Winning Liberal support for the Iraqi Government

The Iraqi politicians go to work every day aware that they are all the target of assassins. Eight million Iraqis faced this same danger to elect their politicians. Yet, their plight is ignored or down-played by the liberals of the world. The Iraqi government is trying to free the streets of their capital from the control of criminal terrorists. They are organizing a well-trained military to do just this. They are determined to fight for their freedom.
No wonder that the liberals wish to abandon them.

I propose several points that I am reasonably sure will correct this attitude. To win support among liberals, the Iraqi government must:

1. Legalize Same-sex marriage.
2. Approve all forms of Stem cell research.
3. Outlaw all CO2 emissions (even though this may bankrupt their country).
4. Legalize third trimester abortion.
5. Outlaw prayer in the school, or anywhere else.
6. Forbid the use of plastic bags.
Please add any additional points that should be taken into consideration.

P.S. My apologies for being two days late with this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Please add any additional points that should be taken into consideration.

---

How about reality?

7. Nominate Mrs. Saddam Hussein for president.

(Couldn't resist that one!)

Well, in the spirit of the thread, I have a better solution. What we need to solve the problem in Iraq is a large infusion of like-minded individuals who will bring a sense of mutual purpose to the population of Iraq. To that end, I propose the following changes to Iraqi law:

1) Institute the death penalty for homosexuals
2) Outlaw scientific research, and replace all highschool biology classes with Bible studies
3) Build new GM plants in every major city, and put a bounty on Al Gore's head
4) Institute a policy of stoning to death women who become pregnant out of wedlock
5) Make prayer in school mandatory. In fact, make it the only thing kids do in school. Forget about history and math.
6) Did I mention making prayer in schools mandatory?
7) Make G.W.B. President for life

These policies will cause all American conservatives to move to Iraq, bringing all of their guns with them. They will then procede to eliminate all of the brown-skinned natives of the country, and turn it into a God-fearing, gun-toting, liberal-hating paradise.

Problem solved!

:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

The Iraqi politicians go to work every day aware that they are all the target of assassins. Eight million Iraqis faced this same danger to elect their politicians. Yet, their plight is ignored or down-played by the liberals of the world. The Iraqi government is trying to free the streets of their capital from the control of criminal terrorists. They are organizing a well-trained military to do just this. They are determined to fight for their freedom.
No wonder that the liberals wish to abandon them.

I propose several points that I am reasonably sure will correct this attitude. To win support among liberals, the Iraqi government must:

1. Legalize Same-sex marriage.
2. Approve all forms of Stem cell research.
3. Outlaw all CO2 emissions (even though this may bankrupt their country).
4. Legalize third trimester abortion.
5. Outlaw prayer in the school, or anywhere else.
6. Forbid the use of plastic bags.
Please add any additional points that should be taken into consideration.

P.S. My apologies for being two days late with this!

---

Thanks man that was a good laugh :beam:

As David Letterman might add-
8. Make Spanish the official second language of Iraq.
9. Transfer the Iraqi embassy to the true center of power in the U.S., Hollywood.
And rounding out my top ten list…
10. Offer Abu Ghraib prison for the incarceration of Scooter Libby.

heh.

Look out Agent Miles. The backroom is heavily left. You'll find few sympathizers here.


11. Give the Presidency to Al Gore. Since he actually won, but for that pesky Supreme Court. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

The Iraqi politicians go to work every day aware that they are all the target of assassins. Eight million Iraqis faced this same danger to elect their politicians.

---

So why do you want to use their plight to bait your perceived opponents in your petty little domestic squabbles? This "liberals = bad people" line coming from right wing Americans is so parochial - I am not sure it translates anywhere outside of the US; certainly not in Baghdad.

Quote:

---

Yet, their plight is ignored or down-played by the liberals of the world.

---

No, I think you will find the "liberal" press around the world - and the not so liberal press - is full of the plight of the Iraqis. I suspect it's Fox and other outlets that like you enjoy baiting "liberals" that downplays it.

Quote:

---

The Iraqi government is trying to free the streets of their capital from the control of criminal terrorists. They are organizing a well-trained military to do just this. They are determined to fight for their freedom.

