utocoman wrote:
Wren wrote:
Obama is suggesting what should have been done in 2001 and 2002. He will keep arguing that the Iraq invasion drained time, energy, assets, money, and interest from Afghanistan.

He's right. I will still vote McCain because I believe in a split government. I no more trust farleft libs than I do pretendconservative neo-cons.

Interesting! I suppose that meant you voted Democrat in 2000 and 2004 because you "believe in a split govt)? Or are you just a party line fellow through and through.

Your logic here is abysmal, bub, which is usually not the case for you. I voted for Bush because I thought the Senate would remain Demo in 2000 and for Kerry because I knew the Congress would remain GOP.

If that is party voting, your definition must be different than everyone else. Partyline voting, utocoman, means voting for the candidates of only one party.

Are you a partyline voter?

Nope. Democrats and Independents.

eric hussein miami wrote:
The difference between the Huffington Post and Limbaugh or his ilk, is that lies are not continually used to promulgate a point of view on the Huffington Post. Please, anyone, feel free to point out an opinion on the Huffington Post that is based on lies.

I don't have a clue if Limbaugh or his "ilk" are lying. I don't read or listen to him. As far as Huffington, I could care less about her either. Lying or not, she is definitely one-sided and biased. If Arianna Huffington isn't biased, then neither is Rush. Arianna and Rush are the ying and yang of insipience. Getting unbiased news from either one is a joke.

I'm a big fan of the Council on Foreign Relations. I find them to be neutral and balanced. Here is an excellent article that debates both sides of the issue concerning the surge. The discussants are:
Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies
Steven Simon, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies

http://www.cfr.org/publication/16185/has_the_surge_put_iraq_on_the_path_to_success.html

They have a plethora of discussions on the issues we face.

ThomasK wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Council on Foreign Relations. I find them to be neutral and balanced. Here is an excellent article that debates both sides of the issue concerning the surge.
Well, I suppose they are technically non-partisan, but you need to remember that does not mean the members themselves are unbiased. They can be very biased, and the organization accepts both Republicans and Democrats. I guess they are about as non-partisan as Congress is...they admit both Republicans and Democrats too. Henry Kissinger is a member, and RushReader would have a fit to know that George Soros is a member. George Bush Sr. is also a member. There are corporate memberships as well, which corporations can buy. A great platform from which to lobby from, if you ask me.

You might want to read a little more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Nevertheless, the article you linked was indeed interesting, and they all brought up valid points in their little exchange of ideas. It is a good place to get some discussion on opposing views. The bottom line, however, is that there is no magic wand to make it all better, and no sure thing that will solve all the problems in Iraq. The world is a messy place.

So the question is where from here in Iraq? That is the $64 K question. Stay the course with an indefinite, somewhere on the distant "horizon" withdrawl (the war that never really ends), or set a more direct timetable for withdrawl and proceed along it, reserving the right to make course corrections along the way if conditions warrant. Such a debate, while relevant a few weeks ago, is pretty much moot now, as the Iraqi government has, apparently, made that decision for us. They want us out sooner rather than later, in a time frame much closer to the Omaba plan than the McCain and Bush "somewhere on the distant horizon" plan. If Bush or McCain think the Iraqi's are wrong and want us to stay anyway, too bad. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi's want us to leave, we'll leave. They won't have much of a platform on which to do an about fact on that issue, but it might be amusing to watch them try.

And the world will continue to be a messy place.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Council on Foreign Relations. I find them to be neutral and balanced. Here is an excellent article that debates both sides of the issue concerning the surge.
Well, I suppose they are technically non-partisan, but you need to remember that does not mean the members themselves are unbiased. They can be very biased, and the organization accepts both Republicans and Democrats. I guess they are about as non-partisan as Congress is...they admit both Republicans and Democrats too. Henry Kissinger is a member, and RushReader would have a fit to know that George Soros is a member. George Bush Sr. is also a member. There are corporate memberships as well, which corporations can buy. A great platform from which to lobby from, if you ask me.

