cheapseats

Really, this cannot be overemphasized.

__________________

OldManOnFire

Sure I understand the mathematical difference between the two sets of numbers. It does not make any difference how long we have been in Iraq; the only issue is how much longer we need to remain there in some capacity?? Some people want the US out tomorrow, you want 2-3 years, others are happy to be there for the next century and none of you are correct! A planned withdrawal needs to begin at whatever rate makes sense and this will establish an end date. But lots of things can happen in that middle area which could force the US to be there longer or get out sooner.

It's all subjective and there is no right or wrong. Only a 'right' in those eyes who feel they have all the answers.

There is no evidence of anything other than mismanagement. But the policy remains clear, and like it or not, lots of people continue to support this policy. It does not mean they don't know what they're doing, just that they're doing something 'you' don't agree with.

Regarding insane-Bush I feel this about him for many different reasons...Iraq only being a small part of it.

Well if you believe you are correct, then it's safe to assume that these same voters didn't really care that much--did they? They are not protesting, they are not contacting their representatives, they are out shopping, giving little concern to Iraq. You can state all the words and opinions you like, but at the end of the day, actions are louder than words. How much would you like to bet that NONE of those Congress-persons voted into office in '06 to supposedly stop the Iraq debacle will be voted out of office when their term expires???

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

winthrop

Of course, and 2-3 years makes as much sense as any other schedule. Mr. Obama has said he will end the war the same year he is inaugurated.
Your problem seems to be that there is someone who does not fall in lockstep behind your own preferences. Sorry, that is what makes tossed salad.

I seem to recall from the Bill Maher boards a long rant from you on the subject of invading sovereign countries. You seemed to believe in absolute right and wrong on that subject.

Given the utter failure of the policy, and the resistance of those who support it against changing it (a definition of insanity, I believe), I submit they do not know what they are doing. In any case, mismanagement is often reason enough to change the management.

As do I. But Iraq is what we are discussing here.

What you deride as "out shopping" I call living their lives, providing for their families and getting by as best they can under challenging circumstances so that being "out protesting" is not a practical use of their time. As for contacting congressmen, how do you know they are not? Are you out protesting? Do you contact your congressman?
Action is indeed louder than words. What are you doing, aside from insisting we all trust the authorities, for they know what is best for us?

I do not bet, so such an endeavor will be meaningless. The point is, as documented, they were sent to Washington for one important of many purposes, and they have not delivered on that one important purpose. The reasons for their failure may be practical ones, but it does not change the reality.

OldManOnFire

Quoted from Obama's website:

"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

I'll do the math for you on this one; Inauguration around Feb. 2009--right? Now add 16 months to this and you get June, 2010. Of course, he says this in a complete vacuum from the 4-5 star generals who run the show.

Quite philosophical Winthrop...I can use this at parties to break the tension in all those Iraq discussions.

Saying I doubt something is not right and wrong. And if you're talking about the US being a bully nation, marching around the world with it's arrogance and bully-tactics, I've only said 'if' we continue to do this, not only will nothing be resolved, but world issues towards the US will get far worse.

Well okay Winthrop...they're all idiots and if they could just spend a few minutes with you, they would finally see the light...or at least 'your' light.

One thing we can count on in the USA is EXCUSES. We've got them for everything we do or don't do or should have done--it's the American way. This is the precise reason why we have so many critical issues today! People are generally too stupid to understand issues, cannot put forth quality and effective solutions, certainly cannot find unity on anything, and most importantly...there's the greed! We don't want to change, we don't want to be effected with any negatives, no sacrifice, no nothing--just have someone else solve all the issues. Well this does not work!!! Read my auto-signature to know what I believe in this area...

This is not about me. This is about all the constant-complainers, the Monday-morning quarterbacks, who in actuality do nothing more than spew toxic air. Get it through your head Winthrop; not enough people show that they give a rip about Iraq, and their lack of action proves this. When they find time in their busy days and stop making excuses, perhaps enough will unite and create some change.

