It could be just me but what is happening in Iraq is both scary and obvious. It is 3 countries vying for control of billions of dollars worth of oil (annually). And call me crazy, but between Iran, Syria and the US, I believe that the US actually has the best intentions. If we leave Iraq for either Iran or Syria to take over it is pretty much worse case scenario for Israel. What is now happening in Iraq is way to dynamically complicated for it to be solved by the implementation of either this strategy or that strategy. I think whether we pull our troops out or stay in, we are in this one for the long haul. I will vote for anyone who realizes this.
It could be just me but what is happening in Iraq is both scary and obvious. It is 3 countries vying for control of billions of dollars worth of oil (annually). And call me crazy, but between Iran, Syria and the US, I believe that the US actually has the best intentions. If we leave Iraq for either Iran or Syria to take over it is pretty much worse case scenario for Israel. What is now happening in Iraq is way to dynamically complicated for it to be solved by the implementation of either this strategy or that strategy. I think whether we pull our troops out or stay in, we are in this one for the long haul. I will vote for anyone who realizes this.
1- your naming of 3 countries are.
2- your approach to situation from israel's position is.
your assumption that iraq's oil must be controlled by a foreign power is total thivery.
The problem is the iraqis are too weak at this point to control their oil reserves themselves. Wether america is over there so BP and Chevron can make a few extra billion off of the oil reservers or to satisfiy some greater imperialistic calling, to totally abondon them at this point would be the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has ever made, even bigger than the invasion itself. That said i support a date for limited troop withdrawal sometime in 2008, i feel people always work better with a deadline.
I'm not saying our intentions are charitable, I just think they are better than the intentions of Iran/Syria. I am also not saying there are not other players but the US, Iran and Syria are the major contributors.
As stated by Apurimac, I too believe that the current Iraqi situation is too week to hold its ground should we leave. With that in mind control would be taken by some other faction. Now, I'm not saying Iran, Syria or ect.. would expand its boarders but whoever gained power would be aligned with one of these governments, thus giving them a more wide spread power throughout the middle east.
The US, Iran and Syria all want the same thing. A government in Iraq which is aligned with their own.
can we take a presidential sabatical for 4 years? that's right, no president, let the electoral college veto or sign bills for a while. it
would be better.
"I'm not saying our intentions are charitable, I just think they are better than the intentions of Iran/Syria. I am also not saying there are not other players but the US, Iran and Syria are the major contributors.
As stated by Apurimac, I too believe that the current Iraqi situation is too week to hold its ground should we leave. With that in mind control would be taken by some other faction. Now, I'm not saying Iran, Syria or ect.. would expand its boarders but whoever gained power would be aligned with one of these governments, thus giving them a more wide spread power throughout the middle east.
The US, Iran and Syria all want the same thing. A government in Iraq which is aligned with their own."
im not saying its a conspiracy, but it seems pretty obvious that the release of the information is some sort of rebuttal to the nie. they had Khalid al-Mashadani on July 4th, but they wait till the 18th to disclose the info.
that is al qaeda in iraq...an iraqi group that took the name...it is not THE al qaeda...they are using the confusing relationship to try and deflect from yesterdays infoFor instance there are gangs in Kenya that call themselves Hamas, but that does not make them part of Hamas in Palestine...I am sure it will work to some degree as people will read or hear al qaeda and assume we have gotten Bin Laden related people...when that is far from the truth.
Here's my prediction: it'll be Hillary vs. Giuliani, Giuliani for the win!
You wacky, divided dems will nominate her, and then no one will vote for her ... eight more years of repugs! Nice one! (note that I am not a republican, but the dems need to get their act together now or it's over, for real)
That's it, I'm calling it, nominate Hillary and it's gonna be another fascist (and this time a smart one) in the office.
I don't think Giuliani will get the nomination. He's too socially liberal and carries too much baggage with his past. And, he is continually critized for his lack in foreign policy experience.
I think the Romnster or Fred Thompson (please no) have a better chance than Guiliani any day.
Then Clinton gave a nearly hour-long policy speech before taking questions from the audience. Nineteen-year-old Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff asked: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"
Now we know, though, that it was Clinton's staff that gave Gallo-Chasanoff that question to ask. Which makes the senator's answer amusing. "It's usually young people who ask me about global warming," she said. Perhaps it's usually young people because in the binder where a staffer showed Gallo-Chasanoff the question for her to ask, it was under the category marked "college student."
If Hilary wins, I will not be happy. Then a week later, I'll go back to really don't give an f about politics. But for that first week, oh boy! STEAMIN, No! PIPIN', NO ! Yea, PIPIN' !
i'll tell you why i can't support hillary.
i really don't mind her.
i agree with many of her positions.
yes, i think she's just as corporate-connected as many of the republicans, but it's difficult to find a candidate not tied to moneyed interests these days.
the big reason:
i think that she could get the democratic nomination and, if the republicans don't succeed in crucifying her during the presidential campaign simply because they hate the clintons so much, if she were elected, they would keep re-trying throughout the entire presidency. she'd be a lame duck from day one. she would be a constant target for every specious claim and wild story.
even without a clinton running for anything for the last several years, the irrational hatred that so many conservatives have for anything clinton amazed me - that they wouldn't let it go even after bill was out of office and their guy was in. it's only escalated since then.
so i guess i'm not supporting her because i don't want to see the country embroiled in such a tar-and-feathering over the next four years. there is a lot of damage to correct after this presidency.
Run Hillary Run
It could be just me but what is happening in Iraq is both scary and obvious. It is 3 countries vying for control of billions of dollars worth of oil (annually). And call me crazy, but between Iran, Syria and the US, I believe that the US actually has the best intentions. If we leave Iraq for either Iran or Syria to take over it is pretty much worse case scenario for Israel. What is now happening in Iraq is way to dynamically complicated for it to be solved by the implementation of either this strategy or that strategy. I think whether we pull our troops out or stay in, we are in this one for the long haul. I will vote for anyone who realizes this.
you are not crazy just improperly informed.
in jack bauer's world of 24 the pres is black and the only liberal left alive...
Ok, so how improperly informed am I?
Humm, we have the best intentions??
Turn the channel off of Fox...
It could be just me but what is happening in Iraq is both scary and obvious. It is 3 countries vying for control of billions of dollars worth of oil (annually). And call me crazy, but between Iran, Syria and the US, I believe that the US actually has the best intentions. If we leave Iraq for either Iran or Syria to take over it is pretty much worse case scenario for Israel. What is now happening in Iraq is way to dynamically complicated for it to be solved by the implementation of either this strategy or that strategy. I think whether we pull our troops out or stay in, we are in this one for the long haul. I will vote for anyone who realizes this.
1- your naming of 3 countries are.
2- your approach to situation from israel's position is.
your assumption that iraq's oil must be controlled by a foreign power is total thivery.
just think about these for a while.
The problem is the iraqis are too weak at this point to control their oil reserves themselves. Wether america is over there so BP and Chevron can make a few extra billion off of the oil reservers or to satisfiy some greater imperialistic calling, to totally abondon them at this point would be the biggest foreign policy mistake this country has ever made, even bigger than the invasion itself. That said i support a date for limited troop withdrawal sometime in 2008, i feel people always work better with a deadline.
I'm not saying our intentions are charitable, I just think they are better than the intentions of Iran/Syria. I am also not saying there are not other players but the US, Iran and Syria are the major contributors.
As stated by Apurimac, I too believe that the current Iraqi situation is too week to hold its ground should we leave. With that in mind control would be taken by some other faction. Now, I'm not saying Iran, Syria or ect.. would expand its boarders but whoever gained power would be aligned with one of these governments, thus giving them a more wide spread power throughout the middle east.
The US, Iran and Syria all want the same thing. A government in Iraq which is aligned with their own.
run Obama run
can we take a presidential sabatical for 4 years? that's right, no president, let the electoral college veto or sign bills for a while. it
would be better.
She really wants Hillary...
Hot for Hillary
Politician=Next Rock Stars
Crush on Obama
What's up with these gals...
Sorry, but these are hilarious, last one I SWEAR:
Giuliani's girls debate Obama's girls
good one!
Are you guys for real?
hey, they report it... Fox News
"I'm not saying our intentions are charitable, I just think they are better than the intentions of Iran/Syria. I am also not saying there are not other players but the US, Iran and Syria are the major contributors.
As stated by Apurimac, I too believe that the current Iraqi situation is too week to hold its ground should we leave. With that in mind control would be taken by some other faction. Now, I'm not saying Iran, Syria or ect.. would expand its boarders but whoever gained power would be aligned with one of these governments, thus giving them a more wide spread power throughout the middle east.
The US, Iran and Syria all want the same thing. A government in Iraq which is aligned with their own."
lol
I'm glad you are not an expert on the region.
