WTF - Broad Optimism in Iraq....

[chris-dax]

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high. But views of the country's situation overall are far less positive, and there are vast differences in views among Iraqi groups

[bikehorn]

political threads are overrated.

 

D for effort.

[rikshaw]

i always thought that it was eff for effort

[cthulhu0]

i think this counts as a "t" for troll.

 

hey, f#$$ the optimism, where are those WMD? terrorists? why are we there again?

[rikshaw]

Originally posted by cthulhu0 i think this counts as a "t" for troll.

 

 

[bbl]

 

Originally posted by chris-dax Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq Hmmmmm....very interesting....c-d

 

 

That's not "interesting." That's good news (well, if you can count poll results as "news"). It's good to know all the positive things happening in Iraq.

 

What's "interesting" to me is that you didn't paste the entire article.

 

For instance, you excluded this piece:

 

Negatives

 

Other views, moreover, are more negative: Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004.

 

The number of Iraqis who say things are going well in their country overall is just 44 percent, far fewer than the 71 percent who say their own lives are going well. Fifty-two percent instead say the country is doing badly.

 

There's other evidence of the United States' increasing unpopularity: Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon.

 

Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent).

 

Did you run out of space, or did you only include the results of that poll that fit your agenda?

[bbl]

Oh, I've been trolled.

 

You know, I didn't think there were any regular trolls here since Boy #152, but it's plainly obvious that chris dax is a troll.

 

[chris-dax]

Originally posted by bbl Oh, I've been trolled. You know, I didn't think there were any regular trolls here since Boy #152, but it's plainly obvious that chris dax is a troll.

 

you obviously are incable of making any kind of coherent response to the topic of the post....

 

my suggestion....move on....

 

you're boring....and apparently have no opinion other than "anyone who doesn't agree with my enlightend opinion is a troll"

 

But other than "you suck" you have nothing....completely blank....

 

But just so I can be compeletly clear....you, bbl, are a dim bulb....you can't keep up.....you are an idiot.....

 

try making some kind of intelligble statement about the post....

 

or just shut the {censored} up and piss off....c-d

[zomawia]

burned!

[rikshaw]

but he has chris elliot in his avatar

 

 

[chris-dax]

"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there," Senator Lieberman wrote on November 29. "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will [in Iraq]."

 

When that policy substance was ignored in Washington, the Senator repeated his case last week in the political language the Beltway press corps could finally comprehend: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander in Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

We're now in the early stages of what might be another long struggle, this time against Islamist terrorism. While a Republican President is trying to win a campaign in Iraq that is part of a larger war, most Democrats are assailing his policy and predicting disaster, and even the party's senior Members have begun a Vietnam-like chant to "come home, America."

 

Democratic Chairman Howard Dean took a public shot at Mr. Lieberman, and his brother Jim Dean, who runs something called Democracy for America, is ginning up a letter-writing assault on the Senator. "It is disturbing enough that Senator Lieberman remains one of the President's biggest cheerleaders. But his call for opponents of the President's failed policy to keep quiet is outrageous," Jim Dean wrote last week. Meanwhile, at the fever swamps of MoveOn.org they're talking about a primary challenge to Mr. Lieberman in 2006.

 

Liberal animosity toward Lieberman speaks volumes about how far left Democratic foreign policy has shifted since Bill Clinton's Presidency. The same Senate Democrats who voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 and for the war in Iraq in October 2002 are now claiming they were duped and it was all a mistake.

 

Even the supposedly serious Democratic policy voices are offering mostly criticism without any positive advice or counsel. Senator Joe Biden doesn't advocate withdrawal--"I'm not there yet," he says--but he too has been consistently negative, predicting the January elections would be "ugly" and now insisting we must "change course" to succeed. Yet the actual policy advice he offered in a recent speech consisted of the Bush strategy dressed up in different rhetoric.

 

Then there's former NATO Commander and once-and-future Democratic Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark, whose recent counsel was for Mr. Bush to invite Syria and Iran to help us in Iraq. Just how the U.S. is supposed to win over Tehran's mullahs without conceding them a nuclear weapon, or Syria's Assad clique without letting it return to dominate Lebanon, Mr. Clark doesn't say.

 

This is all a shame, because President Bush's conduct of the war could have used a more constructive opposition. There's no question the U.S. was terribly slow in training Iraqi troops, far too slow in transferring sovereignty to Iraqis, and far too cautious in pursuing insurgency strongholds in Fallujah and elsewhere. But those criticisms all came from the right, or from Iraqis, not from American Democrats.

 

If Democrats are smart they'll listen to what Lieberman's saying about the defeatist message they're now sending about Iraq, and about U.S. foreign policy in general.

 

the above lifted entirely from

today's Wall Stree Journal with emphasis added....c-d

[ezstep]

So, from reading the Wall Street Journal, it appears that the sole purpose of a political party is to perpetuate the party itself! They will turn not only on a person from a different party but will turn on one of their own who espouses non-party thoughts.

[Crescent Seven]

Originally posted by cthulhu0 i think this counts as a "t" for troll. hey, f#$$ the optimism, where are those WMD? terrorists? why are we there again?

 

Who's the troll? The guy that posts something positive about the situation and doesn't bash somebody, or the guy that freaks out and HAS to counter his story and spout the same tired rhetoric yet again?

So if you don't hate Bush, don't oppose the war, and feel good when you hear about positive change, you're a troll?

