March 9, 2007; 12:20 AM

GUATEMALA CITY -- Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.

"That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.

46,

It will be impossible to purify though I admire their intentions.

[Tom]

Now this is pure unadultrated BS - if they are so damned persecuted in this country, why are 20 million plus of them here illegally?

Fact is, Mexico is now, has always been, and will most likely alway be a POS 5th world country run by corrupt, greedy bastards who manipulate thier own people, have no rep[sect for human right, and are amoung the lowest of the low as far as so called world leaders. Mexico is a disgrace.
And SEc, you have GALL to say THEY need to puricy after Bush - what a disgusting so-called citizen you are. This country needs a whole lot LESS people like you. You shame our flag.
BIHF.:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[46zilzal]

And SEc, you have GALL to say THEY need to puricy after Bush - what a disgusting so-called citizen you are. This country needs a whole lot LESS people like you. You shame our flag.

Making up words like the rutabaga does now?

[Racer98]

You see nothing wrong with bad-mouthing Clinton.

Apparently, if the purification works there, they're going to try Iraq, North Korea, the Ozone, and Washington, DC.

[Secretariat]

And SEc, you have GALL to say THEY need to puricy after Bush - what a disgusting so-called citizen you are. This country needs a whole lot LESS people like you. You shame our flag.
BIHF.:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

Tom, read my post. I didn't say they NEED to puricy after Bush. In fact I said it was impossible to do.

So we're back to people who comment on Bush shaming the flag.....give it up Tom, 70% of the people of this country have woke up. Don't be afraid.

[Tom]

Your interpretation of polls leave much to be desired - like how to do it.
bottom line here is that you demslibs cannot afford ust o win in Iraq - the dems NEED failure. A victory would put the nail in thoer coffin becasue there is no way anyone would ever belive the dems had anyting to do with it. You guys are praying for us to lose big time.

Not gonna happen.

The surge is already showing postiive signs.

Victory, in spite of people who would betray our country, is the only acceptable alternative.

[Secretariat]

Your interpretation of polls leave much to be desired - like how to do it.
bottom line here is that you demslibs cannot afford ust o win in Iraq - the dems NEED failure. A victory would put the nail in thoer coffin becasue there is no way anyone would ever belive the dems had anyting to do with it. You guys are praying for us to lose big time.

Not gonna happen.

The surge is already showing postiive signs.

Victory, in spite of people who would betray our country, is the only acceptable alternative.

Tom,

You haven't even been able to define victory so how would it put a nail in their coffin, and whose coffin?

But this statment did get my attention you made:

"bottom line here is that you demslibs cannot afford ust o win in Iraq"

Well, since we've spent a half a trillion with no end in sight, maybe you're right, we cannot afford us to win in Iraq. That doesn't even take into account the loss of lives, or the wounded who will be ballooning the VA Health Care for the next few decades to take care of them, or the cost of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastucture, much less the cost of rebuilding our military. You're right, we cannot afford us to win in Iraq, because the cost of winning (if you ever come up with a defintion of victory) will pretty much bankrupt the country to be able to do anything else.

Perhaps you shoudl go down to Mexico and protest the Mayan's purification rite, or woudl you suggest we send in troops as it may pose an imminent threat to the US - after all those purification rites may entail chemicals that "might" be used for weapons. :ThmbDown:

[Tom]

I have defined victory, you just have so little clue what "winning" is, you can't grasp it.

Perhaps if you took part in dicussions instead of your ususal cutandpasteon.org metod of posting talking points as a drive by poster your would understand things better.

And as far as troops to Mexico, I have long advocated - here if you read - invasion of Mexico and a regieme change, along with a land-mined border, backed up with snipers and attack dogs. But then, you union boys would cry too much, what with your cheap dem "guest" voters and padded dues at risk.

[JustRalph]

they are so invested in an American Loss that they will do anything to help defeat our own troops by undercutting them at every chance.

If the surge works, and it is showing positive signs, and there is any success at all in Iraq over the next two years...........they look like idiots.........

I personally don't think we can make anything good happen as long as these defeatocrats continue on the same course. They don't have the stomach for it and unless somebody starts standing up to them (Hello! Repubs?) and making some valid points................ we end up with a loss no matter the real story

[Secretariat]

I have defined victory, you just have so little clue what "winning" is, you can't grasp it.

Perhaps if you took part in dicussions instead of your ususal cutandpasteon.org metod of posting talking points as a drive by poster your would understand things better.