Barak Obama is the only one who can repair the damages that Bush caused.
does anyone else find this to be a little too coincidental:
the day after the reports come out of the nie saying al qaeda is stronger than ever in Iraq, the US reports having the Sr. Iraqi Al Qaeda leader?
report
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289698,00.html
arrest
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.capture/index.html
well of course it's a conspiracy - any news regarding iraq should be evenly spaced out over time
im not saying its a conspiracy, but it seems pretty obvious that the release of the information is some sort of rebuttal to the nie. they had Khalid al-Mashadani on July 4th, but they wait till the 18th to disclose the info.
well they gotta get their water boarding action in before they announce the capture so the two week delay is understandable
that is al qaeda in iraq...an iraqi group that took the name...it is not THE al qaeda...they are using the confusing relationship to try and deflect from yesterdays infoFor instance there are gangs in Kenya that call themselves Hamas, but that does not make them part of Hamas in Palestine...I am sure it will work to some degree as people will read or hear al qaeda and assume we have gotten Bin Laden related people...when that is far from the truth.
please let her be the nominee
Rumor has it, Fred is announcing his candidacy Labor Day weekend.
Fred who? My name's Fred.
Here's my prediction: it'll be Hillary vs. Giuliani, Giuliani for the win!
You wacky, divided dems will nominate her, and then no one will vote for her ... eight more years of repugs! Nice one! (note that I am not a republican, but the dems need to get their act together now or it's over, for real)
That's it, I'm calling it, nominate Hillary and it's gonna be another fascist (and this time a smart one) in the office.
I don't think Giuliani will get the nomination. He's too socially liberal and carries too much baggage with his past. And, he is continually critized for his lack in foreign policy experience.
I think the Romnster or Fred Thompson (please no) have a better chance than Guiliani any day.
Never underestimate the conservative capacity for compartmentalization.
as long as she has a "wide stance" she'll be ok.
:
Then Clinton gave a nearly hour-long policy speech before taking questions from the audience. Nineteen-year-old Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff asked: "As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?"
Now we know, though, that it was Clinton's staff that gave Gallo-Chasanoff that question to ask. Which makes the senator's answer amusing. "It's usually young people who ask me about global warming," she said. Perhaps it's usually young people because in the binder where a staffer showed Gallo-Chasanoff the question for her to ask, it was under the category marked "college student."
yay hill you're going to win new hampshire!
you're our girl!!!!
Please, God, no.
Im honestly fucking stunned.
48 more states to go. Hopefully she'll say or do something incredibly stupid within the next couple weeks.
Just what we need in the White House, another opportunistic, conniving weasel.
If Hilary wins, I will not be happy. Then a week later, I'll go back to really don't give an f about politics. But for that first week, oh boy! STEAMIN, No! PIPIN', NO ! Yea, PIPIN' !
i'm from NJ, and I love a good fight. bring it. it's on!
why the hillary angst? i have no clue why archinects vote how you do. ya'll are a mystery to me.
Well, at least it will keep Obama's camp from getting too complacent.
If Hillary wins...
I probably wouldn't have voted for her, but she is not half as bad as some of the more recent elected officials.
beta, you're not from jersey, i'm from jersey. what exit?
and it all makes sense now. really.
LiG...and who pray tell isn't a conniving weasel?
pretty sweet site to compare the candidates...
BBC
exit 105 baby, unless you want to know where i was born then 109....
jafidler -
i'll tell you why i can't support hillary.
i really don't mind her.
i agree with many of her positions.
yes, i think she's just as corporate-connected as many of the republicans, but it's difficult to find a candidate not tied to moneyed interests these days.
the big reason:
i think that she could get the democratic nomination and, if the republicans don't succeed in crucifying her during the presidential campaign simply because they hate the clintons so much, if she were elected, they would keep re-trying throughout the entire presidency. she'd be a lame duck from day one. she would be a constant target for every specious claim and wild story.
even without a clinton running for anything for the last several years, the irrational hatred that so many conservatives have for anything clinton amazed me - that they wouldn't let it go even after bill was out of office and their guy was in. it's only escalated since then.
so i guess i'm not supporting her because i don't want to see the country embroiled in such a tar-and-feathering over the next four years. there is a lot of damage to correct after this presidency.
Well its 2004 all over again.
When I saw the results this morning I couldn't help but feel like Hillary's win on top of the McCain win are a bad omen for the dems in 08.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.