 

HEY MODS!!! I'M A TROLL!!

 

Somebody showed you something you can't stand to see. Get over it.

C7

[beam]

broad optimism?

 

 

 

Get those soldiers some women!

[bikehorn]

Originally posted by chris-dax a......whole.....bunch.....of....whiny....trolling....crap...

 

 

Originally posted by chris-dax try making some kind of intelligble statement about the post.... or just shut the {censored} up and piss off....c-d

 

you can't make an intelligible statement if you plan on using the ellipsis as a linguistic crutch such as you are.

 

maybe you should be the one to "shut the {censored} up and piss off".

 

by the way, i just looked at my watch and guess what?

 

 

 

[Crescent Seven]

What was whiny about his post? Give me an example, if you think you can, bikehorn.

You don't have to agree with him, but the attack stuff is bull{censored}. Posting a picture of a clock with STFU on it is far more troll than anything c-d has posted in this thread.

But I see how it is. If somebody comes and posts something you don't like, you guys just call him a troll and attack him personally, instead of the content of his post. Isn't that against the rules of HC? Maybe not, but it does prove that you don't have {censored} to say about what he ACTUALLY posted, so you have to call him names.

WEAK.

C7

[bikehorn]

 

Originally posted by Crescent Seven What was whiny about his post? Give me an example, if you think you can, bikehorn. You don't have to agree with him, but the attack stuff is bull{censored}. Posting a picture of a clock with STFU on it is far more troll than anything c-d has posted in this thread. But I see how it is. If somebody comes and posts something you don't like, you guys just call him a troll and attack him personally, instead of the content of his post. Isn't that against the rules of HC? Maybe not, but it does prove that you don't have {censored} to say about what he ACTUALLY posted, so you have to call him names. WEAK. C7

 

 

to be quite frank, i really couldn't be paid to care about anyone's politics, online or off. nobody's opinions or views are about the be changed. what difference does it really make to stress out about it? about none. i find it pretty comical how serious some people take political threads.

 

moreover, where's the "WTF" in the chunk of posted article anyway? if things are getting better, what's the big damn deal? isn't that supposed to be a good thing? (left-out portion notwithstanding)

 

not to mention the only reply bbl ever got was to the one that was easier to jump on as flamebait...guess the first one wasn't an "intelligible response".

 

relax already.

 

because clearly, after being here for four years, i'm definitely a troll out to cause {censored}.

[Crescent Seven]

 

Originally posted by bikehorn to be quite frank, i really couldn't be paid to care about anyone's politics, online or off. nobody's opinions or views are about the be changed. what difference does it really make to stress out about it? about none. i find it pretty comical how serious some people take political threads. moreover, where's the "WTF" in the chunk of posted article anyway? if things are getting better, what's the big damn deal? isn't that supposed to be a good thing? (left-out portion notwithstanding) not to mention the only reply bbl ever got was to the one that was easier to jump on as flamebait...guess the first one wasn't an "intelligible response". relax already. because clearly, after being here for four years, i'm definitely a troll out to cause {censored}.

 

 

You couldn't be paid to care less, but you took the time to draw up a clock and post it. Hm.

I don't care how long you've been here, you came into a thread you "couldn't care less about", and attacked the person, not the content. Obviously you don't agree with him, or you would have just left the thread alone. But you didn't, you opened up Paint, drew a clock, and told him to Shut The {censored} Up.

There's 5 minutes you'll never get back, wasted on something you couldn't care less about, and you made youself look like an idiot for not addressing the content of the post.

C7

[bikehorn]

 

Originally posted by Crescent Seven You couldn't be paid to care less, but you took the time to draw up a clock and post it. Hm. I don't care how long you've been here, you came into a thread you "couldn't care less about", and attacked the person, not the content. Obviously you don't agree with him, or you would have just left the thread alone. But you didn't, you opened up Paint, drew a clock, and told him to Shut The {censored} Up. There's 5 minutes you'll never get back, wasted on something you couldn't care less about, and you made youself look like an idiot for not addressing the content of the post. C7

 

 

i'm flattered that the clock appears to be original artwork, but it's not. I'm on a Mac - i don't even have paint.

 

i guess i'm still an idiot? sweet. i think Jane's Addiction had a song about that called "Idiots Rule". Nothing's Shocking was a great album. I'm glad i have it on vinyl.

 

have fun stressing.

[JeffBass]

Democrats are big pussies and should always be ignored. To think they almost got John Kerry elected.... Thank GOD for mexicans, single women, and jews (the 3 groups who voted more for Bush's re-election than his first term).

[Thunderbroom]

Originally posted by bikehorn you can't make an intelligible statement if you plan on using the ellipsis as a linguistic crutch such as you are.

 

Using an ellipsis is a liguistic crutch?!?

 

I did not know that.

 

I use them often when posting on the internet.

 

Wow...I'm handicapped and likely deserve protection under the ADA.

[bikehorn]

 

Originally posted by Thunderbroom Using an ellipsis is a liguistic crutch?!?

 

 

it is when you overdose on them.

[Dragoon]

[Dragoon]

I'm just glad my buddy's coming back from that {censored}hole after a year there--arriving with his entire Nat'l Guard unit on Wednesday morning. Most likely for good.

[T. Alan Smith]

Originally posted by beam broad optimism? Get those soldiers some women!

 

[drool...!]

 

Oh, and we're not supposed to know of anything good happening over in Iraq. Don't you people know that!?