BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM

Sorry Dickey. We aren't Monday morning quarterbacks. We predicted this shit the Friday before the game. Go back and read some late 2002/early 2003 posts. Then compare the real world of Iraq in February 2007 to the predictions (back then) of Teribus, DougR and company to those (back then)of Bobert (and many others posting here). Predictions that were relentlessly mocked by T et. al. Based on accuracy of foresight, who should the quarterback have been listening to on Sunday morning?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 03:06 AM

Captain Ginger - 08 Feb 07 - 05:04 PM

Why restrict it to the "developed" World Carrots?
Sorry Terry, you are right. I should have written 'Name me any country which in the past decade has had mains electricity in its major cities, a functioning health service, an education system from five years to university level, adequate drinking water for nearly all of its population...'
Care to answer?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:36 AM

TIA, you mean something like this:

Teribus - 26th October 2002 - Thread BS: Bush, Iraq War Part 7:

"With respect to brush-fire wars and limited action conflicts, the United States of America has never understood Templeton's philosophy of "Hearts and Minds", and because it is not understood it can never be effectively implimented. That is why you tend to leave situations having achieved short term objectives without achieving long term aims."

On the other hand:
- We have had no "Stalingrad" scenario as predicted by Bobert.
- We have had no "Heads on Sticks" as predicted by Bobert.
- MNF casualties are not in the tens of thousands as predicted by Bobert.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade. The CPA was replaced by an Interim Iraqi Government and disbanded on schedule time.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade a draft constitution for Iraq was agreed upon.
- Counter to the predictions of the all-knowing anti-war brigade the Interim Government held elections and stood down to be replaced by the duly elected government of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 02:19 PM

"We predicted this shit the Friday before the game."

If you are so good at predicting things, predict what will happen if the US pulls out of Iraq now.

If you knew what was going to happen when Saddam was toppled, tell us what would have happened if he was left in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 05:48 PM

One little (as usual) selective quote plus a long list of your own bullet points covers everything for you doesn't it?

Why don't you and Dickey just keep on spewing. The record is clear to anyone who has bothered to pay attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 11:47 PM

Please spew out some of your predictions. I am all ears.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Feb 07 - 11:59 PM

US pulls out of Iraq now = carnage.

US stays in Iraq = ?

Please tell us Mr. All Ears Dickster.....

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 12:01 AM

Dickey--

I predict you will never recognize propaganda when it stems from somebody you voted for.

I predict I will get tired soon of trying to teach you--and realize you are not worth my time. Unless of course it's too much fun to ridicule you--sure hope that doesn't happen--but it's something I must guard against.

Schlaf gut.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 07:21 AM

Not as selective and rare as you might think TIA, if you want to, go back and have a look at them. At the time I did not believe that war was inevitable. I was however, utterly amazed that Saddam and the Ba'athist Regime in power at the time thought that they could get away with the game they had played for the previous eleven years, in the post-911 world irrespective of what France, Russia and China were telling them.

Your predictions are interesting:

"US pulls out of Iraq now = carnage.

US stays in Iraq = ?"

Is that it? Does "?" signify I don't know? So I take it that you do not find yourself in accord with the other alarmists regarding "Civil War". You have in fact no opinion on the matter, but feel obliged to tell others who have why they are wrong. That's rather a strange basis for a rational discussion.

I note that "the usual suspects" are still ducking Guest Dickey's questions. My take on the one relating to the scenario had Saddam been left in place is as follows:

**If you knew what was going to happen when Saddam was toppled, tell us what would have happened if he was left in power.**

- UN sanctions against Iraq would have been lifted about four years ago at the prompting of Iraq's major trading partners (France, Russia and China). The US and UK veto may have theoretically kept sanctions in place but nobody would have enforced them, they were always pretty ineffective anyway as shown by the UN "Oil for Food" Scandal.

- The Iraqi response to Iran's nuclear programme would further destabilise the region with the massive likelyhood of a second Iran/Iraq War sometime within the next two years.

- All WMD programmes, including nuclear, would by now have been reactivated.

- Iran and Iraq for the last four years would have been competing for "Best Sponsor" title for terrorist groups targeting Israel, all to the detriment of any peaceful solution to the problem.

- Lebanon would still be a Syrian "Colony".

- The Iraqi people (Kurds and Arab Shia) would have continued to suffer under the Arab Sunni Ba'athist Regime.

- Most on this Forum would be castigating George W Bush and his Administration for not having done anything to prevent any of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 09:19 AM

Sorry, Terry love, which question of Dickey's have I ducked?
Love the what-ifs, by the way. Your predictions are, as always, a hoot. I've just been trawling through some of your confident prognostications and assertions pre-war - they are equally priceless. If I can be arsed I'll cut and paste a few later so we can all stand in wonder at your grasp of events.
All I can say is, thank f*ck you don't hold any office or wield any power other than on the forecourt!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Feb 07 - 03:28 PM

" Saddam been left in place"--leave it to you, Teribus, to posit a false choice. There were plenty of unhappy Iraqis who might well have toppled him. They could have--and should have--been supported by the US and UK. He might well have had severe health problems which weakened him"--and then been removed. Look at what he turned out to be when captured--an old man. UN inspections--which were proceeding--could well have kept any nascent WMD program from getting off the ground.


Pardon me if I refuse to play your little either/or game.

You'll have to do better.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:00 AM

FAO - Ron Davies
"Please don't chatter on about the UN's weapons inspectors being "allowed" to do their jobs, without first giving credit to the man who got them invited back into Iraq - George W Bush. Hell would have frozen over before they would have been allowed back in if that invitation had been left up to the Government of Iraq."

FACT.

"There were plenty of unhappy Iraqis who might well have toppled him."

Eh? No Ron Saddam's regime would have killed them first.

Who were Saddam's likely successors? - His sons, as happened in Syria when old man Assad died. By the bye Ron, Saddam was a pussycat compared to either of his sons, do a bit of research, anything from any Iraqi who actually ever encountered either of Saddam's sons, particularly any Iraqi footballer or athlete.

No mention of sanctions Ron. As Guest Dickey has pointed out, and you yourself have confirmed - you have no view on anything, there is not a single thing that you believe in enough to actually state an opinion upon it. Your powers of comprehension when it comes to the english language are impaired by your own narrow minded bigotry. There is absolutely no point in entering into any discussion with you whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 11:24 AM

" Please tell us Mr. All Ears Dickster"

I am not the one claiming I can predict things. You made the claim, not I.

RD has to do better than refuse to make a statement.

"I predict you will never recognize propaganda when it stems from somebody you voted for."

I believe that goes for the Libs as well. Strange how they never state what they believe, only what they want others to believe.

If you have better things to do, go and do them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 12:25 PM

Did predict. Was correct. You cannot say the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 05:19 PM

I never tried to make that claim.

How about an encore?

How about some Iran predictions?

Mr Kerry is stating what should be done to curtail Iranian intervention. Take careful note of the accusations he is making.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 09:30 PM

Dickey--


Iran predictions: the US public, having been burned severely by the despicable propaganda campaign the Bush regime used to persuade them to support the war against Iraq, will not fall for the propaganda campaign against Iran which Bush-- (and giant intellects like your good self, Dickey?)--have in mind.

No way will the US public support another blank check for Bush to use force--this time against Iran--as his judgment sees necessary.

The public has finally realized that "judgment of George W. Bush" is the ultimate oxymoron.





By the way, it's interesting that you don't like either of my denials that
Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool..."

That must mean you think Dickey is in fact an amazingly credulous right-wing fool. Since, after all, I denied the assertion that he is. And you disagreed with me.

Again, you need to remedy that reading deficiency mentioned earlier.

But I'm glad that you recognize that I do know how propaganda works. So does the Bush regime. In fact, very few don't seem to understand--only you and Teribus come to mind.

Which would explain why you don't recognize it when you see it. -- (I'm sure your inability to do so has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you voted for Mr. Bush).

But it really is a fault you should remedy ASAP if you ever hope to participate in a discussion of the Iraq war.

Otherwise you threaten to be even less worth debating than you are now.

And that prospect just staggers the imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:07 PM

Sorry Teribus--your crystal ball has proven, shall we say, cloudier than that of most posters on this topic. There is no way to predict Saddam's health, had Bush not invaded, nor whether any rival could have arisen. The sons could easily have been at each others' throats. Etc.

Your glib assurances of how the future would have played out don't carry much weight.



My problem, however, is that it's just too easy to slash your feeble arguments to ribbons. I've really got to stop doing it--but it's just too much fun.

"Putting words in your mouth'--not likely. Just quoting you and your fellow sufferers in self-delusion. You give yourselves plenty of rope---to say the least.



To return to your favorite topic--the one we had so much fun with in 2005--I'm sure you remember. The one you were talking about--I think it was about a week ago.

So, whether Atta was in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official is "unconfirmed". Not only that, it's "UNCONFIRMED AT THIS POINT". And this is a BIG DEAL. Since otherwise you wouldn't have put it in ALL CAPITALS. I want to tell you I am IMPRESSED.

Almost as impressed as I was with your earlier arguments on this topic. My all-time favorite of your debate points has to be your post of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM.



Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 05:47 PM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!

Ron Davies 03 Dec 05 09:05 AM Fuck all absolutely nothing!!!


Etc.



You get the idea.


I have to admit, as I said at the time, that the posting of 3 Dec 2005 10:11 PM is an unanswerable argument.

And it does of course show all your talents at a glance---including your amazing grasp of all the issues, wonderful command of English, and subtle wit.

I can't hold a candle to you in arguments of this sort.



As Gamble Rogers said, "Ah, nostalgia".



Just one cavil.


Perhaps you can tell us why Cheney's answer on 8 Sept 2002 to the question "Has anything changed in your mind?" was not a simple "No, sir."   With no following song and dance starting "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this..."---proceeding to mention Atta, Prague, alleged new information, etc.

As I said earlier, now's the time for you to be really creative--to let the fantasist in you take wing. I'm sure you can think of a delightfully imaginative reason why Cheney did not simply say "No sir" and let Russert go on to a completely different topic.

Who knows, maybe you can be even more creative than you were on 3 Dec 2005---though admittedly that posting would be hard to beat.

But you can give it a try--for old times' sake.

Looking forward to your typically well-argued, calm, logical response.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 11 Feb 07 - 10:54 PM

After eading this I don't know what Ron believes:

"By the way, it's interesting that you don't like either of my denials that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool..."

That must mean you think Dickey is in fact an amazingly credulous right-wing fool. Since, after all, I denied the assertion that he is. And you disagreed with me."

The only thing I can draw from it is that the learned Ron must resort to personal attacks in lieu of facts.

"the propaganda campaign against Iran which Bush-- (and giant intellects like your good self, Dickey?)--have in mind."

Is that a fact Ron? Do you believe that?

Seems to me that Hillary Clinton must be one of those giant intelects involved in Ron's alleged propaganda campaign against Iran:


Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs January 19, 2006

"...I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not — must not — permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran — that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:38 PM

Gee Dickey, I can't understand why you think I'm making personal attacks on you. I keep denying that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.




Re: Hillary: As usual, you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. If you think that by citing Hillary's words, you are somehow undercutting my position, you are sadly mistaken. I am no fan of Hillary. I think she's far too calculating in what she says--in a desperate--and futile--attempt to prove Lincoln wrong--"You can please some of the people...."

I am severely tempted to think that Hillary believes in nothing--except that she should be the next president of the US.

I find it fascinating that you don't deny you can't recognize propaganda when it comes from somebody you voted for. No surprise then that you don't recognize Bush's propaganda.

Added to which, there is a big jump between criticizing another country and persuading the US public that that country must be attacked. Bush's Iraq propaganda campaign was geared to the latter. Hillary's remarks, I venture to say, are not. When she comes out for invading Iran, you will start making sense.

You really do need to practice reading--and comprehending.

Personal attack? Perish the thought. Just friendly advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Feb 07 - 09:49 PM

Actually I think the Lincoln quote was "You can fool some of the people....."--but it's the same principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:00 AM

As usual Ron cannot provide any facts or sate what he believes in.

Just some sort of meaningless, self admiring, meandering with condesending thinly veiled personal attacks.

Ron, an intellectual giant like yourself can certainly do better

Do believe that what Hillary said on January 19, 2006 is propaganda or not? A very easy answer for someone of superior intelligence to answer.

"And we cannot take any option off the table"

Would an invasion or threat of an invasion be one of her options on the table "And we cannot take any option off the table"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:18 AM

Iraqi PM: Surge delay is costing lives

Iraq urges speed for U.S. surge

"...Iraqi politicians -- Shiite and Sunni alike -- urged the government to speed up implementation of the plan, which President Bush announced Jan. 11. The operation would put thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops on the street to protect civilians against sectarian bombers and death squads...."

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 12:30 AM

From that same article, Dickey, "Under American pressure, Shiite politicians persuaded radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to pull his Mahdi militiamen off the streets to avoid a confrontation with the Americans.

But many Shiites complain that the move effectively handed the streets to Sunni extremists before U.S. and Iraqi forces were ready to assume control.

"This delay in the implementation of the security plan is not good and has had negative consequences for Iraqis," said Falah Hassan, a spokesman for al-Sadr's movement. "We demand that the plan be executed as soon as possible because the terrorists are going too far in their vicious attacks."

That is exactly why Maliki didn't want to remove the Mahdi militiamen. Now that he has, there still are not enough U.S. troops and the Sunni's are taking over. Maliki and al-Sadr had it right and now the U.S. has botched it again. When will the U.S. allow Maliki to make the decisions about Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:17 PM

Did or didn't Maliki want more troops?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 03:44 PM

See opening post.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:22 PM

Tia: See

Iraqi PM: Surge delay is costing lives

Does Makiki want more troops ot not? Yes or no?

Iraq urges speed for U.S. surge

"...Iraqi politicians -- Shiite and Sunni alike -- urged the government to speed up implementation of the plan, which President Bush announced Jan. 11. The operation would put thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops on the street to protect civilians against sectarian bombers and death squads...."

Do the iraqis want more troops or not? Yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:32 PM

I've told you my view on Hillary already, Dickey--when will you start reading what others say? It may save you from making some inane inquiries. That would be a pleasant change.

Not that I would ever want to suggest that you are an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.
As Cheney said, "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."





I do not like Hillary (Sam I am). I do not like her approach of trying to satisfy all imagined listeners. I would far prefer it if she would actually stand for something. (Not likely, it appears).

Her "tough guy" approach--"not take any option off the table" repels me. And in my view is stupid--since it tends to unify Iranians behind their current leader.

So, I'm sorry you won't get me to defend her on that.

But, as usual, you are incorrrect--that remark is not propaganda. Propaganda is speech attempting to convince your audience. That remark is not geared to convincing--except possibly to try to lure giant thinkers like yourself-----(who seem to see every problem as a nail--since you only have a hammer: the use of force)-----to support her.

Her remark will convince nobody to support an attack against Iran--in contrast to the Bush regime's continual linking of Saddam and 9-11 during the propaganda campaign against Iraq.   A campaign which--all together now--ran from summer 2002 to March 2003.

And which neither you nor Teribus--nor any other Mudcat Bushite-- have yet found even one quote to refute.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:34 PM

Er, Dicky, that's the trouble. Some doubtless do. Many surely don't. There is no 'Iraq' in a unitary sense. Some factions (particularly Maliki) depend on the US influence. Old foxes like Talebani can probably go either way, and many, many more do not want the US in Iraw.
But that's probably a bit too complicated for you, isn't it poppet. Shades of grey/gray aren't your strong suit.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 05:53 PM

Dickey - At first, Maliki did not want more U.S. troops. He then agreed to a troop surge and removal of al-Sadr's, Mahdi militia. Unfortunately, the level of U.S. troops that Maliki thought would arrive have not materialized and now the terrorists (probably Sunni) have taken over.

I really do not think that Maliki should trust Bush. Bush does not want democracy, he wants a Sunni puppet in power in Iraq. He never expected democracy to include a Shiite as leader. Bush will continue to create havoc in Iraq until a Sunni is in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:16 PM

Dianavan-

I'm sorry, I must disagree. Do you have one shred of evidence to support your allegation that Bush wants a Sunni puppet in Iraq?

What Bush wants is to be able to declare victory (again)--even for a microsecond--and then remove US troops from harm's way--stop the embarrassing flow of body bags-- a flow which tends to make people think the Iraq war may not be the triumph he assured us it would be.   Can't understand why that is so.

Interestingly enough, Bush may well get his wish--as I said earlier.

1)   Al Sadr has told his people to not wear their black uniforms for a while. They will melt back into the population--which will gratefully receive them.

2) Sunni extremists will go into the provinces, where they and their sympathizers know the territory--and the Americans don't.

3) Anybody else interested in revenge, civil war, or just crimes of opportunity will lie low for a while.

Bush and Maliki will brag about neighborhoods "cleared"--and the body count will go down.

Bush will declare that "the surge" worked.

Then the Americans will leave, and all will return to normal--that is, to current conditions of slaughter.

But Bush will have been able to claim victory--and that's all he wants.





The only thing that could possibly stop this scenario--as I've told Teribus over and over--and he has denied is if conditions change so that 1) Sunnis can trust the police-- and 2) they are guaranteed more oil income than would accrue to just the "Sunni" parts of Iraq.   These two changes are essential in order to cut down on the appeal of "the insurgency".

Without them, the Iraq situation will never improve.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:20 PM

"--and he has denied-- is... "

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 06:33 PM

By the way, Dickey, I have copyrighted the term "intellectual giant". My attorneys will be contacting you shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM

So Maliki was aginst the surge before he was for the surge.

I see that you speak not only for Maliki but all of the people of Iraq.

And that I see the Intellectual Giant©, Ron, knows everything that will happen well in advance. That must be an awful responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM

You may be right about Bush wanting victory but I still believe he would feel alot happier with a Sunni at the helm. Maliki is backed by al-Sadr and Bush doesn't like that at all. Bush never thought that his push for democracy would put a Shiite in power.

Dickey - I have given up talking to you. I never know if its you or truther or able or who. Go talk to a wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:19 PM

Thanks for honoring my copyright, Dickey. I think there's still time to cancel my attorneys' visit to you. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

If you don't think my scenario for Iraq is likely, what's yours?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:22 PM

Bush just wants to stop the US body-bags. Not because of the human tragedy--if that were so, he never would have started the Iraq war----but because the continuing flow might possibly impair his "legacy"--which, at this point, is all he cares about.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:29 PM

But, of course, he doesn't want to stop the flow of US body-bags enough to bring home the troops now. He must be seen to "win" in Iraq--even for a nanosecond. Otherwise the US public might possibly think the Iraq war was a criminal waste of lives and resources. And we can't have that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:35 PM

Hey don't run off and leave me. I need you to tell me what is really happening. I read one thing but you are able to interperet it into the truth.

It's like we are back in the dark ages when everything people saw was exactly what the evil spirits wanted them to see. Reality was always the opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 09:39 PM

Only problem is, Dickey, that I don't claim to be an intellectual giant. I have however, described both you and Teribus as IG's. Don't you think you deserve the designation? You need not be so modest. Your work speaks for you--and tells us everything we need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:11 PM

So you trademarked something for me and Teribus? How kind of you.

I really need you to tell me what is going to happen and to help me sort out the propaganda from the lies and the truth.

Like this one:

   Speaking on ABC's "This Week" television programme, Senator John Kerry said he has no doubt that "there are weapons flowing across the border" from Iran.

    "Nobody questions, those of us who have been to Iraq and in the region know that there are Iranian instigators, agents in Iraq, and that's happening, there's no question," Kerry said.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM

Dickey--


So there are weapons coming from Iran. This is a revelation? Question is: is this the policy of the Iranian government? At this stage--unclear--as Peter Pace noted.

It may yet be clarified.

But so far, it appears the Bush regime is shooting from the hip, as usual, in alleging that it is is official Iranian government policy.


By the way, still waiting for your competing scenario of how "the surge" will play out. Since you seem to not think mine is likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 12:13 AM

I don't pretend to tell the future. I keave that up to those that profess having the skill.

I believe trying has more chances of success than a retreat. I think there is an old saying, If at first you don't succeed.. you know the rest don't you?

So when Bush says anything about Iran it is a propaganda campaign but when Hillary or John Kerry say something the agrees with what Bush says it is what? Truth, lie or propaganda?

Surely a learned man like you must know.

Are you alleging that it is not official Iranian government policy?

Do Iranian agents decide on their own what countries to enter and whether to take weapons or not? DO they pay their own expenses? do they get paid by the Iranian government while wandering on their own?

I have many questions that need answering by an expert like yourself.

You see I can't just take things at face value. I need someone like you to devine the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 07 - 08:32 AM

Dickey--

Remember, Dickey, you are the intellectual giant. I can only guess, based on what I read--primarily in the Wall St. Journal.

But, in contrast to the Bush regime, I try not to pick force as the number one method to solve any problem.

And I ask for evidence before reaching a conclusion. I don't pick the conclusion--then look for evidence that supports it, while rejecting all other evidence--which is the Bush regime's SOP.

And I don't operate on the "axis of evil" premise.

If you think we should "try" in Iraq:

1)   What do you think we've been doing for the past 4 years?
2)   How long do you think US troops, in the current numbers, should stay in Iraq?   "I don't know" is not acceptable as an answer--that would mean an open-ended commitment.
3)   How many more dead American soldiers-- (not to mention "Coalition" and Iraqis)-- is it worth to you?


And if you don't think my scenario is likely, you have an obligation to provide yours--otherwise it will be obvious that you are not worth debating.

And I will draw the proper conclusion.


Re: Iran

There is a difference between observing and devising a conspiracy theory.

All parties can observe that some weapons used in Iraq were very likely made in Iran. It is however a leap to assert, as the Bush regime does, that this is the official policy of the Iranian government.


Does Maliki have complete control over Iraq?. If weapons made in Iraq were found in Turkey, would that be all the proof you would need that attacking Turkey was official Iraq policy?

Kerry, et al. observe; the Bush regime seeks to use the observations as reasons to attack. And I have already told you my view on Hillary.    Her statements are not helping anybody--though she imagines they are helping her.

Furthermore, please tell me why sabre-rattling against Iran will help the Iranian opposition against the current Iranian regime. As an article here has already pointed out, the Iranian government is already under pressure from various discontented groups. But Bush hardline policy--with threats to attack--make it easy for the Iranian regime to make the case that "we have to stick together against the American threat".

If you disagree, please say why--with logic of your own--not absurd red herrings from politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 01:06 AM

Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?

Do they reinforce what Bush says? Or is it the other way around?

I don't see the difference. But you claim it is different. Yes, different in the standards you hold different people to.

As for how long, how long did we stay in other countrys? Korea, Germany? How long does the average insurgency last? 9 years I think. We still have 5 years to go.

Have any other presidents had a hard line policy? Kennedy and the Missle crisis? Aren't you glad he stuck to his guns?

Have you ever heard of ANSWER? WWP? SWP?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:52 PM

Dickey--

HRC (Her Royal Clintonness?). Read what I said earlier on her. I do not support her.

Kerry--he observes; he does not hang the Iranian regime for the crime. Nor does Peter Pace -- (if you don't know who he is, please find out before posting again). Are Bush regime spokesmen beating the drum against Iran? Is Kerry? If you can't tell the difference, you need to do more reading.


5 years more in Iraq? Thanks for answering directly. But you're dreaming--and your dream is a nightmare for the rest of us.

If there is not dramatic improvement in Iraq within a year, the US will be gone from Iraq, aside from "advisors". If my Iraq scenario, discussed earlier, occurs, the US public will rebel against the Iraq war. Bush will be powerless to stop the withdrawal.

JFK and the missile crisis: again you need to do some more reading.

JFK engaged in duplicitous, foolhardy brinksmanship by not being willing to reveal the actual way the crisis was defused. Why? After the Bay of Pigs. he and RFK felt they could not afford politically to be seem to compromise with Communists. So they did not want to let Khrushchev reveal that the Cuban missiles were withdrawn in exchange for Jupiters in Turkey. By refusing to let Khrushchev do this--and thereby save face-- they risked his rejecting the deal--solely for their own political futures.

So they risked the safety of the world--for their careers.

Am I glad he stuck to his guns? No.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 09:53 PM

"to be seen"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 15 Feb 07 - 10:34 PM

I find one answer. You are not glad that JFK forced a showdown, made a deal or whatever, and kept Nukes out of Cuba.

So you would prefer nukes in Cuba. Now using your awesome powers of prediction, what would have happened if the Soviets put their nukes in Cuba.

And again, a simple yes or no answer, very easy for you:

Do the statements of HRC and Kerry help to form the opinion of Americans toward Iran?

And does "the rest of us" include you and everybody else the world that you have been appointed to speak for?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 07 - 10:49 PM

My dear friend Dickey--


That's right--when in doubt, smear the opposition as unpatriotic. Perfect Bush. That's a main reason why the US is polarized--precisely that sort of attitude.

And you wonder why thinking people are not fans of Bush. It seems only yahoos are.

As usual, you read poorly. I've already explained the situation to you. But here it is again.

JFK " stuck to his guns" needlessly and recklessly, endangering the world to save his and RFK's political careers.

He could have had the same result--withdrawal of the missles from Cuba--if he had been willing to let Khrushchev proclaim that Jupiters had been exchanged for the Cuban missles. And, as I recall, the Jupiters were scheduled to be removed soon anyway, as they were close to obsolete.


I did not say I would be happy to have Soviet missles in Cuba. But JFK could and should have been willing to let Khrushchev save face--important for him--in order for the missles to be withdrawn. By refusing to do so, he risked the Soviets turning down the deal--and thereby risked nuclear war.

I have told you what JFK should have done.   If you disagree, please specify exactly why I am wrong--and please use some logic --for a change.

In diplomacy--- unlike debating---it is often worthwhile to let the opposition derive a benefit from the process. But of course, as a good Bushite, you can't be expected to know anything about diplomacy.

I have little time to waste on you these days--please read some history before you favor us with more of your (brilliant?) analyses.

Re: Kerry and Hillary--I've already answered that question. Sorry if you don't like the answer. Maybe eventually you'll understand that not every issue is black and white. But then your hero Mr. Bush doesn't, so perhaps you are also a hopeless case. As Captain Ginger points out, shades of gray aren't your strong suit.

You'd be best advised to spend more time on reading and music, as I intend to do.
I'm sorry to say you are getting boring.



Alternatively, in your copious spare time, you can come up with just one quote by a Bush regime spokesman, during the period summer 2002 to March 2003, clearly refuting any connection between Saddam and 9-11. (The one you have cited is worthless--it is severely undercut in the very next paragraph--similar to the "denials" that Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool.)


You still, after wasting all this time with absurd generalizations, have not come up with one clear quote--that is, one which is not badly undermined by what comes after.

The propaganda campaign by the Bush regime in that period is a fact, not a theory. And you still have no evidence to deny this.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:11 AM

Dickey said snidely: "I don't pretend to tell the future. I keave that up to those that profess having the skill."

There's no profess about it sweetie. Plenty here amply DEMONSTRATED the skill. Go read posts from late 2002/early 2003. It's just plain eerie.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 12:20 AM

I don't think its odd that so many predicted what would happen. Thats just plain common sense and a bit of history. What's wierd is that Bush got away with it and is still getting away with it.