Reply With Quote
So how do you justify Reagan's dipping into the Social Security funds to cover the gap between what could be done and what he wanted to do?
So you say he's not a liar.
Then he's incompetent. That's the only position left for you to take.
He started a PRE-EMPTIVE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The USA does not start pre-emptive wars, but Dubya got us into one.
all on INCOMPETENCE ??? "oops" ?
and you excuse this. hilarious.
So how do you justify Reagan's dipping into the Social Security funds to cover the gap between what could be done and what he wanted to do?
Obama will give a similar speech at the Arizona-Mexico border.
never should have been there son..answer the questions son..
The Soviet Union collapsed under Clintons term, officially, 1993, when Boris Yeltsin disbanded the Supreme Soviet and the People Congress. Then he shot up the Russian Parliament with tanks and killed 500 communist party hardliners and injured 1000 more. Remember Yeltsin on top of the tank ? By this time, Gorbachov was on the run. Gorby never intended to break up the soviet union. Ever. He said he considers it one of the great tragedies of world history.
And that, as they say, was that.
Ok officially it was December 1991 with the signing of the Belavezha Accords but Yeltsin certainly drove the final nail in the coffin two years later.
Last edited by word; 06-14-2010 at 09:02 AM.
God you are ing dumb. I answered your question you stupid ing human being. They are not withdrawing.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._real_deadline
As U.S. forces pull out of Iraq's urban areas, everyone is waiting with bated breath for the results. Will there be a surge in violence, ending the relative peace that many Iraqis have enjoyed for the past year? Will al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) rear its head once more? Will the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki seize the chance to impose a more autocratic regime?
It's easy to overstate the importance of the June 30 troop withdrawal. U.S. forces are leaving areas that they entered before and especially during the surge. This concerns mostly Baghdad, where the insertion of U.S. troops at the neighborhood level helped end the 2005-2007 civil war and froze into place the de facto rule of the country's Shiite Islamist-led government -- at the expense of the Sunni Arab population, a good part of which fled. Iraqi state security forces now control the capital with little opposition. Although bombs do continue to go off, attacks are a distant and infrequent reality for most of this enormous city's inhabitants. A U.S. withdrawal is unlikely to change the situation dramatically.
Cities with fewer U.S. troops are likely to be affected even less by the pullout. In the south, local security forces have been in control of urban areas for some time, with varying degrees of success. Problematic cities, such as Mosul and Baquba, will remain violent regardless of whether the few U.S. troops there stay or go. An interesting exception may be towns in Anbar province such as Falluja, once a hotbed of insurgency. Here, a dormant AQI might seek to exploit the security vacuum, playing on the frustrations of former rebels who joined the now famous "Sunni Awakening" to put down the insurgency, but have yet to be integrated into the new state.
There are still more ways in which the withdrawal is less than some make it out to be: "Urban areas" have been redefined as city centers, meaning that U.S. forces will remain close at hand should anything go wrong. And U.S. military advisors, riding in repainted vehicles, will continue to provide essential support to Iraqi forces patrolling the cities.
The real turning points over the coming months will be the country's parliamentary elections in January and the comprehensive withdrawal of U.S. combat troops by August 2010. In the case of the elections, the June 30 pullout date will be very politically and symbolically important for a prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, who is readying himself for a tough battle at the polls. Should violence increase as the United States scales back, his law-and-order platform will lose its luster and his prospects for another term may fade. There might well be increased levels of violence in the run-up to the elections, as well as political challenges from Maliki's opponents who could try to weaken him such that he can no longer effectively govern. If he succeeds in keeping things more or less under control, however, Maliki will be able to boost his electoral hopes by portraying himself as the man who restored both Iraq's security and sovereignty.
But the August 2010 departure of all U.S. combat troops could be the most pivotal event. U.S. forces have kept Iraq's fractured political class stable enough to talk rather than fight. Because negotiations have delivered very little in the way of compromises on key issues -- how power, resources, and territory are divided or shared -- a U.S. pullout could well lead to conflict. Preventing that fate might require the Obama administration to make good on its pledge to facilitate a "responsible" withdrawal by lending strong diplomatic muscle to U.N.-led efforts to mediate a new set of political agreements. No Iraqi politician will compromise on hot-button questions such as federalism, an oil law, and the status of Kirkuk in an election year, but much could be done in the coming months to lay the groundwork for a deal set to be concluded following the elections but ahead of a U.S. withdrawal.
and you call me stupid you dumbass!
I do and you are. We have over 50,000 troops over there. Let me know when Obama keeps his word and ends this war. We are past his deadline.
The idea that president Bush lied to get us into war is just that. Opinion. When it is stated as fact, as a precursor to something else, that person needs admonishment.
Then so are the prominent democrats that ran with the war also.
Bla bla bla...
I'm OK with a preemptive war, why aren't you? What is the next attack affected your family?
I would say you are an absolute fool to believe a president should be all knowing like a deity.
Absolutely. I do not expect perfection in people. Just honest best efforts. I wouldn't call him incompetent, but lacking in some areas. He was on top of things for security, and that isn't one of his weaknesses.
WTF are you talking about?
Has there ever been a time CONGRESS didn't legislate spending from the excess SS money?
Please, don't tell me you believe it was actually it's own untouched fund.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
