To say that more troops there just means more deaths skips the point that it means more scary brown people dead! And that is an unequivocally grand thing!

Threaten the Iraqi's with widthdrawl? Oh, I see, Zakaria is referring to the puppet regime holed up in the Green Zone, which would face certain slaughter in the event of a U.S. pull out.

Certainly he's not referring to the 75% of Iraq (think non-Kurds) who are counting the days until we go.

But if we leave, then what will happen? An Iraq torn into three zones, ethnic cleansing and sectarian strife, the emergence of AQ in the Mesopotamian heartland, and a total collapse of public services and security?

The problem with this worst case scenario is that it's not really a scenario, but the reality on the ground today.

Again, where's the downside to pulling out?

Since all of the fucking experts were dead ass fucking wrong about everything to do with Iraq, their track record should provide enough evidence that what they predict if we withdraw from Iraq is probably wrong too. Why don't we find out? Couldn't possibly be any worse than the monumental clusterfuck going on right now could it? Hell, the Iraqis might just decide to throw all foreigners out on their ears and return to some semblance of normality.

One thing I know is that I wouldn't trust the likes of Gaffney and all of the other folks who thought they were so fucking smart to begin with.

Zakaria was one of the proponents of pre-emptive invasion, but only if done my ideal way ... in his case, with UN support and an emphasis on post-war logistics. He saw this as a path to reform of the arab world.

He's a jackass who can only partially dissociate himself from his previous views, because he's more interested in maintaining his fanciful "sensible" label and get re-invited to Jon Stewart.

There was ample evidence in 2002-2003 that bush was completely fucking incompetent in afghanistan at post-war planning and stabilization. Kharzid was already losing ground, and held little control outside of the capital.

Furthermore, the entire notion of pre-emptive invasion as a path to democracy is ludicrous, smacks of imperialism, facilitates war profiteering and exploitation, and betrays Zakaria's own heritage. He should be ashamed of himself.

I'm sure we can expect him to feature prominently in some bullshit "Fog of War" docudrama in 5-10 years. ... sellout motherfucker.

I think that the Iraq issue has now devolved into nothing more than a political game in our country with every actor trying to do his or her best to come out better than the others in eyes of the audience (voters and the TV watchers). The grave reality of the affect that our decisions have on the lives of Iraqis is just an inconvenient footnote in this despicable debate.

The brutal truth is as follows:

a ) all the bad things that could happen from the troops remaining are true; but

b ) all the bad things that could happen from the troops withdrawing are also true.

My guess is the same as it's always been. Either we reconcile oursevles to stay indefinitely (at least 10 years), or we pull out.

But who is smart enough to say, even if they knew 10 years would do it, that it would be "worth it" and/or that it would be the moral and/or smart thing to do? Nobody. Thus, you don't arrogantly take on that responsibility. You leave.

But it takes courage and honesty to reverse yourself. Way beyond the Bush Administration.

A little history lesson may be in order here:

During World War I, the "war to end all wars", Great Britain under Prime Minister Lloyd George (the Tony Blair of his time) invaded Iraq in 1917 and claimed, like George Bush, "we (the UK) come not as conquerors but as liberators." After the war, the Brits arbitrarily carved out the territory they called Iraq from the former greater Mesopotamia that was under Ottoman rule for almost 400 years until the first World War ended it. The Brits told the Iraqis they would have "democracy," held a referendum to prove it, and "elected" a puppet monarch who understood who was really in charge. In 1920, there was an insurrection, and Fallujah was the first town bombed followed by a siege against Najaf. Lloyd George defended his actions on the floor of the House of Commons and claimed "if British troops leave Iraq there will be civil war." Sound familiar?

Winston Churchill was Secretary for War and Air for a time under George in the 1920s and thought it was a waste of British soldiers putting down tribal or sectarian revolts. Instead, Churchill advocated using the new Royal Air Force to bomb villages and was unconcerned if it targeted innocent civilians along with the legitimate resistance struggling (like today) to be free from a repressive occupation. He also authorized what Saddam was condemned for - using poison gas (for the first time ever) against a civilian population. At the time, Churchill wrote: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against 'uncivilised' tribes." In a 2002 BBC poll, this "uncivilised" war criminal was voted the greatest-ever Briton, and his bust is now prominently displayed in the Oval Office occupied by the current war criminal ensconced in it.