---

Just how many battalions deemed combat worthy by the US military does the Iraqi Army currently field?

Quote:

---

No wonder that the liberals wish to abandon them.

---

Newsflash: the Iraqi people, whose plight so concerns you, don't want foreign troops on their soil and think their security will be improved if they leave. I suspect a lot of Iraqi politicians, at least those who will come out on top when the Coalition leaves, quietly agree with them.

Wasn't the original post meant to be a joke?

Seemed tongue-in-cheek to me with the reference to April Fool's Day at the end.

:inquisitive:

I thik it was a top ten list and you guys got your panties in a wad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I thik it was a top ten list and you guys got your panties in a wad

---

I thought it was a joke too.

I never realized just how stong a liberal hot bed the backroom was :beam:

As with so many April Fools jokes, it isn't really very funny.

Using an embattled region to score cheap shots at your political opponents, under the excuse of April Fools? Classy.

Original post is spot-on in terms of what would win liberal support.

However, I thought they already had liberal support since they are supporting democracy, which is an infidel institution that leads to society eventually being turned into a cesspool with no values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Original post is spot-on in terms of what would win liberal support.

However, I thought they already had liberal support since they are supporting democracy, which is an infidel institution that leads to society eventually being turned into a cesspool with no values.

---

Boy the yuk's never end with this thread ! :laugh4:

Bowing to the Loyal Opposition, here are:
The top ten reasons conservatives already support the Iraqi Government:

10. They have lots of oil.
9. We git ta shoot Terrorists!
8. Black gold (a.k.a. oil)
7. Texas Tea (ditto)
6. The oil!
5. Yee-ha, Cowboy diplomacy!
4. We get to smell napalm in the morning.
3. Did I mention the oil?
2. Exxon pwns us.
The number one reason conservatives already support the Iraqi government is:
Our occupation/support of the war-torn countries of Germany, Japan and Korea transformed them into peaceful, prosperous, democratic members of the world community (lest we forget).
:yes:

And the hippy leftists and lack of good old fashioned American Character caused us to lose Vietnam. Lest we forget. :laugh4:

Which is funny since now they are reforming. :idea2:


But Iraq is no Vietnam, and we would expect to see greater Islamic Extremism emboldened by their victory in Iraq. :oops:

I'm having trouble figuring who's serious and who's not.

I mean, seriously; it's not very funny when the back of your mind keeps telling you that these guys could actually be, you know, serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

But Iraq is no Vietnam, and we would expect to see greater Islamic Extremism emboldened by their victory in Iraq.

---

You're behind the curve, DA. "Emboldened" was the catchphrase last month. But assuming we're going to go along with last month's talking points (we'll just pretend it's March out of politeness), can you give us some sort of numerical figure for that emboldening? Are we talking a 20% jump of emboldedness? A 70% leap? I would like to know just how much emboldening we're talking about. And it's worth noting that staying in Iraq has an emboldening factor, as well. I want to see the emboldening curve for staying contrasted with the emboldening curve for leaving.

We need to get a lot less vague about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You're behind the curve, DA. "Emboldened" was the catchphrase last month. But assuming we're going to go along with last month's talking points (we'll just pretend it's March out of politeness), can you give us some sort of numerical figure for that emboldening? Are we talking a 20% jump of emboldedness? A 70% leap? I would like to know just how much emboldening we're talking about. And it's worth noting that staying in Iraq has an emboldening factor, as well. I want to see the emboldening curve for staying contrasted with the emboldening curve for leaving.

We need to get a lot less vague about this.

---

Good point. Personally I would like to see Navaros' value cesspool coefficient (VCC) factored in. Maybe if we weighed that for quantifiable 'reconstruction efforts' it would finally bring some clarity.

Hey, you forgot to give a smug alert before you posted.

It’s not about some stupid ‘emboldening’ percentage. Either the firemen put out the fires the arsonists started or the whole place burns down. The police catch the child rapist or your kids may be next. We stop the people who want to destroy the economies of the West, kill all the Jews and Christians in the world (and then all the Muslims that disagree with them), or they win.
The basic Iraqi isn’t the ‘sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll’ dude that you’re used to supporting. Maybe they’ll never have a democracy that you would visit. However, they still deserve your support in this struggle against anarchists. They already have mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Hey, you forgot to give a smug alert before you posted.