You might want to read a little more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Nevertheless, the article you linked was indeed interesting, and they all brought up valid points in their little exchange of ideas. It is a good place to get some discussion on opposing views. The bottom line, however, is that there is no magic wand to make it all better, and no sure thing that will solve all the problems in Iraq. The world is a messy place.

So the question is where from here in Iraq? That is the $64 K question. Stay the course with an indefinite, somewhere on the distant "horizon" withdrawl (the war that never really ends), or set a more direct timetable for withdrawl and proceed along it, reserving the right to make course corrections along the way if conditions warrant. Such a debate, while relevant a few weeks ago, is pretty much moot now, as the Iraqi government has, apparently, made that decision for us. They want us out sooner rather than later, in a time frame much closer to the Omaba plan than the McCain and Bush "somewhere on the distant horizon" plan. If Bush or McCain think the Iraqi's are wrong and want us to stay anyway, too bad. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi's want us to leave, we'll leave. They won't have much of a platform on which to do an about fact on that issue, but it might be amusing to watch them try.

And the world will continue to be a messy place.

Your synopsis of CoFA is correct. That's why I like to go there often. You can't rely on the side that supports your point of view.

Messy place, indeed. If only it was just Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Israel.... Rapid change is occurring in Iraq. It seems precarious at best. I don't think McCain has a choice on what to do if the Iraqis say differently. To me, that's the beauty of what is occurring there. But I don't doubt that we will always have some kind of presence there. For better or worse, we control the Gulf. Nothing moves there without our knowledge and consent. This is extremely expensive and a bit scary to contemplate.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I'm a big fan of the Council on Foreign Relations. I find them to be neutral and balanced. Here is an excellent article that debates both sides of the issue concerning the surge.
Well, I suppose they are technically non-partisan, but you need to remember that does not mean the members themselves are unbiased. They can be very biased, and the organization accepts both Republicans and Democrats. I guess they are about as non-partisan as Congress is...they admit both Republicans and Democrats too. Henry Kissinger is a member, and RushReader would have a fit to know that George Soros is a member. George Bush Sr. is also a member. There are corporate memberships as well, which corporations can buy. A great platform from which to lobby from, if you ask me.

You might want to read a little more about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

Nevertheless, the article you linked was indeed interesting, and they all brought up valid points in their little exchange of ideas. It is a good place to get some discussion on opposing views. The bottom line, however, is that there is no magic wand to make it all better, and no sure thing that will solve all the problems in Iraq. The world is a messy place.

So the question is where from here in Iraq? That is the $64 K question. Stay the course with an indefinite, somewhere on the distant "horizon" withdrawl (the war that never really ends), or set a more direct timetable for withdrawl and proceed along it, reserving the right to make course corrections along the way if conditions warrant. Such a debate, while relevant a few weeks ago, is pretty much moot now, as the Iraqi government has, apparently, made that decision for us. They want us out sooner rather than later, in a time frame much closer to the Omaba plan than the McCain and Bush "somewhere on the distant horizon" plan. If Bush or McCain think the Iraqi's are wrong and want us to stay anyway, too bad. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi's want us to leave, we'll leave. They won't have much of a platform on which to do an about fact on that issue, but it might be amusing to watch them try.

And the world will continue to be a messy place.

Your synopsis of CoFA is correct. That's why I like to go there often. You can't rely on the side that supports your point of view.

Messy place, indeed. If only it was just Iraq, or Iran, or Afghanistan, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Israel.... Rapid change is occurring in Iraq. It seems precarious at best. I don't think McCain has a choice on what to do if the Iraqis say differently. To me, that's the beauty of what is occurring there. But I don't doubt that we will always have some kind of presence there. For better or worse, we control the Gulf. Nothing moves there without our knowledge and consent. This is extremely expensive and a bit scary to contemplate.

I am not sure how much we control the Gulf since Saudi Arabia kicked us out. The Navy patrols it, but our physical presence only exists in Kuwait and Iraq.