AEON said:
Actually - STING is always able to back up what he says. I almost always agree with what he posts. It's more objective than the emotional tirades I usually see.
Irvine511 said:the coalition was always a fiction, its always been a US/UK presence, and now the UK element is leaving. and this might be the start of a good thing. there's no question that a Western presence in Iraq exacerbates terrorism in Iraq and worldwide. it is America's huge presence in the Middle East that inspires terrorism. a Western nation occupying an oil-rich Muslim country is absolutely incendiary. the Danes are going, the South Koreans are gone, the Spanish have left, the Italians have left. we are ALONE.
and what's going to happen in the south when the Iranians march in unhindered by British troops?
and how can Cheney say that it's good for the British to pull out when he says that Pelosi/the Dems are playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda. is he delusional? is there any way to spin this as either a good thing, or "not news," other than through sheer delusion?
deep said:
and we all know that if oil is controlled by an anti-American regime they will do this?
just look at Chavez in Venezuela
no one is more anti-American government than he
deep said:
and why do you think that is?
Irvine511 said:
so many posts, so many words, so many poorly understood facts ... and you've yet to convince a single person of, well, anything, really. and if your reasoning were as blindingly obvious to everyone else as it seems to you, then, goodness, you should have no problems convincing peole in FYM, let alone the far less discerning American public at large. but they think you're full of shit, STING. why do they think that? where do you think you're falling short?
why, then, if you're so certain and smug, is Iraq widely considered a failure by everybody -- including the president. why does Congress not agree, why do the american people not agree, why does the military not agree? how long are you going to continue to lie to yourself? will it be for the next 30 years so you can continue to blame "liberals" -- like, you know, McCain who has said that if the "surge" doesn't work, he's for redeployment, and he says this when he's not bashing Cheney and Rumsfeld -- for undermining Iraq? are you going to be hanging Cindy Sheehan in effigy the same way the military likes to mock Jane Fonda? what scapegoats and boogey men are you going to have to creat ein order to excuse yourself of responsibility for this catastrophe?
anitram said:So the British troops leaving is a victory and American troops leaving would be appeasing al Qaeda?
Is this not Dick Cheney's logic?
STING2 said:
Well, the situation in Baghdad and Northwestern Iraq is very different from the situation in Basra and other area's of the south. Al Quada is active in the Al Anbar province and Baghdad, not in Basra.
anitram said:
So wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to send them to Baghdad?
Irvine511 said:
yes, but when you bother to fact check, you see how unobjective and selective the "facts" presented are. it's like listening to Dick Cheney.
just look at his presentation of 1441. it's complete crap. and that's been demonstrated, over and over and over.
sorry, but it is.
fact-checking the indefatigable STING has only solidified my anti-war stance.
anitram said:
So wouldn't the logical conclusion then be to send them to Baghdad?
Irvine511 said:the coalition was always a fiction, its always been a US/UK presence, and now the UK element is leaving. and this might be the start of a good thing. there's no question that a Western presence in Iraq exacerbates terrorism in Iraq and worldwide. it is America's huge presence in the Middle East that inspires terrorism. a Western nation occupying an oil-rich Muslim country is absolutely incendiary. the Danes are going, the South Koreans are gone, the Spanish have left, the Italians have left. we are ALONE.
and what's going to happen in the south when the Iranians march in unhindered by British troops?
and how can Cheney say that it's good for the British to pull out when he says that Pelosi/the Dems are playing into the hands of Al-Qaeda. is he delusional? is there any way to spin this as either a good thing, or "not news," other than through sheer delusion?