---

Isnt it a given?

Quote:

---

It’s not about some stupid ‘emboldening’ percentage. Either the firemen put out the fires the arsonists started or the whole place burns down. The police catch the child rapist or your kids may be next. We stop the people who want to destroy the economies of the West, kill all the Jews and Christians in the world (and then all the Muslims that disagree with them), or they win. The basic Iraqi isn’t the ‘sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll’ dude that you’re used to supporting. Maybe they’ll never have a democracy that you would visit. However, they still deserve your support in this struggle against anarchists. They already have mine.

---

thats a bit simplistic isnt it? I mean why wouldnt they want to destroy the west economy when we have our armies running around thier country side?

Sure we can justify it, but it takes a moderate person to be able to look at it from the others point of view. If my town were occupied I would attempt to sabotage the occupier as well, no matter how loudly they proclaimed it was in my best intrest.

the right of self determination is one that cant be imposed by force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Hey, you forgot to give a smug alert before you posted.

It’s not about some stupid ‘emboldening’ percentage. Either the firemen put out the fires the arsonists started or the whole place burns down. The police catch the child rapist or your kids may be next. We stop the people who want to destroy the economies of the West, kill all the Jews and Christians in the world (and then all the Muslims that disagree with them), or they win.
The basic Iraqi isn’t the ‘sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll’ dude that you’re used to supporting. Maybe they’ll never have a democracy that you would visit. However, they still deserve your support in this struggle against anarchists. They already have mine.

---

Erm...

If you were so concerned about Iraqis having to "struggle against anarchy" maybe you shouldn't have caused that anarchy in the first place.

Just a thought.

You guys were hell bent on invading.

Everybody told you not to.

Everybody told you it was a bad idea, and that it could have only disastrous results for you and the Iraqi people.

You did it anyway.

And now you try to chastise everybody else when the whole mess was your own fault.

As my 13 year old niece is fond of saying: "What-EVER..." ~:rolleyes:

*goes back to his sex, drugs, & rock 'n' roll*

Dr. Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri wanted to destroy the World Trade Center because he believed that this would destroy world trade. If the economies of the west collapsed, then we couldn’t afford to stop him from uniting the faithful and subjugating everyone they don’t like. Perhaps you feel that it was simplistic to believe that there were some fascists or communists trying to destroy our world, too.
This isn’t a people’s war against the crusaders. Iraq has sixteen provinces. Fourteen of them are coming along fine. Bagdad and Anbar province are making headway against the terrorists. If a million Iraqis had a peaceful demonstration against U.S. involvement, then I would be all for leaving.
The people of Iraq have exercised the right of self-determination several times already. The result wasn’t that we should stop helping them, or that the anarchists should take over.
Remember when Hemmingway and the other communist youth went to Spain to fight Franco. They had battle cries like, “No man is free until all men are free!”. The ‘moderate’ leaders of Erope thought that Fascism wasn’t a threat. Pretty ironic. They sure don’t make liberals like them anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Dr. Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri wanted to destroy the World Trade Center because he believed that this would destroy world trade. If the economies of the west collapsed, then we couldn’t afford to stop him from uniting the faithful and subjugating everyone they don’t like. Perhaps you feel that it was simplistic to believe that there were some fascists or communists trying to destroy our world, too.
This isn’t a people’s war against the crusaders. Iraq has sixteen provinces. Fourteen of them are coming along fine. Bagdad and Anbar province are making headway against the terrorists. If a million Iraqis had a peaceful demonstration against U.S. involvement, then I would be all for leaving.
The people of Iraq have exercised the right of self-determination several times already. The result wasn’t that we should stop helping them, or that the anarchists should take over.
Remember when Hemmingway and the other communist youth went to Spain to fight Franco. They had battle cries like, “No man is free until all men are free!”. The ‘moderate’ leaders of Erope thought that Fascism wasn’t a threat. Pretty ironic. They sure don’t make liberals like them anymore.

---

Oh, that's right. You invaded Iraq because you wanted to free the Iraqi people.