And as far as troops to Mexico, I have long advocated - here if you read - invasion of Mexico and a regieme change, along with a land-mined border, backed up with snipers and attack dogs. But then, you union boys would cry too much, what with your cheap dem "guest" voters and padded dues at risk.

Tom,

Thank you for posting this. I now realize what an extremist you are.

You are actually advocating going to war now with Mexico! :lol: :lol: :lol:

btw..just to help me out here, could you please define what "victory" is to you in Iraq? And winning? Just for the record. Should be easy for you to do. While you're at it can you tell me what it will cost the taxpayer as well as the number of estimated lives lost, and wounded? Or perhaps you prefer the slogans like "defeatocrats" that JR feels more comfortable with.

[Tom]

I have my own term - PA won't let me use it.

What country is doing more harm to us than Mexico - not one. Of course I advocate blasting them back over the border and keeping them there. Can you name me any other country that allows unlimited migrations and then bends ovdr backwards to alter it's own culture to accomeadate them, and deplete it's economy to support them?

You are a bright boy when it comes to money on the war on terror, but what about the cost allowing illegal occupiers to pollute our country?

As for victory, find it yourself.

[Secretariat]

As for victory, find it yourself.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Racer98]

You boast about how we will win, NEED to win, but you can't say what winning is. What exactly is victory in Iraq? Who are we fighting? And why exactly should we invade Mexico?

[Secretariat]

Racer, the silence is deafening. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Racer98]

Wow. I killed it. I didn't mean to. Um... he did it. No, wait... eek...

Help.
:blush: :(

[Show Me the Wire]

Okay, ready. There is no current war in Iraq. The war is over. The U.S. won the war. Saddam's regime and his military might has been defeated.

What has been happening since the victory has been a police action against terrorists sneaking into the country to cause mayhem.

This is why the left has no concept of what defines victory. They do not understand the difference between fighting a war and policing. Has the policing effort been successful up to now? No. That is why we need a more productive strategy to end policing efforts.

There is another war, a war against terrorism, which is far from over. The war against terrorism, hopefully, will be defined by and won through skirmishes.

If you apply the Iraq criteria to the Afghanistan war, we should pull out of Afghan too, because according to the criteria applied to Iraq by the idiot left we lost that war also as violence continues through a police action. Is there still a Taliban presence in Afghan? Are there still military actions against the Taliban presence? Of course there is. So we should be redeploying our troops out of Afghanistan too, right and not redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan as been advocated by dem leadership, right, Sec and Racer?

As for Mexico we should just annex it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Okay, ready. There is no current war in Iraq. The war is over. The U.S. won the war. Saddam's regime and his military might has been defeated.

What has been happening since the victory has been a police action against terrorists sneaking into the country to cause mayhem.

You took the words right out of my mouth. It's amazing how people have lost the basic ability to identify war and determine victory.

I'll ask again. When was the last time US troops were involved in a firefight that lasted more than one day in Iraq? Ok, how about half a day? An hour maybe?

[46zilzal]

Okay, ready. There is no current war in Iraq. The war is over. The U.S. won the war. Saddam's regime and his military might has been defeated.



Using that bent logic all those troops are still fighting that other police action left over from the early 50's as well.

Is that why soldiers continue to die? The war is over? The rutabaga told us some of the same crap and more than HALF of the dead were killed SINCE THEN.

[46zilzal]

Since war began (3/19/03): 3207
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) 3068

[DanG]

You took the words right out of my mouth. It's amazing how people have lost the basic ability to identify war and determine victory.

I'll ask again. When was the last time US troops were involved in a firefight that lasted more than one day in Iraq? Ok, how about half a day? An hour maybe?
PA…With all due respect; I really appreciate access to this board, but I couldn’t in good conscious let this go.

This statement could not possible be more false and it’s really no fault of yours. That’s what is being reported. I talk every month and just last week through the internet to a close friend of the family who is serving.(David is 44yo BTW with three children.) There have been very recent hellish firefights in Iraq, Afghanistan and yes even in Africa that go completely unreported.

Regardless of your political persuasion if you think the Networks or 24 hour news channels give us a true picture in this offensive, we are deceiving ourselves.

The truth is this offensive is falling on the shoulders of 150,000 men and women and their families. This country by and large is sacrificing nothing and remains 90% in the dark as to the real facts on the ground.

OK …Back to racing where I belong.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dan, it's unfortunate that you see the need to bow out as quickly as you came into this thread. I would appreciate a little more info if you care to share.....intelligent discourse can be hard to come by from the more established players in off-topic.