British rule in the country was turbulent and harsh until Iraq became nominally independent in 1932 and later finally freed itself from British control after the Baathists expelled the Brits for good in the late 1950s, 40 years after they first arrived and not long after Saddam Hussein joined the party he would lead 22 years later. It took the Brits all that time to learn what the Bush administration should already know - Iraqis won't tolerate a foreign occupation, especially one as harsh as the one now imposed on them. This hopeless adventure was doomed the moment George Bush signed off on it, but the arrogance of imperial power blinded the neocons in Washington to what should have been obvious to them and eventually will be - the battle of Iraq can't be won, and the only alternative is a full, unconditional and immediate withdrawal along with reparations paid to help rebuild the country we pillaged and destroyed.

'All events in history repeat themselves - first as tragedy and then as farce.'
--Karl Marx

The first priority of the Democrats should be to insist on accountability for this war. Solving the mess is still W's problem. If the Dems don't insist on accountability (with all that that entails) and focus only on leaving Iraq, they risk being saddled with the even bigger mess that will probably follow withdrawal. And if there is large-scale genocide after the US leaves, the Democrats will be blamed for a very long time.

Well, even Henry Kissinger has finally come around and admitted to what we've been saying since before the invasion -- that victory in Iraq is no longer possible:

Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors - including Iran - if progress is to be made in the region.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp.

http://tinyurl.com/yl67ne

And when you've lost Henry Kissinger....

Looks like won't have to worry about enough troops in Iraq now, Uncle Charlie is bringing back the draft. Power hasn't even been shifted yet and we have a jump in gas prices, a drop in the market and now, the draft is coming back. Wow, why did we wait so long to get the Dems back in power?

Apparently the straitjacket of maintaining membership in the community of serious mainstream analysts is a powerful one.

I love the way you characterize it. It's so horrible that analysts feel pressure to be responsible. OH NOES!

I love the way you characterize it. It's so horrible that analysts feel pressure to be responsible. OH NOES!

LOL. Too funny AH.

What I want to know is, why aren't all the people who were right about Iraq in the first place dominating the TV discussion panels like Meet the Press?

AH & AL:

Good to see you guys. Keep up the good work!

Did Zakaria by any chance mention that he would be willing for his son or daughter to be the last one to die for aWol's big mistake?

You pesky Iraqis better do what we say, or else we'll stay here and die some more!

As per McCain, we will have so many brave soldiers who are willing to die for GWB's sins.

AH and Al should also step up to the plate.

Kevin,

Let me pose a hypothetical. Suppose we do start a draw-down governed by clearly established benchmarks that have been given to the Iraqi govt. Suppose further our withdraws have the desired effect of breaking some of the logjams and the secular, centrist Iraqis really start to take on/purge the militias and make some compromises. Do we then restore our current troop levels as a reward for meeting or making real progress on the benchmarks? I'd like to hear from some of those that deny the cut-and=run charge answer this.

Zakaria is a typical Washington reporter who looks around and makes little movements in the direction of reality and then looks around for reactions. These guys/gals are now going in the direction of where most of us have been for a long time. Zakaria is not a fool--I don't believe he really believed in the war but in order to maintain his career he had to go along to get along some do it consciously but most don't think very much about it. Ninety-eight percent of mainstream reporters are like that--they are not bad, they just need to make a living and they have the facility to write passionately and well on issues they half-understand and from points of view they half-believe in. That's just the way it is. I say this as someone who has some experience in this area. As T.S. Eliot said in one of his Four Quartets "mankind cannot bear very much reality".

As for Zakaria's point threatening the Iraqi government with withdrawal, he is just announcing the line of some of the people in the government he hangs with; it's a temporary position that has the virtue of shifting blame--very clever and will, in a half-assed way cover a few asses halfway.

No, Zakaria should not say flatly that "we need to leave", for a good reason. There is a centrist possibility (you like centrism, right Kevin?) between just yanking out head over heels versus slogging along as we've been doing for 3 1/2 long years: pull back a smaller force to bases. That way we can be ready to deal with big moves by destabilizing forces without being in the thick of the trouble. Such a plan may still not work out OK, but pulling out alltogether may leave a terrible mess. However badly you feel about sticking around, that could be worse.

NB23

Do we then restore our current troop levels as a reward for meeting or making real progress on the benchmarks? I'd like to hear from some of those that deny the cut-and=run charge answer this.

Sure -- as long as you, American Hawk, the various incarnations of "Al" and the rest of the Bush Cultists -- not to mention Jonah Goldberg -- are at the front of the line volunteering to bolster our troop levels. I'd like to hear from some of those that deny the chickenhawk charge answer this.

And, darn...if the US pulls out, there goes the big prize, dibs on all that Iraqi oil and a US power base smack dab in the middle of the ME. That was the original raison d'etre, right? Maybe we should give it one more 'big push.'

[sigh]

For about the fifteenth time, let me address Gregory's clever chickenhawk ad hominum. I served two years in the US Air Force and four years in the NYS Army National Guard. I enlisted in the post-Viet Nam era when it was very unfashionable to do so. If my skills and services were needed, at my age, I would be willing to go.

let me address Gregory's clever chickenhawk ad hominum

Ad hominem? From someone who just now questioned the "seriousness" of Bush's critics? Don't make me laugh. I call, "minion." If you think America should expend more blood and treasure in Iraq -- and you're so quick to question the patriotism and seriousness of Bush's critics -- then sign your ass up. After all, the Army can always use your skills in parroting prowar propaganda.

Now tell me with a straight face that you expect the ones on these threads insisting that America waste its blood and treasure in Iraq are willing to put their own skin in the game. Hell, you just have to look at the fact that Bush insists on paying for the war with a tax cut to know that Bush knows support for the war even among the cheerleaders is an inch deep. Thoroughly contemptible.

An ad hominum is a logical fallacy, often used by passionate polemicists, to cut off debate rather than advance it. I agree with you that one of Bush's many, many failings is that he has not asked for more shared sacrifice in taking on this war effort. That is different than saying if you can't get pregnant you have no right to discuss abortion, if you can't get drafted you have no right to talk about war, if you're not ready to serve you can't support this one.

A Conservative Plan for Iraq

Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

Some Truths

1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.

2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.

3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)

4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.

5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.

6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.

From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.

New Directions

Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.

Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.

We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.

An ad hominum is a logical fallacy, often used by passionate polemicists, to cut off debate rather than advance it.

Yes, it is a logical fallacy -- but that's hardly the full story, is it? It's a logical fallacy that attacks the speaker rather than the argument. But that isn't what I did, is it? I simply turned your own argument against you. Your evident inability to answer my argument -- which, again, is simply the inverse of your own, does indeed end the debate, but because it's a valid argument, not a fallacious one.

I agree with you that one of Bush's many, many failings is that he has not asked for more shared sacrifice in taking on this war effort.

Not just Bush's -- I challenge you to identify any prominent war cheerleaders who are asking Americans to volunteer to shed their own, or their childrens', blood in Iraq.

Of course you can't -- because, again, support for this war even among the cheerleaders is an inch deep. If the likes of you and the usual suspects were called upon to shed their blood of that of their children in Iraq, support would plunge from even the tepid levels it now enjoys. Especially now, for Americans recognize Iraq as a failure. War cheerleaders like you want to salvage their own vanished honor and credibility -- but they simply, and categorically, aren't willing to do what it takes. So why, indeed, should any other American family be asked to sacrifice what the war pushers aren't willing to?

That is different than saying if you can't get pregnant you have no right to discuss abortion, if you can't get drafted you have no right to talk about war, if you're not ready to serve you can't support this one.

Nice rhetorical sleight of hand, there, "minion." "Support" the war exactly how? Verbally, while insisting other Americans pay the price in blood and treasure? How impressive -- not.

No, no, "minion," again I call. You seek to question the seriousness of Bush's critics. You imply that America should throw more blood and treasure after the sunk costs of Bush's disastrous adventure. For you to do so, let's have your own bona fides. And, again, tell me that you believe the usual suspects here are willing to put their own skin in the game. Put up or shut up.

McCain's son recently enlisted in the Marine Corps. He is the most vocal proponent of more troops, more shared sacrifice. I agree that our political class, as a whole, is not very inspiring. Therefore the consequenses of bugging out of Iraq would not haunt us in years to come? Linking those two ideas is what is called a non sequitor, another logical fallacy.

Fareed is great, he was on Stephanopoulos' show today and pushing really solid points about the Iraqi government and more troops.

One of the best pundit talks I've ever seen was between Fareed, George Will, and Newt Gingerich, also on ABC... I'd love to see a rematch.

I agree that our political class, as a whole, is not very inspiring.

Oh, very droll, "minion." "Our political class, as a whole, is not very inspiring" In other words, I take it that you concede that war supporters almost without exception show their "support" by mouthing off. Some support.