*waits for invasion of China*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Oh, that's right. You invaded Iraq because you wanted to free the Iraqi people.

---

Nah, we thought they had WMD, come to find out we were dead wrong, sadly the american voter didnt get the memo until the midterms last year. Bush should be impeached for the whole WMD fiasco and the war.

The "free the iraqi people" was a nice little jingle on the tube by that wack job Cheney, no one really believed that, sadly the U.S. population did believe mr powell and everyone else who said they had WMD, the mood in the US was ripe for it too. The Bush admin took advantage of a perfect storm of public sentiment, military capability, and a right wing policy to put a larger footprint down in the middle east.

Quote:

---

*waits for invasion of China*

---

Awesome, can we expect our friends in Canada to provide logistical support :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

*waits for invasion of China*

---

Awesome, can we expect our friends in Canada to provide logistical support :beam:

---

I wish I could say yes. Although our new Conservative government have shown themselves to be less willing than the Liberal Party to fellate the Chinese while ignoring their human rights record, I don't know how long they will stay in power. We're headed for elections soon.

And anyway, the logistical support is usually the other way around: You guys let us use your shiny helicopters and airplains to get our elite sniper teams in close enough for head shots...

Quote:

---

If a million Iraqis had a peaceful demonstration against U.S. involvement, then I would be all for leaving.

---

Errrrrr ... they had some elections , can you name any Iraqi party that didn't have a policy in their manifesto aganst US involvement ?
When you discover that you cannot find any party elected that was not calling for an end to US involvement will you become all for leaving ?
Or would the (mainly) peaceful demonstration of voting against US involvement not count for you ?

Quote:

---

Iraq has sixteen provinces. Fourteen of them are coming along fine.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: hold on while I get my breath back ...........:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
OK leaving aside that you managed to redraw the political map of Iraq~;) .........so Miles I take it you have missed recent events in many provinces , partly due to the "surge" just moving problems elsewhere and the coilition commanders it those areas complaining that they don't have enough troops to deal with the new shift of violence , partly in some regions due to the upcoming referendum , partly due to rival groups and their foriegn sponsors pushing to consolidate their position locally and extend their power across borders .
I suppose it all depends on what level of violence , chaos , murder and mayhem mixed with a nice bit of ethnic cleansing you define as "fine" .

Gee Tribesman, I’m not feeling the love in your opinionated post. Careful, you’ll be labeled as abrasive. I stick to my statement, that if a million Iraqis (less than 4% of the country) demonstrated against U.S. involvement, then we would be gone. But, they haven’t. De Gaulle’s party was also openly against U.S. forces being in France. When he finally asked us to remove them, we did. The same option is open to the Iraqi government. I doubt if the terrorists will leave under these conditions.
The former commander of coalition forces in Iraq stated that 14 of the 16 military provinces in Iraq are making progress. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and life is continuing. Just as IRA bombers did not destroy life in every city in Northern Ireland, nor Hamas bombers in every nook and cranny of Israel, so the anarchists in Iraq have not destroyed life in that country.
The democratic nation of Iraq will get the laugh last, sir.

Quote:

---

The former commander of coalition forces in Iraq stated that 14 of the 16 military provinces in Iraq are making progress.

---

Would that be the former commander of coilition forces who was heavily slated by the US administration for providing over optimistic assesments and hiding the true picture of the situation ?
or would that be a different former commander of coilition forces in Iraq ?

Quote:

---

I stick to my statement, that if a million Iraqis (less than 4% of the country) demonstrated against U.S. involvement, then we would be gone.

---

So you don't see the vote for parties which state they are against the US presence as a demonstration then ...interesting perspective you have there .

So you want a gathering on the streets of large numbers of people to satisfy your criteria :yes: slight problem there , large gatherings of people have a slight tendancy to get blown up or shot at:idea2:

Quote:

---

De Gaulle’s party was also openly against U.S. forces being in France.