When you say this country is by and large sacrificing nothing, how exactly do you mean this? And what past wars of similar scale are you comparing to come to this conclusion?

[46zilzal]

Yes REAL people are being killed for that cabal's DISNEYLAND idea of how THEY want the world. Digusting

[DanG]

Dan, it's unfortunate that you see the need to bow out as quickly as you came into this thread. I would appreciate a little more info if you care to share.....intelligent discourse can be hard to come by from the more established players in off-topic.

When you say this country is by and large sacrificing nothing, how exactly do you mean this? And what past wars of similar scale are you comparing to come to this conclusion?
PA… Your right in that I shouldn’t post anything if I’m not prepared to continue the dialogue. I frankly hesitate to post in off-topic because I just don’t have the time that it requires with the back and forth exchanges.

When I say our nation is sacrificing nothing I mean largely in terms of our collective conscious and standard of living. I feel when our military is committed our nation should shoulder the burden, not the isolated few who wear our uniform.

Here I go with the “original” GW again…

"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it" ~ George Washington

For example:

David’s (whom I spoke about) business is suffering now that he has begun his fourth tour of duty. When you ask grown men with families to enter battle there are far reaching considerations on their way of life. These burdens should never fall on them directly. Every American should sacrifice at least financially to see that their families and livelihoods are maintained as best we can.

You’re correct in that since WWII our country’s mindset has changed concerning armed conflict. We have detached as a nation while our standard of living has grown giving us a distorted sense of shared responsibility. I didn't mean to suggest it was unique to this situation.


Currently we have “national” guard fighting in mass on foreign soil. (Unprecedented to my knowledge.) Men in their 40’s + involved in multiple tours. Yet, 95% of our nation is shouldering no emotional or financial responsibility whatsoever. How a tax decrease for instance is justified when good men are in harms way in unconscionable to me.

This is no “Bush Bash”, but I think these two quotes spoke volumes about our nation’s lack of perspective on this conflict.

Jim Lehrer was questioning our president.



PRESIDENT BUSH: “Americans are sacrificing. I mean, we are. You know, we pay a lot of taxes. America sacrificed when they, you know, when the economy went into the tank. Americans sacrificed when, you know, air travel was disrupted. American taxpayers have paid a lot to help this nation recover. I think Americans have sacrificed.”

PRESIDENT BUSH: “Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.”

Maybe I have a distorted perspective. My Step-Father was a master sergeant (Korea) and died recently due to undetected cancer after 20+ years in and out of VA hospitals. I take our military’s role very seriously and when I switch on the news and all I see is political posturing in between stories on Astronauts in diapers.

“Walter Reed”…please…This is a 50+ year old story and only now does it get 3 days of headlines and ceremonial visits producing photo-ops. I think our nation has slipped into a collective fog and prefers to stay naive as to the realities taking place.


We have lost our way as to the actually role of our federal government. Let us not forget, when I hear our leaders say we are “spreading democracy around the globe” we are not a “democracy” ourselves. We were "designed" as a Republic made up of 50 independent entities. When our borders or national security is threatened we turn to our elected federal officials to direct our nation’s military in a responsible manner serving our best interest.

Regardless of our positions on the policy, we owe it to our soldiers to sacrifice in every way possible. That may include by-passing the “normal” media outlets which often serve as nothing more than a ventriloquist for elected officials.

In closing…Much will be written about this conflict in the next 20 years that will shock many as to the scope of this conflict. We will never know if a focused and ruthless covert approach would have been more effective. The inevitable fallout from a very young “highly impressionable” Arab population will be felt for generations to come. These are consequences that our children will deal with in a very real way.

America’s immediate concerns should be to impress upon our leadership to provide our brother in arms and their families with every conceivable means at our disposal. While serving, wounded, retired and certainly for their families after their loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Now you see why I don’t often post here. I don’t think I really addressed your question and probably raised several others.

[Show Me the Wire]

PA…
.................................................. .......


Now you see why I don’t often post here. I don’t think I really addressed your question and probably raised several others.


You are correct in your assumption. Continuation of violence is different than war. Nothing you have posted tends to prove PA's original statement erroneous.

Please note I am specifically addressing your statement to PA about people's ability to define war and determine victory.

[Show Me the Wire]

Using that bent logic all those troops are still fighting that other police action left over from the early 50's as well.

Is that why soldiers continue to die? The war is over? The rutabaga told us some of the same crap and more than HALF of the dead were killed SINCE THEN.

