Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: hummingbird <ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:03:17 +0000
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 21:10:23 +0100, abelard <abelard2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
typed
>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:04:34 +0000, hummingbird
><ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> typed:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 17:50:51 +0100, abelard <abelard2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> typed
>>
>>>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:45:30 +0000, hummingbird
>>><ZYLYDWINUSED@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> typed:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:03:12 +0100, abelard <abelard2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1223/dailyUpdate.html
>>>>
>>>>>From the article:
>>>>"The effect of these adjustments will reduce forces in Iraq by the
>>>>spring of 2006 below the current high of 160,000 during the (Iraqi)
>>>>election period to below the 138,000 baseline that had existed before
>>>>the most recent elections," Rumsfeld said.
>>>>
>>>>Doesn't seem like much of a reduction to me and given that one of
>>>>the brigades to be withdrawn will be stationed in another client state
>>>>(Kuwait) and can quickly be sent back to Iraq.....
>>>
>>>merely posted for those watching this aspect....
>>
>>Of course. I believe you.
>your closed 'mind' is a glory to observe....
How does someone without a mind determine that mine is closed?
let alone that it's "a glory to observe"?
>i regularly post items that allow those opposing the rescuing
> of the iraki people and the removal of the mad socialist dictator...
>to help them to attempt to make out even the slightest case in support
> of their favourite evil....
Anything you post on the topic is *very* carefully selected propaganda
from your limited range of reading material and intended to reinforce
your belief that it was the right thing to do. That you have virtually
run out of said material in the past year because there's little
honest good news to report, explains why your limited debate on the
topic nowadays amounts to repeating your tired old mantras.
"...things in irak are goin kwite well" etc
Further, that you constantly assert that anybody who disagreed with
the invasion is by definition a socialist supporter of SH is evidence
that you are loony and clutching at straws to hold the line.
Such is the price you pay for your cognitive dissonance problem and
rigid mind. Prisms lardy, prisms.
>i try to help those who espouse what i regard as daffiness just in case
> i may have missed sommat...
>or people i regard as rather dippy may in fact show themselves
> otherwise....or (remotely possible) may learn sommat....
>
>i repeat another thing i have said several times...
>i actually like to be shown to be incorrect....
Except when it's on a serious subject like the String Theory.
Then you get all bitchy and nasty and attempt to intimidate the
OP before you slope off for a few hours to sulk, hoping the OP
goes away. Right?
>1)it means i learn sommat i was unaware of
How many lifetimes have you got lardy? ho ho ho.
>2)it means some point of contact with the loons who populate
> this isolated planet on the rim of the local galaxy...
Why you believe you're not one of them is a mystery to me. There
are plenty of people about with perfectly rational/logical views on
political/current affairs, which are diametrically opposed to yours.
Frequently there's no absolutely right way forward and many issues
have multiple solutions, each with its own merits. You always support
the solution which meets your personal preference and agenda but
that doesn't make it the *right* solution, whatever you say.
>>>there are still troop deployments in germany and japan...among many
>>> others....
>>
>>http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL23Ak01.html
>>"Bush's new Iraq is pro-Iran.
>
>don't be daffy....you never ever learn...
>'irak' is not a person....
You have never understood what is meant by such terms have you lardy.
>your grasp of politics is between feeble and nonsensical
I have *never* claimed to understand politics; I have no interest.
But I do understand how politicians think and what drives them and
how this plays out in practical policies. You simply don't understand
the mind of America's politicians and big money men.
>>It will not recognize Israel.
>
>'it'...you're potty buzzy...
>enuf already...rest binned unexamined.
>
>> And it
>>wants the Americans out; one of the first measures of an emerging,
>>powerful parliamentary alliance between roughly 38 Sadrists of Shi'ite
>>nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and roughly 50 Sunni Arabs will be
>>to call for an immediate end of the occupation."
>>
>>>normalisation to civilised polities is more an issue for me....
--
"It [Blair's government] has exploited the mood of insecurity
to push through a law protecting itself from public protest."
How freedom of speech is being curtailed in Britain under Blair:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1937539,00.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: abelard
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- References:
- on irak troop drawdown
- From: abelard
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: hummingbird
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: abelard
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: hummingbird
- Re: on irak troop drawdown
- From: abelard
- on irak troop drawdown
- Prev by Date: Re: Future Politics
- Next by Date: Re: Reverse homophobia
- Previous by thread: Re: on irak troop drawdown
- Next by thread: Re: on irak troop drawdown
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
