Isn't that the reason why any party or president is gotten rid of "Because they blow"? They aren't going to be ousted if they are doing a good job.
Kind of a dorky article.

I couldn't care much for the article myself. But once again, I was making a specific point and you've dragged out a generality which is not the point that was discussed.

We miss ya, Ray. :cool:

Because a tyrant was removed from power and a new government was formed. That took time, it didn't happen overnight.

The only difference between Iraq and Germany/Japan was the difference between reactive and proactive response.

International troops are still present in both those countries to this day. Nobody is crying foul over it.

I most strongly disagree. Nazi Germany was vanquished. Islam is alive, well and thriving in Iraq and everywhere around the world.

Every day Republicans blame Clinton or the Democrats for everything gone wrong, yet it's been six years since Clinton was president. It's because of the Republican record that they are going to loose. The congress has been titled the "Do nothing congress". They don't say that for a congress that is doing it's job.

:doh: What point are we discussing? That the poll doesn't actually say "National Security"? I would think that if Americans felt that safe the President wouldn't set so far down in the poll's.
Or if we aren't discussing that, what are we discussing?:huh:

Before interfering with an ongoing debate, please make sure you red the thread carefully.

I did not told anybody what Americans think, but it is American polling institutes doing so. To their findings I refer.

Noone said that demcrats place a higher priority on security than republicans. The polls since mid spetmeber show that public opinion in the Us has rated democart's competence as higher for the first time since many years, as far as I do know) than that of the republicans (for whom security usually is a safe bank).

Thanks for shooting the messenger (again). If I would get a dollar for every bullet that hit me in the last three years, I would be a rich man today.

Relax. You won´t find many people here that hate Americans and Skybird is most certainly not one of them. He criticises certain aspects of the US government (and also his own and many others) and his intention is not to bait anyone.

After Hitler was removed, a new government was formed. Same thing in Japan. It didn't happen overnight, it takes hard work and patience.[/quote]

How often do you plan to repeat this thinking mistake, August?

Japan and Germany were totally defenseless and crushed, the many possible - and now present - resistances in Iraq never were, plus the interference frommoutside.

And what is even more important - you are talking about three totally, completely, 100%ly different cultures. If you thought that Iraq woudl work, because Germany worked, than you are really a fool. Look beyond your schemes - your set is far too limited in scope. iraq is a lost war. And Afghanistan is about to be lost if you/we do not put immediate urgency on shifting ressources from the k,lost case Iraq to Afghnaistan. Instead I see a growing tendency of America silently leaving Afghanistan behind and leave it to the stupid Europeans to clean up the mess behind them - which will be beyond NATOs abilities and bring the troops there into extreme trouble sooner or later.

You cannot have both wars a win anymore. If you want both, you will loose both. If you put priority on Iraq (like in the last years) you also will loose both. If you shift priuority from Iraq to Afghnaistan, you will still have lost Iraq, but will have an - already extremely grim - chance to save what is to be saved in Afghanistan. Choice should be easy, I think. That would also mean to rethink western stand towards Pakistan.

I specifically quoted the New York Magazine article in reply to August, regarding his point that if/when the Dems are in control, they may prove to be a bigger failure than what the Republicans have been these past years. I was not addressing you in that post.

Thank you, Gizzmoe. I have given up to make that clear to people, since it always seems to be a lost case for me anyway.

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" he speaking to the crew of the ship on which he said it. He was not speaking about the war itself. They had just completed a highly successful deployment, having accomplished the mission they had been assigned, hence the statement. No more, no less.

Narcosis beat me to it, so I just commented on it.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=99410

I have refered to that general in that and other threads repeatedly since then.

since that man seem to have his senses together, I see no reason to be upset about him - only about Blair trying to distort his comments as mirroring his own views. Blair must be the only man on the isles to believe that. :lol:

And since you maybe have not noticed it, that General has caused a lot of alarmed telephoning between Downing street and the White House. As reported in "the same news source" .

Actually, he didn't. :nope: