Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (247821)	11/8/2007 8:35:50 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Whoa, Rough Cut. You added "loathsome" to "lying" and "dishonorable." It seems you're ending almost every one of your thin arguments with name calling. Are you running out of unconvincing dodges for being happy-talk, tooth-fairy wrong, so often? I think so. For example, your last response was so weak you didn't even respond to my calling you out on your last instance of glibly wading into silly land. Let me remind you... Me: "To that you've now added more silly erroneous statements, including your statement characterizing the Iraqi election as an "overwhelming vote for a representative government by the Iraqi people.." That's just about as wrong as wrong can get. The Iraqis absolutely did not vote for "a representative form of government." That, you ought to realize, was not one the choices on the ballot. They were allowed to choose from various slates of candidates. The choices were decided on Sectarian lines and any sect that failed to vote, (as many Sunnis did) found that "not voting" had a high cost. The US largely dictated the when, how and who of that election and the Iraqi "voters" faced no choices on who was on the slate of candidates they were allowed to choose from." You ....Nada, nothing, zip, zero...? ??"overwhelming vote for a representative government by the Iraqi people.."?? If the suffering that's emanated from our invasion and occupation of Iraq weren't so enormous I'd think that totally inept misstatement was funny. Ed

To: one_less who wrote (247821)	11/9/2007 3:15:04 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 281500

>>" ”Current U.S. strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror. The building of a strong strategic partnership with the Iraqi Government will be an important part of the effort to achieve this end state, which remains a long-term goal, and requires the application of all elements of national power, including especially diplomatic, economic, and political power.” "<< Ohmigosh...So did this "new" US "strategy"...the New Way Forward for Iraq...become the "Current Strategy" when Bush could not find those WMD in the Oval Office? Bush has just got to have Sen Craig help him search the Oval Office Restroom...those WMD are in there!!! And think of this...when Bush and Craig find those WMD in the Restroom, we can go back to the "Old Strategy"...Preempt Imminent Threat to the US...and drop this "New Way Forward" gobbledegook.