First thing you got right in a long time. That 50's action was never a war, but officially was a police action. And unfortunately we are still there with troops in harms way, In harms way of a nuclear threat now.

If the dems want to redeploy troops from South Korea, I am with them.

BTW, is that your definition of a war soldiers dying. Then we lost lots of wars currently around the world.

And I am tired of your fake sanctimonious stance regarding soldiers' life's as pointed out in the thread about Darwin.

[DanG]

You are correct in your assumption. Continuation of violence is different than war. Nothing you have posted tends to prove PA's original statement erroneous.

Please note I am specifically addressing your statement to PA about people's ability to define war and determine victory.
The statement I addressed was the intensity of the “violence” as you put it. You choose to define “war” as you see fit. PA: “I'll ask again. When was the last time US troops were involved in a firefight that lasted more than one day in Iraq? Ok, how about half a day? An hour maybe?”
That was the statement I took issue with. I attempted to make a point concerning this and evidently I failed considering your conclusion.
We pure and simply agree to disagree and there’s no harm in that. Enjoy your weekend!

[Show Me the Wire]

Dan G:

You have good weekend, also.

My problem is the idea we all define something the way we want to. The definition of war is not subjective it is objective. That was the point of my previous post that sparked PA's reply. Using a subjective definition, applied to the same criteria, the U.S. won the Afghan war and are losing the Iraq war. Can't have it both ways for political exploitation, we either are winning both or losing both.

[46zilzal]

And I am tired of your fake sanctimonious stance regarding soldiers' life's as pointed out in the thread about Darwin.
So where is your T.S. card so I can punch it for you??? Easy to be ivory tower about things when you are never around many of the injuries these poor fellows receive....Come to the prostethic clinic sometime and see how much pain they go trough not to mention the PHANTOM pain of no limbs.

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilzal:

I am not going to waste too much bandwidth addressing you. I do not believe you have any clue and I do not believe you are whom, you represent yourself to be. And now you may continue your discussion with yourself.

[DanG]

Dan G:
You have good weekend, also.
My problem is the idea we all define something the way we want to. The definition of war is not subjective it is objective. That was the point of my previous post that sparked PA's reply. Using a subjective definition, applied to the same criteria, the U.S. won the Afghan war and are losing the Iraq war. Can't have it both ways for political exploitation, we either are winning both or losing both.
I don’t completely follow you here, but I do agree with your first sentence. We ALL define everything from our own perspective. Every person is encoded with their own agenda and anyone who claims not to have one is trying to sell you something.

I am certainly no exception to having an agenda. I personally believe we lack national unity that is being exploited by extremists on both sides of the issue. When this chapter of history is written future generations will get entirely different views depending on who has written the text.

I really have to go…

I’m 2 minutes from the first at GP. I must remove my “off-topic” hat and try and make some money for the next 3 days. :)


Take care and good luck if you’re betting.

[46zilzal]

Zilzal:

I am not going to waste too much bandwidth addressing you. I do not believe you have any clue and I do not believe you are whom, you represent yourself to be. And now you may continue your discussion with yourself.
of course I am an accountant in Australia!!

[46zilzal]

I do not believe you are whom, you represent yourself to be. And now you may continue your discussion with yourself.
Come on over to the clinic in the rehab hospital: it is an eye-opener.

of course 3210 won't need help.

[Racer98]

Okay, ready. There is no current war in Iraq. The war is over. The U.S. won the war.

I know. Mission Accomplished.

If it's a police action, then why is there a military there?

[46zilzal]

I know. Mission Accomplished.

If it's a police action, then why is there a military there?
and more poor slobs becoming past tense?

[skate]

Making up words like the rutabaga does now?


always, alllll, words are made up. the condition of the operative counts]

[Show Me the Wire]

I know. Mission Accomplished.

If it's a police action, then why is there a military there?

I guess the same reason the military was involved in Korea and is still there.

[PaceAdvantage]

And Bosnia. Don't forget Bosnia.

[PaceAdvantage]

DanG,

I appreciate and respect your thoughtful response. And I don't disagree with your premise that these men, women and families should not have to shoulder all the burden being placed upon them while fighting, being injured, and sometimes dying in Iraq.

Perhaps I need to be reminded how this country has sacrificed more as a whole in the past during similar conflicts.

[Racer98]

I personally do not believe in the word "Insurgent." I think it's a little too much like the false "Outside agitators" of Vietnam.

[PaceAdvantage]

I don't like the term either. I prefer to call them what they really are. Murdering gang thug criminal terrorists.

