Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 246 Comments
"For that to happen, someone would have to make the first move. And as it stands now, both sides are too proud, too rigid to make that happen."
What sort of first move would you suggest?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.09.2007 @ 08:54
BUSH'S IRAQ UNRECOGNIZABLE FROM THE REAL THING
"Who here actually thinks that a failure and collapse in Iraq won’t have any tangible effect to them here at home?"
Hasn't effected me so far. How has it effected you?
Anyway, any conceivable collapse of Iraq is going to effect me far less than a possible war with Iran which is a serious risk the longer we stay in Iraq.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.09.2007 @ 08:37
"Drongo, you have a very curious definition of the word “leadersâ€..."
Well, it is as good a term as any. If you prefer we could say "People with the power of the purse in Iraq" (though that is pretty touch and go) or "Member sof the US backed government in Bagdhad".
"And which splinter group exactly are you talking about when you say “they are going to be [close allies]� "
They guys in nominal charge of the country, SIIC, Dawa, etc.
"Maliki’s kleptocrats?"
Yes.
"The Madhi Army?"
No.
"Sistani?"
Jury's out.
"Al Qaeda?"
Certainly not.
"I’m sure you can’t be talking about Iraq, because most Iraqis aren’t “close allies†with Iraq."
No, I am explicitly not talking about the Iraqi populace as a whole.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.09.2007 @ 05:56
"The Iraq I have just partially described (don’t get me started on the police, the army, the Council of Representatives, the Interior Ministry, the corruption, or that empty suit of a sectarian gangster Maliki) is Iraq as it is – a morass of security, social, political, economic, and psychic problems that no army on the planet can fix."
Now that you see it clearly, can you explain why this situation is worth the Death of one more US soldier? What would you say if you had to explain to a grieving mother why it was worth keeping him in Iraq?
"Many on the left have a heart attack every time Maliki and Ahmadinejad meet, breathlessly telling us of the coming Shia convergence between the Iraqis and Iranians. Both peoples may be Shias. But there was the little matter of the Iran-Iraq War not to mention the historical enmity between Arabs and Persians. The Iraqis don’t trust the Iranians, period."
As for this, you are generalising the people with their leaders. Iraqis in general may not trust the Iranians, but the Iraqi Shia elites (Of whom Malaki is one) certainly do. You know full well where Malaki was during the Iran Iraq war, and it wasn't in Iraq shooting at Persians.
Not that I see a big problem with these neighbours having good relations, but don't kid yourselves that they are going to be anything less than close allies.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.09.2007 @ 04:10
ATTACK ON PETREAUS A SURE SIGN OF DESPERATION
"It is achieving many of the goals that Petreaus set for it. There is progress being made – measurable progress."
Really? I can't see any at all. The major high point seems to be that, in an area not covered by the surge, we are arming militias made up of people who want to fight the central government. This doesn't seem much of a high point to me.
Still, this is just another Friedman Unit grabbing PR surge. In 4 months we'll be at doom and gloom again, then at 5 months we'll see the next PR surge start (probably around the withdrawl of a couple of thousand troops), and buy the last remaining FU until a Democrat can be blamed for losing Iraq.
But I won't say I told you so, of course.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 11.09.2007 @ 01:46
"Feel free to prove me wrong, but your posts reveal an underlying BDS affliction, although it is a mild enough case that you’re still able to engage in civil discourse here, and perhaps are even still able to enjoy a pint or two on occasion with a person who has supported Tony Blair."
I love this BDS thing that you have going. As far as I can tell the majority of your population are infected with it. Even the esteemed host of this site seems to suffer from it occasionally. Given that the entire idea is simply absurd, I can't imagine how I would prove the absence of BDS to you. Could you tell me how yo distinguish between someone who dislikes the man intently for his cronyism, incompetence, bullheadedness, ignorance and gross responsibility for numerous thousands of violent deaths, from someone who is suffering from BDS?
The idea that disliking Bush must be driven by an irrational syndrome should have been put to bed a long, long time ago.
As for Mr.Blair, some good, some bad. I really appreciate the effort that he put into the NHS (I work in it and can see the difference clearly) but think that he made the biggest mistake of his life hitching himself to the Iraq train. I suspect that, looking at how things have gone, he would agree in his quiet moments. At least Mr.Brown has enough leeway to recognise this and is pulling away slowly.
"a lot of people are allowing themselves to be played like a fiddle by the movement or mindset they’ve ascribed to."
As for this, yes, it goes on everywhere. But this stuff is just blatant. I don't trust any of those websites. How on earth can you trust the Bush administration now, after the past years of deceipt and incompetence?
Do we need a syndrome for you? Maybe Bush Enrapture Syndrome?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.09.2007 @ 16:15
"I often have similar thoughts when reading through the posts/comments on echo chambers such as DU, LGF, C&L, Hannity’s site, Kos, NewsMax, ThinkProgress, MediaMatters, etc."
Hmm, so we are comparing partisan websites and their commentors with the proclaimations of the government of your country.
Well, I suppose that the comparison is fair. I'd just expect a whole lot more integrity from my elected representatives, that's all.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.09.2007 @ 03:46
"Is it possible that this “tape†was manufactured by the Bush Administration and released just days before the Petreaus Report to Congress on Iraq in order to sway nervous Republicans into standing firm while reminding the American people that Iraq is part of the War on Terror?"
It is not possible, because the Bush administration would never lie about such important matters, just for political gain. It is impossible. It would never happen. They are too suffused with integrity, love for truth and respect for the American people for that.
*sigh*
"One can accuse the Bush Administration of incompetence in many areas but you would think if they were going to run a fake video, they might have done a better job of manufacturing it so that some guy in pajamas sitting in his mother’s basement couldn’t expose them."
How long did it take to find out that the Niger Yellow Cake documents were faked? I believe that it was an hour on Google, they were so clownishly done.
Besides, this tape fooled you, it fooled the CIA, it fooled Fox, CNN, BBC, ABC, etc, etc. It can't have been so bad.
Doesn't there come a point where you recognise that you are being played? Doesn't it get embarassing eventually?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 11.09.2007 @ 01:59
"Well, I personally know The Left and it seems to me The Left’s main reason for supporting withdrawal is that we can’t do anymore for the Iraqi people, we can’t afford 12 billion dollars a month to accomplish little or nothing and that the entire quagmire isn’t worth even one more American death.
Maybe you’ve been speaking to an imposter?"
Shhhh, you can't say things like that. The Left in this world are a bunch of ignorant savages who think that a few hundred US troops killed, or another thousand Iraqis killed is a good thing, who support Al-Q in their goals, desire to live under Sharia, and who are generally traitors or idiots or both.
And of course, they are completely unwilling to engage in grown up discussion and reach compromises with the right.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.09.2007 @ 18:16
"YOU VILL DO VUT I SAY AND BE HEALTHY, EH <em>SCHWEINHUND?"</em>
"We will eventually ration health care based on use, not need. The less you use the system, the longer you live.
The Brits are halfway there already."
How would you know, foreigner?
It seems a simple equation really. You have a socialised healthcare system based on general taxation which provides a good level of health care, free at the point of need.
Over time the costs of possible healthcare exceed the acceptable revenue input (as we can cure more, costs go up and treatments get more expensive).
So the logical practice is to then ration the socialised healthcare according to criteria in addition to need. For instance, many surgeons are reluctant to do liver transplants on alcoholics. Their reasoning is that they will be providing maybe 1 year of life for the alcoholic and 5 years for the non-alcoholic. Is this nice? No. Is it fair, it is hard to see why not.
The point often forgotten is that there is not *only* the NHS in the UK, there is a thriving private sector as well. If you want to keep drinking and get your liver transplant then you'll have to pay for it. If not then, well, tough decisions have to be made in a world of finite resources and infinite need.
The gag really is that few people are arguing for one thing or the other. You would agree (I presume) that a portion of your tax revenue should got towards basic healthcare for the poor and vulnerable. I would never countenance someone who wanted to prevent someone from paying for their own healthcare. What is being disputed is the degree to which we fund the taxpayer version against expecting people to use the private version.
In the UK we have a system that allows you to get all emergency care and most clinical care under the shared socialised model but allows you to go outside that model if you want to.
In the US you have a system that allows you to get some emergency care (in some circumstances) and some clinical care (in some circumstances) but expects to you to be using the private model if you possibly can.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.09.2007 @ 06:03