---

Ah but at that time France wasn't being ripped apart by a civil war was it , so that would be a herring of the red variety you have just landed:yes: well done .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Gee Tribesman, I’m not feeling the love in your opinionated post. Careful, you’ll be labeled as abrasive. I stick to my statement, that if a million Iraqis (less than 4% of the country) demonstrated against U.S. involvement, then we would be gone. But, they haven’t. De Gaulle’s party was also openly against U.S. forces being in France. When he finally asked us to remove them, we did. The same option is open to the Iraqi government. I doubt if the terrorists will leave under these conditions.
The former commander of coalition forces in Iraq stated that 14 of the 16 military provinces in Iraq are making progress. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and life is continuing. Just as IRA bombers did not destroy life in every city in Northern Ireland, nor Hamas bombers in every nook and cranny of Israel, so the anarchists in Iraq have not destroyed life in that country.
The democratic nation of Iraq will get the laugh last, sir.

---

Well Agent miles I half agree. There is absolutely progress happening in Iraq, it just dosent make for good arguments or sell commercials so we dont hear about it.

As far as the 1 million protest thing, i dont think there is any question the majority want us out of there, and frankly I think we should oblige them. Will it lead to a civil war or a broader war within Islam? Maybe, but I think the U.S. should take a dose of humility step away and remove ourselves from this particular stage (as much as possible).

Lets let someone else pick up the ball on this, since there is no shortage of opinion on what to do better, lets let somone else do it. And when the inveitable no win situation comes around to the U.S. via the argument "You created this mess" we should act with absolute humility and say, "yep" and shrug.

Time to move on from the world stage as far as I am concerned, we have or nose in far to much business, lets let everyone else have a go and we pull back and secure the home land, with acknowledgement that we made a mistake in Iraq.

this policy enables us an exit to a major problem, and a potential gain in prestige from exhibiting humility. On top of that we strengthen our military position by redeploying forces to our own homeland and we allow critics to have thier own go at the middle east and its vast issues.

The only loosing proposition is Bush's inability to show some humility, the rest is a net gain for the U.S. Enough adventures overseas, let someone elese do it, more and more I find myself advocating a more isolationist/unilateral US policy.

Interesting, and possibly relevant comment from a Senator speaking in February of 2003, just before the invasion.

What is particularly worrisome is how naively the idea of establishing a perfect democracy in Iraq is being tossed around by this Administration. If the Administration engages in such a massive undertaking without the American people understanding the real costs and long-term commitment that will be required to achieve this bucolic vision, our efforts in Iraq could end with chaos in the region. Chaos, poverty, hopelessness, hatred - - that's exactly the kind of environment that becomes a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

The Administration is asking the American public and the international community to support this war. The Administration must also put all of its cards on the table. A list of real risks and downsides do the nation no good locked in Donald Rumsfeld's desk drawer. They must be brought into the sunshine for the people to assess.

The American people are willing to embrace a cause when they judge it to be noble and both its risks and its benefits are explained honestly to them. But if information is withheld, long-term political support can never be sustained.

Odin, doing nothing, no matter how nobley, will only accomplish nothing. Did Chamberlain tell this to the Czech's? Do you believe that UBL thinks that he will gain any respect by losing Iraq?

Lemur, a lot of us knew exactly what this war would take. Senator Byrd is good at misrepresenting things. Isn't that what he did in the KKK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Odin, doing nothing, no matter how nobley, will only accomplish nothing. Did Chamberlain tell this to the Czech's?

---

W00t!11oneone! Now where's that post I made, where I said any thread will eventually involve a comparison with the Greatest Generation and all that (the comparison's purpose being to shut someone up, not to provoke actual discussion). IIRC I called it the Pannonian variant of Godwin or something, and I got flamed for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Odin, doing nothing, no matter how nobley, will only accomplish nothing. Did Chamberlain tell this to the Czech's? Do you believe that UBL thinks that he will gain any respect by losing Iraq?

---

I didnt say do nothing, I personally lean more towards an isolationist/unilateral foriegn policy. If it is in our intrest to act we should bring the full weight of our resoruces to bare.

I do not believe Iraq is in the U.S. intrest any longer. Just the opposite really, the sooner we leave the sooner those directly involved can determine thier own destiny, and it will allow prior critics to employ thier plan of action (which i eagerly anticipate).

Pannonian-Let me know what you are talking about.