[JustRalph]

I don't like the term either. I prefer to call them what they really are. Murdering gang thug criminal terrorists.

you forgot "mostly sponsored by Iran"

I would prefer to call them "KIA"

[Tom]

Dan G.
Thanks for a thoughtful and itelligent discussion. Obviously, not recieved in the morning talking points email like so many others here.:bang:

[Tom]

Racer, the silence is deafening. :lol: :lol: :lol:


You playing steet chess - gotta move in 30 seconds?
I am making it a point of ignoring Race98 - no good comes from talking to him.

But just for you, oh Master Cutter and Paster and violater of TOS, Victory means leaving an Iraq that is capable of governing itself and providing security for itslef. We have come a long way and still have a lot to do. Elections have been held, constitution written, and many attempts at settling the violence, Might have gone a lot smoother if no the real agitators in all of this - defeatocrats. Slimey, vile creatures who need to have a defeat in Iraq for thier political hopes. To end the violence in Iraq, I think we should be firing more guns in Washington DC, where the real enemy of the USA lives.

Let's face facts, there is no way the dems will ever allow any victory in IRaq - they HAVE to have defeeat. And do everyting they can to ensure it.
tnhis is why they have no balls to pass binding legislation. That would put the onus of Iraq on themselves. You guys are happy to sacrifice our troops to allow Bush to fail. And you know it.

[46zilzal]

You playing steet chess - gotta move in 30 seconds?
I am making it a point of ignoring Race98 - no good comes from talking to him.


As occurs with all dissenting points of view

[Tom]

No, I am capable with discussions of opposing points of view. Maybe is someday YOU tried to disccuss soimething insrttead of belittle it, mock it, or just make it an object of one of your endless tantrums, you would see.

Re-read Dan G's posts and you might learn how to present ideas in an adult manner. I tend to argue points to the intelectual level of the other guy, so you will understand them. :rolleyes:

[Secretariat]

You playing steet chess - gotta move in 30 seconds?
I am making it a point of ignoring Race98 - no good comes from talking to him.

But just for you, oh Master Cutter and Paster and violater of TOS, Victory means leaving an Iraq that is capable of governing itself and providing security for itslef. We have come a long way and still have a lot to do. Elections have been held, constitution written, and many attempts at settling the violence, Might have gone a lot smoother if no the real agitators in all of this - defeatocrats. Slimey, vile creatures who need to have a defeat in Iraq for thier political hopes. To end the violence in Iraq, I think we should be firing more guns in Washington DC, where the real enemy of the USA lives.

Let's face facts, there is no way the dems will ever allow any victory in IRaq - they HAVE to have defeeat. And do everyting they can to ensure it.
tnhis is why they have no balls to pass binding legislation. That would put the onus of Iraq on themselves. You guys are happy to sacrifice our troops to allow Bush to fail. And you know it.

Thanks for finally posting Mr. Let's Bomb Mexico!

OK, let's look at your definition of victory (and sincerely I'm happy you posted, it is more than you can get out of the WH on it).

"Victory means leaving an Iraq that is capable of governing itself and providing security for itslef. "

First, they are governing themselves. They have a Constitution, and they have an elected democratic government, so you can claim victory in step one of your victoy definition.

Second, then it all comes down to your security definition of Iraq. Maliki the Prime Minister and the great majority of Iraqi people according to multiple polls want us out by a large margin as we are consdiered occupiers and acting as a catalyst to incite violence among radical groups. Also you mean to tell me that a 300,000+ army and polcie force cannot handle a bunch of thugs as PA desribed them. We're told by our generals that most Iraqi troops are now combat ready. They're leaders are even fit now to lead troops with Iraqis and Americans inot battle.

According to the Iraqis we can claim victory and leave, we've met your test.

[Tom]

Well I can sleep tonight, knowing MR SPin is finally happy.
Which is it , Sec, are they governing themselves or having a civil war?
You keep changing your stance depending on which argument you are losing today.

And that definition you claim to be so suprised to see is pone the WH issued a long time ago.

So I can assume you figure we should pull all troops out today?
What about Afghanistan....all out today?

(timer on):bang:

[Secretariat]

Well I can sleep tonight, knowing MR SPin is finally happy.
Which is it , Sec, are they governing themselves or having a civil war?

Was the US governing itself in the middle of our civil war? Of course it was. It was called the Union. Iraq has it's own functioning government now. They wee elected. They have a constitution. They are having a Civil War becasue some don't like the government like the south here din't like what was happening in the government. Jeez.

