Keep it up, George.....

[albed]

Wow, Mazer must have been a little rough with his new bitch; just look at him squeal.

[pisser]

Originally Posted by albed

Wow, Mazer must have been a little rough with his new bitch; just look at him squeal.

Since you don't have any decent comebacks, you just have to resort to idiotic responses.

You just know I'm right, and your dead wrong. Admit it, and ease your pain.

[Mazer]

Oh, you two go together like peanut butter and jelly.

I'm not after pisser in order to get under his skin. He has demonstrated a little free thinking lately, not much, but enough to engage me. I don't expect him to respond to my constructionist method any better than you have, albed, but if the worst name he calls me is 'stooge' then I must be doing something right. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed it while it lasted because now that Ramona has stooped to posting here I've lost interest in pisser.

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

At least we are aware of this toll and the implications, while apparently some of you are able to dismiss this toll utterly as merely a 'meaningless politically-loaded statistic,' and pretend that comparing it to bigger numbers and greater sacrifices renders it virtually insignificant.

You've either misread me or you're just being obtuse, for it is the media that have reduced our soldiers' sacrifice down to a mere statistic, not me. And I've pointed it out not to diminish the loss of life but to indict those who wave these statistics in the air like a banner. If you'll notice, I wasn't just comparing body counts but also time frames. The significance of those figures is subjective, but after four long years of war and occupation even I am surprised that so few have died, and glad too. You're too quick to accuse me of dismissing the numbers; I'm only callous compared to those like pisser who are blowing things way out of proportion, themselves guilty of dismissing historical statistics. The current death toll is only meaningless when it's quoted without context, and that's what I'm trying to establish. We've fought in far deadlier wars than this one and come out on top, so it's certainly possible to overcome the toll we've already incurred.

Though pisser's questions about what we've accomplished are valid, the lack of reporting by the media makes it impossible to answer those questions adequately. When they report all of the costs and none of the benefits it simply becomes impossible to perform a proper cost/benefit analysis. I like Sinner's list of questions better; they're more pertinent to our situation and, unlike pisser's questions, each has a verifiable answer. Those answers are necessary to establish context, too. Without knowing what we've gained it is simply impossible to judge the value of what we've lost. I'll tell you right now, I myself am not cognizant of the specific benefits of our war in Iraq, but there are people in this world, most of them journalists, who do know what's going on. I can only speculate as to why their knowledge has not been shared with the rest of us. I do know, however, that a dictator has been stripped of his power, his former subjects are now voting citizens, a constitution has been established in a once despotic nation, a parliament has taken power, and the free people of Iraq are now making the security of their country their responsibility, reliving us of that burden in the process. If that's not progress then I don't know what is.

[pisser]

Originally Posted by Mazer

I do know, however, that a dictator has been stripped of his power

So now we are in the business of stripping dictators from power.

Nice how we just pick and choose.

If that is our 'mission', why haven't we gone after north korea for one?

I'll tell you why, because it wouldn't be as easy as Iraq.

Mr. 'War President' just wanted to get his nose into the middle east without studying the previous history of that country or of the middle east in general.

If he had, he would have known that democracy could never be 'forced' upon those people.

Also, we ( the american people) don't directly control policy as to war and such, be we control public opinion, and boneheaded politicians are sensitive to that.

Basically, the republican party is destroying any chance it has in 2008.

Fine by me, and I am just an independent. I do not like the direction that this country has gone in after 9/11.

I just laugh at how outraged our administration is about the Iranians supplying and help the insurgents to kill Iraqis and Americans. What did george and co. think would happen, they would just roll over and kiss our asses?

And that is why...IT IS HIS FAULT!

[theknife]

and this is why no one wants the job as "war czar":

We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined.

....We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

that's General John Sheehan, confirming what you already knew deep down - there is no "victory" to be had, it's been all platitudes and bs from the administration, and the problems with Iraq have their roots in the White House.

[theknife]

why there is nothing in Iraq worth dying for, part 27:

Congress oks the Iraq withdrawal bill and sends it on to the Prez for his veto. meanwhile, the Iraqi government sees fit to criticize Congress for it's decision to carry out the will of the American people:

The Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, has criticised the US House of Representatives for passing a bill that sets a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq....

"The Iraqi government believes that setting any premature timetable would not be realistic, would not be in the best interests of the US forces or the Iraqi government interests at this stage. I think that should depend on conditions on the ground," he says.

so how does the Iraqi government demonstrate their dedication and devotion to thier cause? by taking the summer off:

While lawmakers in Washington debate the role of American forces in Iraq, lawmakers in Baghdad are planning to adjourn for July and August.

be interesting to keep track of how many Americans get killed while propping up the Iraqi government for vacationing Iraqi officials.

[Mazer]

If we had any sense we'd make our lawmakers take a 6 month "vacation" every year. Democracies don't need full time politicians, nor should they have them.