I take it that despite your obvious affinity for propaganda that you aren't considering to lend your facility for bullshit to the war effort. (C'mon, amuse us by telling us that we're making progress there -- practice never hurts!)

Therefore the consequenses of bugging out of Iraq would not haunt us in years to come

The consequences of Bush's failure will indeed haunt us, whether we stay or go. Staying, however, accomplishes nothing -- you simply, and dishonestly, seek to attribute the consequences to "bugging out," rather than to Bush's failure in the first place. That dog won't hunt.

The non sequitir, of course, is in your attempting to change the subject from your own side's shallowness of support, which you tacitly concede, to the consequences of not having other Americans waste their lives in Iraq where you and your ilk refuse to. Well, color me unimpressed with both your fallacy and your insistence that others sacrifice to protect your own sorry hide where you and your ilk categorically refuse to.

Again, I thank you for supporting my contention that although you may have other opinions, you don't support them honestly and therefore aren't worthy of anything other than contemptuous dismissal -- or embarrassing refutation. Refutation that would be embarrassing, that is, if you had any shame.

...quit providing basic security on the streets of Iraq

American troops were not providing security for Iraqis anyway. Like the one guy said on Washington Journal a couple a weeks back, they're building the billion dollar military base in Iraq, and that is why there are 200+ military complaining about Iraq, a growing number.

I love how the wheel turns:
2002 - America: You'd better shape up Iraq, or we're going invade and take over.
2006 - America: You'd better shape up Iraq, or we're gonna leave!

I hate Democratic Rep, Charles Rangel, that guy is fuc*ing stupid. Rangel is calling for the military draft, this way people don't vote for Democrats.

We were lied into this fuc*ing war and Charles Rangel was to lies us even more into the war were losing.

WASHINGTON Nov 19, 2006 (AP)— Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.

Rangel said he will propose a measure early next year. While he said he is serious about the proposal, there is little evident support among the public or lawmakers for it.

WHEN IS NEW YORK GOING TO GET RID OF THIS Sorry SOB.

So where do all these professional failed empaths get their intelligence stovepiped from? The now shut down OSP or the WHIG group? From AEI? From PNAC? From Standard Weakly? From AIPAC?

Kisisnger the quagmire king now says Iraq is unwinnable yet McCave is asking for more troops.
Dubyah refuse to ask for help from neighboring countries. Bechtel has bailed out already because of the war torn state of the country.

Conservaties [a misnomer] have purchased the welfare state of Iraq and will 'steal' [as they say] the taxpayers money. Can we please start calling the conservatives what they really are.

Insane Liberals

--->I hate Democratic Rep, Charles Rangel, that guy is fuc*ing stupid. Rangel is calling for the military draft, this way people don't vote for Democrats.
We were lied into this fuc*ing war and Charles Rangel was to lies us even more into the war were losing.

News flash for the idiot named Cheryl:

He's not calling for a draft to prolong the war. He's calling for a draft TO END THE WAR!!!

If we initiate a draft, it's 1969 all over again and the American people will demand an end to the war.

Really, who the fuck is that stupid? Who the fuck is stupid enough not to see the genius of what Charlie Rangel is trying to do? You start sending rich kids to fight in iraq--hell, you start sending rich kids to basic fucking training--this war will end faster than a handjob on Christmas Eve.

No shit.

mm242

A good time for me to propose my affirmative action military...

We evaluate the demographics of the army and draft ONLY those groups which are under-represented. Rich white kids first.

Peace.

A lot of people probably aren't going to like this post but I am willing to take some heat! An extended analogy (which will save you some money if you ever go to Sin City...).

Let's suppose you sit down at the $400 buy-in no limit Texas Hold em table at the Bellagio. After an hour you are busted. You tell yourself, "The Vegas guys aren't so tough",or, "I just had a couple of bad beats (was unlucky)", so you reach into your pocket for another $400. 45 minutes later that is gone too. See where this is going? How many rebuys do you have to make before you come to the conclusion that you are losing, not because of bad luck, but because your opponents are better than you?

Am I saying that in some general, cosmic sense that the Iraqi Insurgents are better than us? Absolutely not. Am I saying that they are better than us in Iraq? You bet! Don't take my word for it, just look back over the news reports of the last 3 years. After the initial invasion success we have been reactive, behind the curve, at every point. The few times we did try to be proactive (Fallujah, going after Al Sadr, cleaning up Baghdad etc.) have been disasters.

We are fighting the insurgents in their own backyard. They are better informed, more organized, and have clearer goals than we do. Whatever we try they are always 1 or 2 steps ahead of us, forcing us to react their changes in strategy or tactics. Okay--not bring it on: I'm defeatist, a "cut & run type", I "hate the troops/America" etc.

Okay, so what are you gonna do now: reach into your pocket.....?

James

--->Am I saying that they are better than us in Iraq? You bet! Don't take my word for it, just look back over the news reports of the last 3 years. After the initial invasion success we have been reactive, behind the curve, at every point. The few times we did try to be proactive (Fallujah, going after Al Sadr, cleaning up Baghdad etc.) have been disasters.

Guess what dumbass? They don't need to be better. They're not better.

They're "motivated" and that's all they need. In every sense of the word, they're inferior and die by the hundreds every time they try to fight us mano a mano.

Your thinking is flawed because you ain't on the right meme--and the right meme is this: why are we watching them attack us when we should be ambushing and killing them in their own homes and in their own businesses? That's where the FLAW is--you fight these cocksuckers in their homes, neighborhoods and shops if you want to beat them.

The problem is, it's too late. We gotta pull out. what we can't do is stay.

They're not better. They just want to win bad enough.

Huuuuuuge dif.

mm242

As if most Iraq factions would even give an iota of respect, or care, to such a threat. Geez, Fareed, get a clue.

性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 裸体图片 美女自拍 色情图片 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 黄色小说 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房

Meanwhile the Iraqi bloodbath continues. 112 more dead today. Thanks Dems.

Leverage to whom?

minion,

Doubt if you will be recalled because your services are needed. Halliburton does Permanent Latrine Orderly work as well as Kitchen Police work now.

--->Meanwhile the Iraqi bloodbath continues. 112 more dead today. Thanks Dems.

Thanks Republicans, ya mean.

Dumbass.

mm242

We won't contribute to peace and stability through military but we can contribute through providing economic and social support. We contribute by building infrastructure, providing jobs for Iraqis, micro-credit for economic development, etc. These people need help out of the poverty that we have created. We need our money to be addressing issues of poverty. Eradicating poverty will improve US and Iraqi security because people will feel more stable and less inclined to join the insurgency.

Everybody knows there's no point in listening to network shills like Zakaria. Their jobs pay too much for them to risk saying anything terribly different from the status quo.

I look at decisions like this (what course to take on Iraq) as a sort of IQ test. The longer it takes for people to come around to the view that we must leave Iraq and we should've never been there in the first place the more stupid they are (lower IQ). Even Kissinger must be smarter than Dubya as he has already said we can't win.

Get out now, save lives & money, preserve the military.

生态餐厅
日光温室
西装
西服
职业装
进口轴承
消音
海参
最新传奇私服
新开传奇私服
北京婚庆 北京婚庆公司
紫外线消毒器|塘瓷水箱
玻璃钢水箱|无负压
不锈钢水箱
助听器协会网
天津助听器之家
中国助听器与耳聋康复网
内蒙古助听器验配网
湖南助听器服务网
上海助听器在线
助听器博客群
海南助听器直销网

中国助听器大全
助听器
助听器
助听器
斯达克助听器北京验配中心
丹麦助听器上海验配中心
湖南助听器网
名品助听器（南京）直销店
助听器价格查询网
北京助听器第一验配中心
上海助听器大世界
助听器中国聋儿康复网
中国助听器大全
贵州助听器信息港
中国聋人信息助听器交流黄页
广东助听器之窗
聋儿家长助听器交流网
广西助听器验配网
江苏助听器特价网
中国聋儿助听器直销网
甘肃助听器直销网
宁夏助听器网
广东助听器之窗

浙江助听器在线
山东助听器信息网
中国助听器联合交易网
中国特殊教育助听器信息网
拉萨助听器信息中心
上海助听器服务网
助听器
全国聋儿助听器展示交易中心
助听器资料库
北京崇文门助听器验配中心
广西助听器验配网
杭州助听器验配中心
非油品
中石化
非油品
中石化
噪音
冬虫夏草
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作

网站设计
设计
北京网站设计
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网站制作
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站优化
yahoo竞价
google推广
google排名
google优化
网页制作
网页设计
网站建设\
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网站设计 北京
网站推广
网站推广 北京
网站制作 北京

网页设计 北京
网站建设 北京
婚纱摄影
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
数码摄象机|索尼数码相机|三星数码相机|佳能数码相机|索尼数码摄象机|

Please do not hesitate to choose. This

ohetothks666 http://ohetothks666.nu/