Like I said before, if you don't like them, then vote them out of office. Even without your betting, let's see how many of them are voted out of office for not doing what someone expected them to do...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

winthrop

I have read he said by the end of 2009, but I am not going to attempt to prove it. I will accept your source. As you say, it is less time than "the generals" say. Of course if they say anything the Bush administration does not like they are likely to be in the unemployment line, as has been the case with others in their position.

Be my guest.

We should never have done it in the first instance.

This is not about me, either. You yourself have stated the job has been mismanaged. Do we reward mismanagement? As noted, there is clear evidence they have no idea what they are doing, their motivations aside. I may be motivated to sing the great arias of Puccini, but in the attempt it is clear I am an utter failure, I should likely step back and reevaluate.

It is amazing to me that you mock and discount the people, while exalting those who are supposed to represent their best interests. This government by, of and for those people has not served them well in many areas, with Iraq being one of the more destructive.

They should all be voted out of office if they fail to serve the needs and concerns of their constituents. Whether or not this happens remains to be seen, like many other things set in the future. That you apparently do not believe they have any responsibility to the people who sent them to Washington is stunning.

OldManOnFire

Winthrop...it's not my source...it's Obama's website which is open to the public. I didn't say it was less time than the generals might prefer; I said Obama's guess has been done without the consent and knowledge of the active generals.

I hated the popular idea at the time that the US was going to preemptively attack a sovereign nation--this was ludicrous and bullying. But what's done is done and it cannot be undone! So now we live with the consequences of our arrogant behavior which was masked behind the patriotic BS. You know as well as I know some things are such that you simply cannot just quit. In Iraq, to assure the safety of the US troops, and to keep from furthering the hatred towards the US from many world citizens and nations, even IF the Dems can win in '08, the exit strategy must be well thought out.

I don't blame Congress for giving insane-Bush approval on that Iraq resolution. I also don't blame Congress for not bringing a quicker end to the Iraq debacle. But I do blame 100% on insane-Bush for lying to the American public, misusing his powers, violating international laws, the cronyism, more lying to the public, and seeking whatever their hidden agenda might be. The Dems DID NOT gain veto-proof seats in Congress!! And there is no way enough Reps would ever vote with the Dems. So there has been no way possible to change the course of the commander-in-chief. Now if we get a Dem president, and a majority in each house to support that president, then changes might occur. I wished the US would have impeached insane-Bush, and Cheney and Rice, and if impeachment was out of the question, then just hang the bastards!

If insane-Bush refuses to remove the troops, then the only way the Dems could affect change was to stop the funding. To do this uses the US troops as pawns in a very nasty chest game.

I don't mock or discount people. I give them full credit for being lazy, stupid, disinterested, biased, political, and lacking unity on any issue. If these behaviors were not true, then we would not be in the critical condition that we are seeing on nearly every stinkin issue!

Winthrop...why can't you understand that not enough people give a rip about Iraq and this is one reason why change is not being forced on Congress. Did you bother to read the article I posted here stating how many people don't even know how many deaths in Iraq?? If they're not protesting, and they're not making millions of contacts with their representatives, then people obviously send the message that other things are more important. I'm not making this up Winthrop...this is easily understood.

I believe our representatives should have full responsibility to their constituents!! But the one thing you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that for whatever reason, not enough people are placing emphasis on Iraq...period...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

winthrop

And I never said it should not be "well thought out". But "well thought out" need not mean staying another ten years.

I understand the new Democratic congress did not have the votes to begin withdrawing from Iraq. Defunding the war would have created a "chess" game only if Mr. Bush put the safety of the troops second to his own blind stupidity, something of which I grant he is quite capable.

Yes, I see what you mean. No mockery there, nosireeBob.

I have offered a clear explanation of why the vast middle class of the United States is not rioting in the streets, but you dismiss it as "excuses". In addition to concentrating on today, here and now, the American people have been momentarily lulled by the supposed success of the "surge", a "success" requiring American troops to function as what Saddam once was, a cap on the Sunni/Shiite violence which was always ready to pop free. What they do not realize is the Iraq government has not met any of the benchmarks required of it, nor is it likely to do so, therefore this supposed "success" will be short lived. When the violence resumes at the level of 2006, then the attitude toward Iraq will likely change, although I still can not promise you will see suburbs burned to the ground in protest.

