YellowLinesandArmadillos

Or not and go to Canada, still a lot of woods up there to hide in! Run away, Run away...

You guys educating on how to communicate on this site? Nah, just having fun..hmm, wish I could take the shovel away, he is just digging it deeper, even if I agree the posts points, just not the hyperboli.

Agreed, but heck this group probably can do as well as what Washington is doing with the issue on both sides. I am sure some will even mimic the partisan rancor. Just wondering if we could discuss it any more intelligently? Enjoyed your post, still, what could be done to address those oncerns including using a preemptive strick against North Korea as we leave Iraq?

Unlikely, they already hired a few tokens...Dems

Shoot the Dems a copying the RNC now and doing the same thing. I have better things to spend my cash on, unless I can guarantee I can really get something for my hard earned cash...say like a port contract or some oil. But heck, I don't even qualify to get noticed by either party.

Yep, My son unplugged my interenet connection in mid-thought. He is in bed now! Glad that I was able to provide some levity as well as a little ironic humor.

Since this topic has been mentioned in a number of posts recently and since non of our politicians, pundits or anyone else on this board seems to have delt with this issue directly in some time...let's have at it. What I mean is given potential options: 1. Stay and stick it out. 2. Leave immediately. 3. Start a withdrawl, but leave special forces. 4. Bomb the heck out Iraq before leaving. 5. Divide Iraq in 3s and set up separate governments. 6. And any other scenarios anyone can think of, What are to pros and cons and what do you view as the likely reactions of the players as a result? Give a prediction of the outcome.

Point well taken!

Geez, I went to the beach with my son to get rid of some of his energy and came back and you guys went to town on Mickey. You mentioned that regardless of Mickey's intentions, motivations etc., which were all questioned, examined and pontificated upon by others ad infinitum, the real question posed by Mickey is should we still be in Iraq and where should we go from here? Am I wrong in this reading of your post? If so, what to do you think? IF we withdrew immediately, it would be interesting to figure out how the rest of the area would react as well as China and Russia. Short term Iranian reaction is probably predictable, longer term unsure. What are your thoughts and addtional scenario/options for actions. Forget the Mickey bashing for a sec?

I am an acknowlegded party hack, not an ideologue, however. I understand Buckely's point and under the projection scenario you described. Shouldn't the likelihood of a sectarian civil war issue have been better understood and calculated before we entered Iraq. Now that the temple was blown up, I think whatever chance of success now way beyond the military's control, is doubtful and with a little forsight, could have been seen ahead of time. What could have been done and what were the implications of dividing Iraq into 3 parts? Obviously a unified Iraq would have been better, but given its history and deep religious divisions, even under the best scenarious, this was chancey at best. While early on the Bush Admin, could have handled the diplomatic stuff better, maybe with more troops or better trained ones, not sure that would have mattered. Now maybe the time to cut our losses and get out and concentrate just on Afganistan. On McGlaughlin group, Pat Buchanan and John McGlauglin were arguing the same thing. Tony Blankley another partisan hack was unsuccesfully trying to defend the current situation. So dismissing Mickey's statement and pure partisanship misses the point. While from a partisan standpoint, I like to see this Admin stumble, but not so much on this issue. Bush's success is/was too important to America and while I still think it was a mistake to invade and try and keep Iraq together, regardless of Iran's intentions for the Shiite population. Iranians may have a lot of ties, but they are still not Arabs, they are Persians and like to be referred to as such. Iraqi's are Arab and despite Iranian influence, which is why I understood Bush to have chosen the unity route, in long run their differences will be exposed and that could have been exploited by this Administration if handled deftly, with success. No nice work jumping on Mickey to avoid dealing with the actual issue at hand. Classic partisan hack responses.

Nope, go Solar and wind energy for electric. Driving is a different issue, boy the ethanol industry is running a heckuv a PR campaign out in SoCal right now. Every evening I see another add. I thought SoCal was a methanol type of state?

I think they tried under Clinton and were rejected by congress as being too close to military installations. Apparentely, then later on they did gain access under this President. Obviously, both sides are complicit in this. And both love to demagogue the issue and wrap themselves in the flag when it is politically expedient.

Yeh, I know sooner or later you will find someone on the other side complicit in all this, fine, that is what is called by bipartisanship on capital hill, a few tokens added in to make it look swell. Seriously, the Carlyle P.R. department has been advising Dubai all along, that is no secret, and it leans partisanly to the Republicans, logically why Clinton would oppose any action they took, even if a former FCC commissioner works there, so what. Note: I said partisanly not ideologically. Heard today that former Senator Dole is heading up the lobbying effort on Capitol Hill a Carlyle Group kinda guy.

Agreed, but Schoenfeld dropped Shultz with one punch in a game. Shoeney didn't fight much, but most avoided getting in the way of big red's fists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6022400511.html Since sectarian violence has erupted in Iraq, it takes Al-Qaida out of the limelight, wonder if this is part of an effort to redirect its fight with us or keep in the news.

Oh come on, I just used it as a point of reference for Clinton's reaction, not as a criticism of Bush. I just know the Clinton's hate that group and is often part of her critical rhetoric of Bush, legitimate or not.

Oh, I think it is more pandering, she has been accused lately in the leftwing press as being to moderate. Also, the Clinton's are still po'd with Bush and his Carlyle group Arab connections. Not sure about all the reasons, but it sounds more like a Hatfield and McCoy situation, take the opposite side just to be ornery and use it too your advantage politically. I still think this whole issue sells to her advantage even if it doesn't mean a hill of beans or is counter productive in the Middle East.

Good point, not sure though that she has to pay for this in the long run, she probably can easily pass it off as American Politics, and work it from a different angle. Otherwise, her reaction does seem a bit amateurish. Schumer is the mouth, he lets it fly and doesn't opologize, good campaign tactic, bad for diplomacy.

UAB write up from that webpage: "Homicides per 100,000 population: N/A Incarcerations per 100,000 population: 250 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) [1.3=highest perceived corruption; 9.7=lowest perceived corruption]: 6.1 Illicit Drugs Overview: the UAE is a drug transshipment point for traffickers given its proximity to southwest Asian drug producing countries; the UAE's position as a major financial center makes it vulnerable to money laundering; anti-money-laundering controls improving."

Yep, just checked the other link, that is just scary, especially the domestic ones probably because I can make more sense of them, still scary on both sides. Just starting to search for the Dubai stats.

Even though it can't be proven, a couple of folks in the know are convinced they had the right guy for the anthrax deal, another domestic one, made to look foreign.

Very interesting, these incidents were by location, how about the perpetrators...is there anyway to figure out the sources of terrorism. Where did the people who committed the acts come from statisically?

I think that list would have to be considered incomplete, add in all the domestic Church bombings and fires, including the most recent Babtist churchs down south, the Abortion Clinic destructions, whether or not you believe in that sort of thing, bombing or shooting a clinic and doctor for any sort of reason is terrorism, some the riots in the 60s and we can keep adding to the list. Also , if my memory serves me correct a Puerto Rican National shot up the Chamber of the U.S. House of Reps in the 50s. Once again stats... Still right now Muslim extremists sometimes backhandedly supported by these regimes and other time blatantly, while saying they are not, is a security concern. How much in this case, I am not sure. I would rather be on the side of caution despite the rhetoric.

Minus the n word, the fact that too many of these Arab monarchs talk out both sides of their mouths, why should we be giving any of them an investment opportunity as they look the other way with potential terrorists operating under their noses. Two already had UAE visas.