Odin-Dude, must I type in braille? Give a :daisy:. The U.S. doesn't have perfect leaders, perfect politicians or perfect armies to prosecute perfect conflicts. Real people in real trouble need someone to act. Yes, self-interests are involved. Once we are done shooting the bad guys in Iraq, we can always line up our own bad guys and drill them. Take the anti-freeze out of your blood and get totally urinated as hades. It works for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Odin-Dude, must I type in braille? Give a :daisy:. The U.S. doesn't have perfect leaders, perfect politicians or perfect armies to prosecute perfect conflicts. Real people in real trouble need someone to act. Yes, self-interests are involved. Once we are done shooting the bad guys in Iraq, we can always line up our own bad guys and drill them. Take the anti-freeze out of your blood and get totally urinated as hades. It works for me.

---

Nah miles Im not with you on this one, its time to let someone else take the lead. i prefer a much more reserved foriegn policy that makes the U.S. the top priority for our government and international politics that dont pose an immediate threat a very distant side show

Quote:

---

W00t!11oneone! Now where's that post I made, where I said any thread will eventually involve a comparison with the Greatest Generation and all that (the comparison's purpose being to shut someone up, not to provoke actual discussion). IIRC I called it the Pannonian variant of Godwin or something, and I got flamed for it.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey its not that bad , it made it to page 2 , it was managed on page 1 in the other current Iraq topic:2thumbsup:

Odin-It is said that 'cooler minds should prevail'. Perhaps this is the case.
I just hope that sons and daughters aren't buried for what we don't do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Miles

Odin-It is said that 'cooler minds should prevail'. Perhaps this is the case.
I just hope that sons and daughters aren't buried for what we don't do.

---

Fair enough, i guess its the "what we dont do" part we disagree on, id be just as happy having the 150k troops in iraq on detail in our ports checking containers.

It seems you're still in stage 2, Miles. I'm leaning toward stage 3.

The Five Stages of Neocon Grief

1. Denial: "The media doesn't show the good news in Iraq."

2. Anger: "The treasonous far-left-liberals and their media lapdogs are making us lose in Iraq."

3. Bargaining: "If we send x-thousand more troops to Iraq, victory will be ours."

4. Depression: "Did you catch 300 yet? [munch-munch-burp] God, it made me hate liberals even more. [channels flipping] They wouldn't last a day in ancient Sparta."

5. Advanced Literary Theory: "The hegemonic binary of 'success' and 'failure' traumatizes the (re)interpretive possibilities of an ethos of jouissance regarding the War in Iraq."

Cheney is still at stage 1 denial , yesterday he trotted out the now thoroughly laughable Saddam-Al Qaida-9/11 tripe in a speech:dizzy2:

If you read the transcript, you'll see that Cheney believes in a Middle East permanently occupied by American forces, because any withdrawal anywhere means a victory for the terrorists everywhere. He seems to be saying that we made a horrible mistake by not staying in Afghanistan after the Russians left.

Remember what happened in Afghanistan. We'd been involved in Afghanistan in the eighties, supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets and prevailed. We won. Everybody walked away, and in the nineties, Afghanistan became a safe haven for terrorists, an area for training camps where Al-Qaeda trained 20,000 terrorists in the late nineties, and the base from which they launched attacks on the United States on 9/11. So those are very real problems, and to advocate withdrawal from Iraq at this point, it seems to me, simply would play right into the hands of Al-Qaeda.

So what would be a reasonable condition for withdrawal from Iraq? I can't see any, using his reasoning. If there is even the slightest chance of "losing," we must stay. Indefinitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hey its not that bad , it made it to page 2 , it was managed on page 1 in the other current Iraq topic:2thumbsup:

---

IIRC my theory was that the twin foundations of the modern American mythos are the Greatest Generation and the Holocaust, and that any questioning of the jockworthiest line of thinking was to make one unworthy of one, and hence perpetuating the other, at which point the theory can switch to mainstream Godwin. Now compare with a couple of Agent Miles quotes.

Odin, doing nothing, no matter how nobley, will only accomplish nothing. Did Chamberlain tell this to the Czech's?

Now that this has been explored, the Hitler's of the world thank you.

I was a little hesitant in stereotyping the Great American Nation thus, but it seems I wasn't far wrong.