Politicians.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:14 pm

Well there are plenty of nut jobs running around, too.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Fri Jul 04, 2008 12:39 pm

Digit wrote:True Min, but we have just jailed a fellah for various offences. Amongst his stash of child porn was a man raping a baby so young it still had the umbilical cord attached.
I doubt that type can ever be 'normal'.

J**** F******* C*****!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:54 am

Ironic. It looks as if the Iraqis will save us from Republican stupidity!

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200807 ... N8C80.html

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

Poor Bush....can't even control a puppet.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:41 am

But doesn't it give him an acceptable pull out.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:27 pm

He doesn't want to pull out. We have been working towards building permanent bases since the beginning.

He sees it as stability but they see it as colonialism."

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:53 pm

It doesn't work that way. We don't move into a country and built permanent bases because some president wants it. Presidential policies change everytime we change a president, they have very little long-term permanence. Treaties are much more binding and often we stick with treaties even when they no longer make sense nor are supported by the majority of the involved.

Wouldn't surprise me, Digit, if you were absolutely correct. The agreement gives the US government a perfect excuse to pull out and save face. We probably came up with the wording.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:02 pm

Wish our lot had the same brains, underhand tricks or whatever.

Post by **MichelleH** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:03 pm

Minimalist wrote:He doesn't want to pull out. We have been working towards building permanent bases since the beginning.

He sees it as stability but they see it as colonialism."

An excellent article for those interested:

The Greatest Story Never Told-Finally, the US Mega-Bases in Iraq Make the News

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=26487

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:12 pm

Now, however, the bases are, suddenly and startlingly, in the news (and, of course, being written about and discussed on TV as if they had long been part of everyday media analysis). This week, in fact, they hit the front page of the Washington Post, due to protests by Iraqi leaders close to the Bush administration. They were angered by, and leaking like mad about, American strong-arm tactics in negotiations for a long-term Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that would officially embed American-controlled bases in Iraq for the long-term, potentially tie the hands of a future American president on Iraq policy, and represent a sovereignty grab of the first order. (A typical comment from a pro-Maliki Iraqi politician in that Post piece: "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq…")

Bush has created a muddle in the Middle East that will hamstring the next five administrations.

Quick poll: How many think the Iraqis want us to leave so they can build Iraq or get on with the business of settling old scores?

I vote for the old scores, myself.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:33 pm

Well, anytime you want to paint a nice, dark picture of american politics and especially presidential policy, trot out an Englehardt article. Who apparently makes a very good living writing because he is one of the most prolific authors on the net.

Hes seems to be the political equivalent of the "National Enquirer" in my opinion. Sells articles with lots of shocking headlines and accusations with very little documentation.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:21 pm

Shooting the messenger does not alter the message.

rich · Post by **rich** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:04 pm

It could - especially if you just shoot him in the kneecap - it would add a lot of expletives in the message!!!!!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:08 pm

Yes...I suppose that might happen.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:13 pm

Or aim a little higher and the message changes another way...
it becomes an octave or two higher.

rich · Post by **rich** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:42 pm

I guess you're assuming they have the equipment?