[VioletlightHeron]

Notorious Neo-conservative and Faux News Corporation pundent Charles Krauthamer, sets up a false argument in his propaganda statement. The current state of affairs is precisely what the war planers intended. The Democrats will have no choice. They will have to execute the "Three State Solution" just as the Council on Foreign Relations planed.

The problems will not resolve until we admit that the billions of dollars in oil, natural gas and drugs are the target. Until those issues are dealt with in fair and equitably terms the conflicts will continue and stable government is impossible.

Cue the barking madness from the left-wing base of the Democratic Party...... :roll: :roll:

[NegPhil]

Notorious Neo-conservative and Faux News Corporation pundent Charles Krauthamer, sets up a false argument in his propaganda statement. The current state of affairs is precisely what the war planers intended. The Democrats will have no choice. They will have to execute the "Three State Solution" just as the Council on Foreign Relations planed.

The problems will not resolve until we admit that the billions of dollars in oil, natural gas and drugs are the target. Until those issues are dealt with in fair and equitably terms the conflicts will continue and stable government is impossible.

Cue the barking madness from the left-wing base of the Democratic Party...... :roll: :roll:

Sticks and stones dude. Can you dispute a single thing I stated?

Is Krauthamer a Neo-Con?

Does he work at Faux News?

Did the Council on foreign relations propose the "Three State Solution"?

Do the Taliban control the pipe lines and gas fields?

Has the drug production gone up?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Are you arguing here that providing basic infrastructure and social services aid as part of a long term stabilization plan doesn't work?

You know perfectly well that I'm not arguing that. I've been quite clear.

You may now erect your next straw man....

I don't believe the recent incursion by the Turkish Army into Iraq is anything to go into a Chicken Little panic about.

What Chicken Little panic? I've pointed out that having a foreign army romping through northern Iraq in pursuit of the PKK is hardly a sign of stability, that's all.

Crows are going to be terrified of landing around here.

I'm beginning to think we were reading two different articles.

Really? You missed the part of Krauthammer's article where he quotes his expert, who specifically mentions the need for long-term security assistance?

Krauthammer is pretending that the Republicans are committed to Iraq for the long term. Certain right-wing pundits may actually still envision a long-term presence in Iraq, but politics is politics and sooner or later they'll come face to face with the facts: the troop surge can't be sustained, and the future is as uncertain as Oliver North's conveniently poor memory.

The politically expedient thing to do is to declare victory and bug out just as soon as everyone starts reporting good news -- before the news turns bad again.

Face it, VLH: the aim of the troop surge was never to stabilize Iraq for Iraq's sake. It is related purely to that fine element of American democracy, the fixed presidential election date. That's why the Republican front runner was a big proponent: the idea is to take an issue away from the Dems.

Krauthammer is entirely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. He's just hammering the drum, right on cue.

[NegPhil]

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!



Dr. Krauthammer





Dr. Strangelove

[The Horrible Esthete]

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!



Dr. Krauthammer





Dr. Strangelove

ok..... that's actually pretty funny [/all fairness]

In regards to skippy's point:

I certainly don't think Khammer is being 'disingenuous'.

You're free to think that he's playing the shill for the GOP in an election year.

But I just suspect there are more politicians who want or hope to sustain the effot in Iraq than you're willing to believe.

Perhaps, in this election year, conservatives who would be in support of a sustained surge are keeping it on the lowdown, hoping not to scare votes?

[skippy the wonder dog]

But I just suspect there are more politicians who want or hope to sustain the effot in Iraq than you're willing to believe.

I think there are politically interested people who believe in going the distance.

But politicians? Principle rarely survives first contact with an opinion poll.