OldManOnFire

Well thought out might mean ten more years. And unless the Iraqi government prohibits the US from being in Iraq, no matter if it's a Dem or Rep president, 30,000 to 50,000 US troops will probably remain there for many years.

Winthrop...it is illogical for you to say getting out of Iraq is paramount, yet at the same time not enough people actually give a rip and you make excuses for these very same people for not protesting or contacting their representatives.

The 'surge' has many successes so obviously you are not up on current events. The 'surge' was not meant to end the Iraq debacle, just to squelch some of the violence and buy some time for the Iraqi government--the surge has done both.

Stop making excuses for why PEOPLE don't side with you on this issue. They simply don't give a rip. If they did things would change--but their voices are not heard!

I'm finished on this topic so no need to reply to this...thanks for the conversation...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

winthrop

"Well thought out" may mean forever...it may mean next year...it may mean anything it suits one to mean. Therefore it is in fact meaningless.

It is paramount regardless of who else thinks it is paramount. The sky is blue whether or not one wants to believe it.

"Many successes" means we have paid off one faction to stop killing the other, while we also stand between them, guns drawn. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government diddles and twiddles, taking woefully insufficient action in their own behalf. We have "bought time" for the government to do...nothing.

60% of the polled populations "sides" with me on this issue. That they do not riot is your issue, not mine.

As always, it is my pleasure to be of service.

PursuitOfHappinessParty

[quote=OldManOnFire;142077]Well POHP...you said this: "It's that 'reasonably accomplished' part that will turn working people into poor people as they 'reasonably accomplish' starving without 'assistance'."

No, I said that by mandating coverage that there will be a great many people not on government welfare assistance will find themselves forced upon regular welfare. That would be enforced. You can chop my post up to target your comments against, but once again I point out you aren't addressing anything I actually said. You know, how I quote and reply your ENTIRE POST. Duh.

Not wishing to force, thru mandates, privatized for-profit insurance onto citizens (you remember, the We in We the People?) means I have a dismal view of the U.S.? How pale and shallow your patriotism is.


Because I don't agree with your cheerleading for corporatists and privatized for-profit insurance then I believe in conspiracy and they're directed at me? You are a pious fool who can't handle people who disagree with you. Do you even know what the word conspiracy is? I'd love to see where I mentioned any conspiracy or it's being aimed at me. You are a babbling fool.


Why should I bother replying to you? I've already covered this, but as is your style if you can't debate it you instead repost the same shit and become argumentative. One more time, the short version:

1) Good luck finding $400 per month insurance that actually covers anything.

2) You already are paying for UHC in your existing bill

3) The increase in your taxes (or whatever method) is offset by your decrease in premiums

4) Total price goes down without the for-profit loop

5) Total price goes down with comprehensive as opposed to emergency/acute care

An option. If you want bells and whistles, you pay. Cremation would be covered. BTW, it is now. As in UHC, it's spread out amongst those who pay.



You really should check your facts. There isn't any $400 p/m insurance. The number one reason for bancruptcy in America is health care bills, many of which had privatized insurance who denied claims. Denying claims is a major focus for insurance companies.
Better the for-profit loop be ended, a real $400 p/m premium go to the government (My stance is it would be less), and we could then have earlier care and treatment without fear of a board of businessmen and Doctors working for a privatized insurance company denying treatment.



Once again, there isn't any such thing as $400 p/m privatized insurance. Once again, there isn't any such thing as your way exagerated insurance lobby provided $2 trillion dollar price-tag. Once again, you've neglected the gains to the individual from the lack of premiums paid in your rush to condemn UHC. You also haven't paid much attention to our world standings in death rates per capita, nor have you paid any attention to UHC's fantastic record in these foreign democracies.