And that definition you claim to be so suprised to see is pone the WH issued a long time ago.

Great, then we can go home. We've achieved victory.

So I can assume you figure we should pull all troops out today?

I think we should begin pulling out troops in phases. Yes, it could start today. Britain is pulling out, Italy all the coalition of the willing. Only we are increasing a presence. Obviously Britain realizes it accomplished what it wanted "victory" and can being pulling out.

What about Afghanistan....all out today?


Absoulutly NOT!!! WE shoudl be INCREASING our troop committment there, we should be eradicating the poppy fields, and we should be conducting extensive surveliance actions into Pakistan.

:bang:

[Racer98]

I would prefer to call them "KIA"

Woudln't we all! :D

[Tom]

So, you think we were a united country without the South during our Civil War? Interesting.

If we can't win in Iraq, why keep troops there? For what purpose? What would they be doing in a lost cause?

And you support allowing Al Qeda to have Iraq but not Afghanistan?
What is the difference? Why allow them one country and not the other?
What could they do in Afghanistan they could not do in Iraq if we give it to them?

[46zilzal]

And you support allowing Al Qeda to have Iraq but not Afghanistan?
What is the difference?

As if they were the same thing.

[Tom]

Enlighten us as to the differences. Whole sentences, please.

[46zilzal]

read all about the distinction of the copycat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

[Secretariat]

So, you think we were a united country without the South during our Civil War? Interesting.

You need to read your original post.

"...are they governing themselves or having a civil war?"

There is no reference to united. They are governing themselves.

If we can't win in Iraq, why keep troops there? For what purpose? What would they be doing in a lost cause?

We shoudn't keep troops in Iraq, but should be shifting out of there towards Afghanistan. Let other Arab countries police rough neghiborhoods in Baghdad. Suggest a book called Out of iraq Tom. Just finished it. Good advice.

And you support allowing Al Qeda to have Iraq but not Afghanistan?
What is the difference? Why allow them one country and not the other?
What could they do in Afghanistan they could not do in Iraq if we give it to them?

You will never find a post from me here since 911 asking us to ever withdraw from Afghanistan. Not one. My problem has always been with the phony war in Iraq.

We would be better served going for the heart of Al Queda, then a few thugs in iraq. In WW 2 we didn't go to the Congo because there might have been a few Nazis there. We went towards Germany where the organization was. The heart of Al Queda is centered in Northern Pakistan and the Taliban is a big supporter of them. We must remember it was not Saddam Hussein who attacked us on 911 but those acting on Bin Laden's orders. He and Al Zawahari are the two men I fear the most over there. We could take out a bunch of small Al Queda thugs in Iraq, but it's like knocking over a speak easy in the Southside of Chicago and avoiding Al Capone. It's swatting flies.

I beleive we solidify Afghansitan, destroy the poppy fields, and begin infiltrating Northern Pakistan to get the al Queda leaders.

So Tom...I see it as a significant difference.

[JustRalph]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

seems the people of Iraq disagree with you sec...........

[Racer98]

Well, it couldn't get much worse, could it?

Ever read Animal Farm, by George Orwell? Fantastic book. I feel something similar is going on in Iraq.

Surely you don't want Hussein Back...

[Secretariat]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

seems the people of Iraq disagree with you sec...........

Apparently not. Here's a more recent and unbiased poll. (btw.. The Washington Post used this group on a poll last September in an article I've also linked to below.)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=brme

Poll of Iraqis: Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, but Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq

Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis
A new poll of the Iraqi public finds that a large majority of Iraqis think the US plans to maintain bases in Iraq permanently, even if the newly elected government asks the US to leave. A large majority favors setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years. Nearly half of Iraqis approve of attacks on US-led forces—including nine out of 10 Sunnis. Most Iraqis believe that many aspects of their lives will improve once the US-led forces leave, but are nonetheless uncertain that Iraqi security forces are ready to stand on their own.

Iraqis of all ethnic groups also agree that the US is unlikely to take direction from the Iraqi government. Asked what they think the US would do if the new government were to ask the US to withdraw its forces within six months, 76% overall assume that the US would refuse to do so (Shia 67%, Sunni 94%, Kurds 77%).

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

And a poll last year this group ddi of Iraqis which was printed in the Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department
polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

......

Thanks for the link on yours though. The comment by the one guy to your poll reveals pretty well who conducted your poll - a neconservative group.

:bang: :bang: :bang: