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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Triing
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:53 AM

Yikes!

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 03:48 AM

His readers, Dickey?
I fear they have left because you are unable to provide even an interesting dialectic to back your silly assertions. We are a tad bored with finger-jabbing, excessive use of upper case and 'na na na-na nah' playground tactics along the lines of 'You refuse to answer - aha - I've won!'
So yes, you have won, in that you have bored everyone shitless. I don't imagine you've persauded a single person to change his or her views and have merely made most of us more resolute, safe in the knowledge that with such imbeciles supporting it, the current US administration must surely be on the way out.
Now go and look up the work 'Pyrrhic' in your dictionary, there's a love.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:14 AM

First question I saked Ron which he never answered.

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

Now where did it say that Saddam had a connection with 9/11?
Ron never answered. Possible answers would be to say "it did not say that" that or to explain where it said that.

Instead of answering he claims he never accused Bush of trying to make a connection between Saddam and 9/11 and changes his assertion to say Bush was trying to scare people about a future attack like 9/11.

Second question:
Is it not the responsibility of the government to consider future threats to security and possibly avoid them like an asteroid hit?

Possible answers would be yes or no.

Ron refuses to answer the question directly.

Both of the questions are simple not complex and based on something else being true.

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

Demands that I respond to that and says:

"I note you have provided precisely zero evidence against this assertion."

That's right Ron I haven't nor have I claimed to have any evidence nor have I tried nor do I feel compelled to. You are entitled to that assertion just like your copyrighted Intellectual Giant assertion.

Then he asks a complex question, falsely claims it is a simple question and demands an answer"

"Do you believe JFK should have been willing to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public?"

But that's Ron, the crusher of the opinions of others.

Wonder why his readers have left.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:00 PM

Dickey--

I've answered your question--more than once. Your posturing only convinces readers that you in fact can't read English.   Basically, you have no more readers--they're probably bored.

And it's very telling that no matter how many times I ask you to address my question--about the trade---you refuse to do so.

In fact, even I am getting bored with you--especially since you can't seem to grasp that I have already answered your question.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:37 AM

What could be easier than yes or no?

As evidenced by his personal attacks, I detect a deep seated hostility in Ron for anybody that disagrees with him. Such people must be crushed at any cost. Ron is entitled to his opinion but others are not entitled to theirs.

I can imagine what ensues when he orders a hamburger and is asked "with cheese"?

I think that whether JFK was correct or not, it was good that he kept the missiles out of Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Feb 07 - 06:26 PM

Maliki took the cool billion and the troops and handed the operation and the money over to Chalabi.

What a joke!

When will Bush figure it out?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:41 PM

Dickey--

And since I've answered your question, although you don't seem to realize it, are you capable of starting to deal with mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:37 PM

Not angry, just a bit discouraged at the difficulty in getting you to understand English. Now, you were going to tell me what part of "Obviously the missiles had to be removed" you don't understand. Is the verb perhaps hard to find?

You must understand that if you don't comprehend English, it's a bit difficult to converse with you. Perhaps it hinders you in your everyday life also. If so, you have very little basis to criticize Hispanic immigrants. (Not that it's likely to stop you from doing so.) But not understanding also makes you easy prey for propaganda--especially if you don't recognize it. I'm sure Mr. Bush is grateful.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:29 PM

Another complex question attached to a personal attack but unaccompanied by a yes or no.

If your life is all that complicated it is no wonder you are so angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 10:20 PM

Dickey--


What part of "Obviously the missiles had to be removed" do you not understand?

Are all Bushites really as thick as you? Not a personal attack (Heaven forbid), just a matter of curiosity.

And it's painfully obvious that any question such as the one I posed--about the trade-- is more than a bit beyond your mental capacity. Again, not an attack, just an observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:28 AM

From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM

Dickey--

You are truly pathetic, I'm sorry to say. Any sensible American would be glad the missles were removed from Cuba. I modestly claim to be a sensible American. Obviously the missles had to be removed. My only point--which you continue to ignore--is that JFK foolishly and needlessly ran the risk of Khrushchev's turning the deal down--and thereby risked nuclear war-- by his (JFK's) stubborn insistence in refusing to make public the agreement that resulted in the missles being removed from Cuba. That deal was: Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba.

And the main reason he did it was to preserve his and RFK's political careers--which would have been seriously injured by "compromising with Communists"--especially after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

And I am still patiently waiting for evidence from you--as opposed to innuendo/slander---(which is obviously your strong suit)-- that my assertion is incorrect

So this is hoe RD answers a yes or no question?

Why all the personal attacks? His anger seems to be taking control.

Frankly I don't give a damn how JFK did it. I am just glad he did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM

He can read, he might be able to comprehend most of it but he is unable to critically analyse the content.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:25 PM

Dickey--

Check my posting of 19 Feb 2007 1:11 PM. Are you really incapable of reading?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:10 PM

Wouldn't it be easier to answer the question?

Was it good or bad? You do know the difference don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 11:03 PM

Dickey--

I have told you--if you ever learn to read--that it is obvious the US could not tolerate nuclear missiles in Cuba.

I'm sorry if that is the only question you have any interest in.

But you brought up the topic of the missile crisis. And despite your charming childishly simplistic approach to--everything, it appears-------- in history--if you ever read any-- there are shades of gray.

It is a totally legitimate question as to whether JFK handled the crisis right--or needlessly jeopardized the world--by refusing to make the trade public--to maximize his own political gain.

And if, as I suspect, you have no idea on this topic, you will confirm that you are not worth
my time--and I will draw the proper conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:42 PM

All I asked was a simple question: Are you glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or not?

It seems you are going to a lot of unnecessary work to avoid answering.

Another one of Ron's methods to try to wear down anybody that does not have the same opinions.

Refuse to answer a simple question. Pick a side issue to ask a question about and try to use that and personal attacks to prove his assertion.

Ron, you are welcome to your opinions about JFK. Hold them and cherish them forever. But whatever you are trying to assert, good or bad about JFK, does it mean you are glad that JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or are you not glad?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:55 PM

"missile", of course. I knew the other didn't look right.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:54 PM

Dickey--


It is a reasonable question--and not that hard to figure out--to anybody who has made the slightest effort to find out about the Cuban missle crisis.

So: Should JFK have been willing to announce the trade of Cuban missles for Jupiter missles? Yes or no?

If you want to know who brought up the topic of the missile crisis, look in the mirror.

It breaks my heart that it may not be quite simple enough to suit you--no surprise that as a good Bushite, if the issue isn't absurdly simple, you can't handle it. But perhaps in the future you might want to think twice before bringing up historical issues about which you know virtually nothing--and have no desire to learn either.


Sleep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:44 PM

Ron: You ask a complex question and falsely claim it is a simple question. That says a lot about your sincerity.

I have not taken any position on your depiction of the situation.

All I asked was a simple question: Are you glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba or not?

It seems you are going to a lot of unecessary work to avoid answering.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: TIA
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:25 PM

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

A: Only in a very minor way. They are not nearly as widely disseminated as the statements of senior personnel in the Bush Administration and their media echo chamber (Limbaugh, Hannity, Gibson, O'Reilly, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:13 PM

Dickey--

And by the way, do you recall who it was who brought up the Cuban missle crisis in this thread? One clue: Not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:04 PM

Dickey--

Why don't you stop tying yourself up in knots in a desperate attempt to avoid answering the question?

JFK was unwilling to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public--for the very good reason (politically) that I cited.

At that point, anti-Communist hysteria was rampant. You may have heard about air-raid drills--with children told to get under their desks. The Bay of Pigs operation, just the previous year, had been a disaster. JFK and Nixon had competed in the 1960 election as to who was the stronger anti-Communist--and JFK had trumpeted a "missle gap" which did not exist.

JFK was not about to publicly compromise with Communists--even though, by refusing to acknowledge the above-cited trade, he ran the risk of Khrushchev turning down the deal--and thus ran the risk, needlessly, of nuclear war.

When it came time for JFK to be a "profile in courage" by risking his political career for the safety of the world, he wouldn't do it.


I note also that you have provided, as usual, precisely zero evidence against my depiction of the situation.


It's time for you to fish or cut bait. Do you believe JFK should have made the missles- for- missles deal public? Yes or no?


Hope you get more sleep tonight. Don't stay up all night agonizing over this. But you might want to actually do some research--for a change-- before responding.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:39 AM

That question is based on the assumption that he was not willing. It is therefor a complex question, not a simple question.

All of this because you don't want to answer my simple question:

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

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM

Dickey--

Your clumsiness is truly amazing.   You need not play coy--it's not convincing.

You know as well as I do that an American who would be in favor of Soviet nuclear missles in Cuba is unpatriotic. I think we agree on that.

Dickey 15 Feb 2007 10:34 PM: "So you would prefer nukes in Cuba".

QED

(not that I expect you'll know what that means--but virtually anybody else reading it will.)




I hope you're making progress with your sax.

You are making none here--except possibly more evidence for the the allegation that "Dickey is an amazingly credulous right-wing fool"--which we know of course is not true.


Now, again: Do you believe JFK should have been willing to make the trade--(Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba)--public?

Simple question: yes or no?

"I don't know" is not acceptable---unless you want to confirm the already strong impression that you sound off on historical issues without having any knowledge of history--or even enough curiosity to even do any research to learn something.

Schlaf gut.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:46 PM

I guess that billion dollars helped him get over his uneasiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:16 PM

Dianavan:

"Al-Maliki is uneasy" and "al-Maliki had not acquiesced" said by aids and advisers does not translate into "Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 11:13 PM

I asked you if you were glad JFK kept nukes out of Cuba. Can you answer that yes or no? Obviously not because all you can respond with is a personal attack and another question.

Also you falsely accuse me of saying you are unpatriotic.

You got my evidence, you just keep denying it while you have produced no evidence except your opinion and personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:30 PM

The infamous poll was it. And it didn't hold water.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:24 PM

Dickey--

And you have still given no clear evidence against the propaganda campaign (summer 2002 to March 2003).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:18 PM

OK Dickey--do you think JFK should have been willing to make the trade-- (Jupiter missles for missles in Cuba)-- public? Yes or no?

Simple question. You should be able to manage an answer.

And if you deny the accusation that you (and Bush) are seeking to brand people who disagree with Bush (and you) as unpatriotic, I can give you chapter and verse.

Smearing people this way has been a standard Bush tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 07:30 PM

the Soviets removed the missiles from Cuba and in exchange
the US removed the missiles from Turkey.

actually the missiles in cuba would be irrelevant in only a few years when one nuclear sub could nuke all major cities in the US.

btw. 30 years later when McNamara asked Fidel if he would have recommended to the Soviets that the 165 missiles on Cuba be used..

MacNamara was shocked when Fidel said not only that he 'would' have, he 'did' recommend they be used. (knowing full well that Cuba would be destroyed - among others)

Another shocker for MacNamara..
ALso the US naval blockade involved firing relatively harmless depth charges at Soviet subs to get them to surface (MacNamaras suggestion)
Years later he was surprised to learn that the Soviet Submarine commanders actually did not have radio contact with Moscow and were authorized to launch nuclear weapons if attacked. (thankfully the Soviet commander didnot and thats why we are able to have this conversation today). The US did not know that Soviet sub commanders were authorized to use nuclear weapons and they didnt know that they had lost radio contact.

still think it was a good thing the world was brought to the brink of nuclear war?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 02:46 PM

I can say I am glad the missles were removed with out launching a personal attack.

RD cannot. Seems like his every position is supported only by personal attacks.

I have presented the factual evidence that he wanted with out slander or innuendo which RD cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:30 PM

Dickey--

Your slander is in implying--or baldly stating---that anybody who does not believe in using force as a first-- not a last-- resort, is unpatriotic. Perfect Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM

Dickey--

You are truly pathetic, I'm sorry to say. Any sensible American would be glad the missles were removed from Cuba. I modestly claim to be a sensible American. Obviously the missles had to be removed. My only point--which you continue to ignore--is that JFK foolishly and needlessly ran the risk of Khrushchev's turning the deal down--and thereby risked nuclear war-- by his (JFK's) stubborn insistence in refusing to make public the agreement that resulted in the missles being removed from Cuba. That deal was: Jupiter missles in Turkey for missles in Cuba.

And the main reason he did it was to preserve his and RFK's political careers--which would have been seriously injured by "compromising with Communists"--especially after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

And I am still patiently waiting for evidence from you--as opposed to innuendo/slander---(which is obviously your strong suit)-- that my assertion is incorrect.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 09:12 AM

As I recall, the "best evidence" was the poll showing public belief in a 911-Iraq connection going down during the propoganda campaign. But, that "reasoning" was destroyed weeks ago (i.e. by lack of a control group, and confusion of temporal coincidence with causation).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 19 Feb 07 - 12:48 AM

Never did I say that you said that the US would be better off with soviet missles in Cuba.

Still waiting for you to say wether it is good or bad that JFK kept nukes out of Cuba.

The burden of proof is on you to prove your accusation. If you had proof you wouldn't need personal attacks to prop up your assertions.

y evidence against the Iraq propaganda campaign has been giiven.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 04:06 PM

No, I'd be more likely to ask directions from someone who knew the city, and then actually follow those directions rather than scoffing at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 03:29 PM

Dickey--

You still have that old problem about poor reading. Nowhere did I say the US would be better off with Soviet missiles in Cuba--just that JFK stupidly risked nuclear war by not allowing Khrushchev to save face--by publicly announcing the trade of Jupiter missles for the missles in Cuba. By insisting on this, JFK risked Khrushchev's turning the deal down.

Still waiting for actual evidence from you against my assertion.

Of course I do realize that it's a totally unreasonable requirement to expect a Bushite to read anything carefully. But it does make talking to you close to worthless.


And we're all still patiently waiting for that evidence you have refuting the Iraq propaganda campaign.

You might want to note that evidence is different from running off at the mouth--though you tend to confuse the two often. You may want to try to avoid that.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 02:19 AM

Try to imagine, Dickey, a Muslim Theocracy of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, etc. Does that scare you? I'm sure it does.   

Still, I'd rather see that, than nuclear war. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 18 Feb 07 - 01:33 AM

TIA:

Your course of action would be to turn the van around and go home I presume.

That one word answer "carnage" sounds pretty simplistic.

I can say it will get dark tonight with the same degree of accuracy.

What will happen on down the road? Nuclear war for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 07:16 PM

The premise of this thread was that Maliki didn't want more troops.

That was before Bush offerred him a billion dollars.

That was also before al-Sadr went underground.

I still maintain that Bush has played right into the hands of those who wish to see Iraq become an Islamic State.

...and that, Dickey, is the monster that Bush has unleashed.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:38 PM

A story...

Dickey's band is on the way to a gig, with Dickey driving the van. Approaching a stoplight, he flips on his turn signal. Everyone tells him to not turn. "Go straight here, don't turn or you will get hopelessly lost." Dickey turns anyhow, and everyone tells him it was a mistake. Soon they are hopelessly lost, and nobody knows the way. So, Dickey turns around and yells at the people in the back of the van because they cannot tell him a quick way to the gig. "See", says Dickey, "you are just negative Dickey-bashers. You have no plan for getting to the gig." Someone points out that we wouldn't be in this mess if Dickey had listened. Dickey says "oh yeah, well if you are so smart, which way is the gig? So, you don't know do you? Well then, you had better let me do the driving!"

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 05:22 PM

"Would one of those please demonstrate their eerie skill by predicting what will happen it the US pulls out of Iraq?"

Dickey Lad, you asked this same question weeks ago, and I answered it immediately and specifically. Asking it again is a cute little rhetorical trick. I won't answer it again (my own cute little trick - isn't this fun?).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 04:25 PM

Which means your whole premise for this thread was and is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:51 PM

"Al-Sadr's followers agreed to rejoin the government last month, although al-Maliki made none of the concessions the firebrand Shiite cleric demanded." - Dickey

Yes, and al-Sadr has apparently retreated to Iran. Amazing what a billion dollars can do. This doesn't mean, however, that his militia has entirely disbanded. Nor does it mean they will cease to support the Iraqi Army in their fight against al-queda, the Baathists and other Sunni insurgents.

Although al-Sadr wants U.S. troops out, his militia is not responsible for the majority of American deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:42 PM

ATT Ron:

"I hear that there are a number of commando and assassination squads that are disconnected and controlled directly by Iran," the senior Iraqi official said, citing information directly from the prime minister's office. "They have supplied JAM and others with significant weaponry and training," he said using shorthand for the group, from its name in Arabic, Jaish al Mahdi.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/228/52/

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 03:22 PM

Ron: The burden of proof is on the accuser. You have zero proof.

"you still haven't found even one quote to refute the Bush propaganda campaign during the period I specified" Yes I have but you disqualify any proof provided using your personal opinion, proped up with personal attacks which amounts to zero proof

You cannot answer a simple yes or no question. You can't say if something is good or bad.

And even though you claim to be able to predict things you cannot say what would have happened if Russia kept it's nukes in Cuba.

I don't know what would have happened but I believe it wouldn't have been good and I am glad Nukes were kept our of Cuba.

You can't admit to what you believe which leads one to the conclusion that you espouse things you do not believe, hoping someone else will believe them isn't that a definition of propaganda?

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 01:12 PM

Dickey--


As I said, diplomacy frequently involves letting the opponent have a concession. By refusing to let Khrushchev save face, by announcing the deal, JFK stupidly, and needlessly, risked Khrushchev's turning the deal --(Jupiter missiles in Turkey for Soviet missles in Cuba)--down---and thereby risked nuclear war.   Had he done this for Khrushchev, he would have had the same result--Soviet missles removed.

I note you have provided precisely zero evidence against this assertion.

And as I also said, as a good Bushite you can't be expected to know anything about diplomacy.    (Or history, it appears).

If a problem can't be solved by force, you're helpless--and hopeless.


QED

And somehow you still haven't found even one quote to refute the Bush propaganda campaign during the period I specified.

But never mind, your sax is calling you--(and music is calling me).

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 10:57 AM

Dianavan:"One of the Sadrist politicians' top demands was a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, a handover of security to the Iraqi government and a promise not to agree to more U.S. troops without the consent of the parliament. They returned only after a committee was formed to discuss their demands and present them to the parliament, said Nassar al-Rubaie, head of the Sadrist bloc."

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/16675902.htm

"BAGHDAD -- When radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters walked out of the Iraqi government last November to protest Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's meeting in Jordan with President Bush, everyone expected al-Maliki to send an emissary to coax the radical anti-U.S. cleric back into the fold.

When al-Sadr dispatched two envoys, however, al-Maliki asked what they wanted. When he was told that they wanted to discuss the budget, he had them thrown out.

"I don't want to see any of them," one of al-Maliki's aides recalled him saying. "Tell them to come back with an apology because they've let down the government at a crucial time."

Al-Sadr's followers agreed to rejoin the government last month, although al-Maliki made none of the concessions the firebrand Shiite cleric demanded.

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: GUEST,Dickey
Date: 17 Feb 07 - 09:42 AM

When the answer is an obvious yes, RD relies on spin to avoid the answer.

Either it was good that JFK managed to keep nukes out of Cuba or not. Nobody asked what he should have done.

Either the statements of HRC and Kerry influence American opinion of Iran or they don't. Either they reinforce Bush's statements or they don't.

RD wishes to ignore this because he wants everything blamed on Bush, even though he supports Bush when his appointees convict border agent trying to repel illegal alien drug smugglers.

And he has no evidence to prove that there was a propaganda campaign, just his interpretation of what was said. Sir, the burden of proof is on the accuser. People have to be proven guilty, not the other way around and personal opinions do not constitute proof, especially when ones opinions require personal attacks for support. Am I supposed to prove Bush didn't say what he didn't say?


"Plenty here amply DEMONSTRATED the skill"

Would one of those please demonstrate their eerie skill by predicting what will happen it the US pulls out of Iraq?