Comments Posted By jay k.
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 16 Comments
i just shrug my sholders and figure that you expect nothing less from the republican party, who has shown time and time again to be more interested in their own power than the good of the republic.
Comment Posted By jay k. On 13.03.2008 @ 16:08
DEMOCRATS CAN'T FIND ANYONE TO HELP THEM SURRENDER
rick,
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 16:26
"...In two years, there will be 15-20 competently trained Iraqi brigades that would be able to take over almost all the security functions we are perfoming now..."
that's what was being said two years ago. c'mon.
#33
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 16:25
well let's be real...anything is winnable...it's a matter of how much blood and treasure you are willing to waste and to what end? i have yet to have anyone show me the cost benefit analysis that justifies dick's little middle-eastern adventure. so much for responsible stewards of the publics money.
#28...
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 15:23
wow...i think you are spinning a bit too fast.
the way i read it the republicans were unwilling to go along with any compromise, and only wanted to give the white house a continued blank check. so reid reverted to his hard-line stance. no matter...there are no leaders in our nations capitol. the closest to that is webb, and the republicans refused to support the troops by backing his bill that would give equal time at home to that deployed. repugnant. given that the current escalation has to begin to end in april, and political reconciliation is very unlikely by that time, it is clear that we need to institute a draft to insure adequate troops to continue the escalation which isn't working.
and while we are at it let's raise the debt ceiling again...for the fifth time since this administration took over.
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 14:08
pug...
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 13:24
anyone familiar with the writings of the neo-cons from the 90's knows that protecting the flow of oil was one of the three prime rationales for regime change. the other two being to protect israel, and our own people in the region.
mARKj...
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 12:50
Oh, and please explain to the rest of the class how Iraq is a “debacle.†Compared to what? Saddam with nukes? Iraq morphed into “Al Qaedastan?â€
what would you prefer to call a situation of your own making which leaves you with no good options?
saddam did not, and was a long way from having, nukes. today iraq is closer than ever to being al quedastan due solely to the actions of dick.
forget whether we even had a right to go into iraq, much less pursue any of the other actions you list...it's a major leap to even think about dreaming that it might have even a miniscule chance at working. you aren't even describing a napoleonic march across the middle east...you are describing a multi-generational imperialistic crusade. of course that is your right...i just hope wiser minds prevail.
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 11:54
the near elimination of iranian influence? iran has far more influence today than ever. the south is basically an iranian state. and maliki is clearly a friend to them. face it their influence is not going away...we have made sure of that. i agree iraq cannot be seperated from the broader middle east...although that is clearly what cheney thought when he dreamt up this debacle.
Comment Posted By jay k. On 19.09.2007 @ 11:22
sauropod is correct, but if we had approached this thing correctly we would have instituted a draft by lunchtime on 9/11 and hit afghanistan so f'ing hard that iran wouldn't think of f'ing with us. if you think support for the so-called war in iraq is soft today, try instituting a draft. there would be rioting in the streets. and of course today iran knows we can't really do a thing to them 'cause we are so bogged down in iraq. if i managed projects like this project has been managed i would be out of work.
Comment Posted By jay k. On 20.07.2007 @ 10:06
