woody wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Everybody Loves Raymond wrote:
al-Malaki was misquoted by the German leftist mag trying to boost Obama. This is not what he said. This is a non-story.

Pray tell convict. Please direct us to the correct quote? Make sure it is not on Rush/Sean sites. Those damn Germans never have recovered from their Nazi days have they Ray?

Here you go you stupid clown
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/20/iraq/main4275953.shtml

Now what will you come back with? Maybe nothing like most of your hate filled rants...
LOL. If you had read the whole article Woodrow (and Raymond), you would see that the German magazine is sticking to their guns. From the article you listed.

Today Der Spiegel said it was standing by the accuracy of its interview.

"A Baghdad government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a statement that SPIEGEL had 'misunderstood and mistranslated' the Iraqi prime minister, but didn't point to where the misunderstanding or mistranslation might have occurred," the magazine said, which also noted that several media organizations, including CBS, had pointed out the confusion or tepidness of the spokesman's rebuttal.

"SPIEGEL sticks to its version of the conversation," it said.

If I only had a dollar for every time a politician said he had been misquoted.

truthhurts wrote:
Hmmm. So now now you think both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are stupid. So tell me again, whey are you supporting McCain, the guy who has no plan (other than total victory, no matter how long it takes) to extricate us from EITHER war, and in fact pretty much wants to continue the status quo?

I'm not sure what your problem is. When I read and ponder what is going on in Iraq, I see many issues. I've said before that I didn't think going into Iraq was a "good idea". So I'm not supporting anyone concerning that.

I stated on this forum back in February that Iraq looked like a no win situation. There didn't seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel. I've also said, back then and numerous times, that I was very proud that our country would nominate a person of another race for canidacy for President, it's about time. I've always let my feelings known how I felt about the treatment of Blacks in this country. I've also posted before the feelings I had when I experienced Jim Crow laws first hand.

The surge happened. Work with the Iraqi government progressed. Iraqis themselves started to take control of their lives. Mosul, Basra, and Sadr City are examples of that. Suddenly there seems to be some hope. The Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, went from a 5-year pullout to much less than that. They have worked on reconciliation with the Sunnis. The Kurds seem to flourishing. None of this can be denied. What is worrisome is, will this continue? I hope so. For the Iraqi people as well as our troops.

So what's my problem with Obama? First, he was against the surge. He said it would never work. He did not support it. He put in an artificial timeline that wasn't even supported by the Iraqi government. I don't believe that is the way to handle the situation. You do, OK. Now he is all for a surge in Afghanistan. If surges don't work, why the about face? To me, it shows inconsistency with how he would deal with these problems.

McCain was not my first choice. He is the only other viable choice there is. I don't see these contradictions with him on this situation. The Middle East aside, the "other big" problem I have with Obama is his stance on trade. I believe his ideas on trade are not good for the country and the American worker. As far as the stress and mess our economy is in, I don't believe either can do much for the economy overall. There are so many factors and cycles that whatever they think they can do will be futile. In my opinion.

Now you 3 boys (or you all 1) can insult my intelligence and through out your bigot insults all you want. You really don't have much else you bring to the discussion other than that.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Tommy, I think you need to lengthen your right crutch, you seem to be left leaning today?
I'm noticing a patter with you brown nose. You show up to try and shore up truth. You appear to be very much one and the same. Nice try truth.
Ah, so you think utocoman and I are one and the same huh? Wrong again, Tommy boy....that's what you get for trying to think.

You should get with Decaf and share your delusions. There are plenty to go around between the two of you.

A regular plethora of them.

I never read Decaf, nor do I brown nose him like you two each other. You really do have a lot in common with uto. Your demeanor for one.

woody wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Ilandra wrote:
Yeah lets give the terrorists a time frame for when we pull out of Iraq so that they don't head over to afghanistan and they just keep on top of Iraqis.
Whatever we don't need to give anyone a darned time frame of when we will be pulling out all of our troops.
For crying out loud we are still in several places and noone cries about them.

The Iraqis believe that the only terrorists that are in their country are the U.S. soldiers!!!

Sad but true!!!!

You are sooooo full of shit. Who said this? The liberal baby killing media? I know it wasnt our soliders, they come home and tell us story after story about how 3% of their country hate us and the other 97% thank them everyday. I tend to believe the boots on the ground long before I believe some Bush hater writing from an office in Atlanta...

are you sure it isn't 3% tell it like it is,
and the other 97% are afraid of the soldiers with the 50 cal. guns, tanks and grenade launchers pointing at their homes and family..
so they say what they think the soldiers want to hear....

Here is an excerpt from this website. I don't know much about the Council on Foreign Relations, they seem to be unbiased. The rest of the article is very candid and a good read.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/12521/

Is Iraq in danger of becoming a puppet state of Iran?

Experts say there is potential, particularly in parts of Iraq's religious south that lean heavily toward Iran, but they discount perceived threats that Iraq's Shiite majority-led government will fall under the thumb of Tehran. Instead they say Iraq, despite being primarily Shiite, identifies itself as an Arab state, as opposed to Iran, which is predominantly Persian. "We should remember that the Shiite militias and the Shiites [in Iraq] really don't like the Iranians," says Pollack. "So it's difficult for the Iranians to buy their influence." Yet others say Iran's strategy is focused longer term and for the eventual day when U.S. forces exit Iraq. "The Iranians will always be there," Salameh Nematt of Al-Hayat newspaper tells PBS. "And they feel that, once the Americans leave, the Iraqi government is going to be more willing to cooperate on matters that serve Iran's regional policies andIran's regional domination."