kapkomet

I'm loud and proud. Hey, if I can't make fun of myself, who else can? I figured you all would get a laugh out of it if anything else.

QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 05:37 AM) You think Iraqis don't care enough? How bout they care a ton but there's just a million different agendas operating at once. It's almost impossible to find compromise between Democrats and Republicans in the States. Multiply that a couple times... Agree... but I also think that they don't care because it's not in their interests to care at this point (in their own minds).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) I'm glad you asked, Kap. I am probably many things to people here, not all good, but I think I can say I usually make an effort to suggest a different path if I disagree with the current one. I'll reiterate my preferred paths for Iraq, as of this point (ignoring that being there at all was illegal and irresponsible), in order of preference... 1. Ideally, I think something like the Biden plan is what should be done. A very thin national Iraqi government with only a few basic tasks - revenue sharing, economic structure, endorsement and protection of basic personal freedoms, things of that nature. Then seperately, allow the three ethnic groups to do what they want with their own terrain, which they are headed towards anyway (just, more violently, right now). The three states (Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan, we'll call them for now) would handle many things individually. This is painful in the short run, as it would inevitably cause displacement and refugee problems, but again - already happening. This just puts some control and safety around the processm so that maybe a few less people are killed, injured, made homeless, etc. Once these states begin to stabilize a bit, start to draw down our troops. The desire of the states to protect themselves from each other would have a new side benefit - security increases in each state. 2. Since the Biden plan has received no significant backing, and is never going to be adopted, my current second choice is Obama's plan. The gradual drawdown of troops over about a year period, each combat brigade handing over duties to Iraqi police and military, in order of who is most ready. This forces those Iraqi units to get their asses in gear. In the end, leave a residual force to assist with advisement, border control, and the occasional terror cell hit. I am OK with a long term presence of those few thousand troops in those specialized positions, if in return we get back the bulk of the combat brigades. I do not agree with Richardson on this - I do not think it is realistic to draw down to zero anytime soon, nor is it smart. But the plan I agree with least, because it will result in the most death and destruction for Iraqis and Americans alike, in both the short AND long runs, is the Bush/Patraeus let's just keep going and maybe they'll wear down strategy. Its really the worst possible way to go about it. And for the most part, despite all the hyperbole I tend to throw out there, I agree with this. And I think that BushCo should not sit there and say "they'll just wear down"... yes, they will, only "wearing down" means "sitting there until we leave so that we can raise havoc in the vacuum that's left". It's nuts to think that we can stay there forever and maintain status quo. But I also think that we need to show a strength of force to the insurgents that they haven't seen. I also think that the US is actually getting decent at "counter insurgency", which is something that is not being discussed as a part of the "surge". At the end of the day, that's what the "surge" really is.

QUOTE(knightni @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) We're talking, having the opportunity of picking the best guy of 32, at least 20 times. At least see the silver lining for once, because I doubt the Sox will be here again at least for another 15 to 20 years. Exactly. I don't understand why people are in a fuss about this. It's a s***hole season, and the ONLY silver lining is we finally can get an impact player in the draft, which hasn't happened for 20 years. It's the only positive in what's been a terrible 2007 campaign.

I just got done reading this thread, and I will be glad to share "board room" conversations about this whole "bankruptcy" thing from an airline (company) perspective. I was a huge part of putting together financial plans to getting an airline out of bankruptcy, and there's a lot more then meets the eye to this conversation. But right now, since I've been gone for three days, I have four days worth of work to do in one, so I better get at it.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 08:31 PM) What do you expect from a Cubs fan? Wow, we agree on something.

You know something? That's part of why Obama is going to lose. He's not dirty enough. And again, that's even sadder of a testimony on what should be a proud office.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 14, 2007 -> 04:14 AM) It's actually a smart move for a campaign to take. I'm surprised more candidates don't do this. Meh. John Edwards does what the polls tell him to do... leaders should take a stand, on something. The only thing I have seen Edwards stand on is the "two Americas" baloney, which isn't exactly visionary.

I know that. But it sounds dramatic and full of legal promise for $$, since I'm a minority in the state of Texas.

Then I could sue my local government office for being discrimatory in hiring because I'm not bilingual.

OH BOY, so can I then... because I have my thermostat set on 80 every day, AND I work 5 minutes from home. I love following the Goracle!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 13, 2007 -> 07:19 PM) Maybe because that clip there uses really bad analysis? Look at the first item they question. The MSNBC article stated a specific answer percentage - this person prefers to lump all the better or the same stuff together. What does that prove, if its already bad? This really looks like a lame attempt to find positives that don't exist. Niiiiiiice. And that other poll that BS referenced the other day was ... solid. Look... I think all these so-called polls are bunk, including this one (that SS referenced). You can't possibly have a valid poll over there right now and I also think that the questions that are asked will absolutely skew the results of "positives" and "negatives", which was the point I was making in the other thread, when I basically got told that I was simply trying to start s***.

You're so pretty, Johnny. SO pretty. What a moron.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 08:21 PM) If you haven't done so already, I'd read some of the Woodward books, particularly the first one (and remember that Woodward was not some outsider liberal, he was invited to the White House and well-respected there). He has been incapable of the job since day 1. And I also agreed with some of his early cabinet choices, but let's look at those. Powell was the best of the bunch, and he got run out of the building by the neo-cons. Rumsfeld, I am embarrassed to say, I actually agreed with at the time. But it became obvious very quickly he was not doing well, and Bush let him linger. Everyone else, well, look at what they turned out to be. And remember, I voted for the guy. I thought he was better equiped that Gore to do the job right. Apparently, I was wrong. One other thing - most Presidents, particularly 2-termers, get better at the job as time goes on. Amazingly, Bush has actually continued to be just as bad, and maybe even worse. He has lost control of much of his own leadership of the executive. He is, regardless of the type of "guy" he is, a horrible President. I agree with most of your sentiment here - and I've said that before. However, I think the Democrats are 100% worse then W. on a bad day, only because they politicize EVERYTHING that W. stands for just on the principle of it. Even with all of the stupidity, gaffes, etc. I think W. was/is a better choice then either the Goracle or John F. Kerry... which tells me that the office of the president is so far tainted in the respect department that it's hard to even feel good about it anymore. It's just sad. I will give Obama some points for that - he seems much more interested in a positive image then any other candidate out there right now. (This probably belongs in the candidate thread, but I wanted to echo NSS's sentiments here, because it has been a point in which I've been trying to talk about for a while now.).

So what are we supposed to do, Mr. NSS? It seems like you have all the answers as to why GWB is so wrong, so what is it that is so right now? BTW, I don't expect a serious answer to that, because I'm not sure there is one, in all seriousness. It's a god-awful mess over there but from some blogs that you can read (including our very own NUKE) there are things that can be done to make this more "winable" then is happening now. The real question is, how do we make the Iraqi's care enough to want to take control of their own country? Had an interesting conversation with my grandfather in law about the war - he is a WWII vet and had some interesting things to say. You know the zero plane in the Smithsonian? The picture with the GI in the cockpit in that exhibit? That's my grandfather-in-law. I love listening to his stories... it gives you a real sense of perspective on things in these current times. Anyway, I'm tired after thet trip. Hopefully I'm not too buried and can play with ya'll tomorrow.

Olson is not a good pick, for many reasons, IMO. But I see that the point SS made about Ted Stevens got a nice little (usual) quip from Tex. And I thought all I said was hyperbolic nonsense.

Well, this is so sad. But now, it's really to the point that I hope they play well yet end up with that magical #1 pick. 61-83.

My blood pressure isn't up. Trust me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 07:49 PM) And add this thought, isn't good news in Iraq good for the GOP? So if a few hundred or thousand more soldiers are killed, and we pump a couple billion more into the country, but the GOP can show some good news, isn't that a great thing? Isn't it though? How many times do I have to say that Bush has been wrong as well? It's AMAZING how much you all want to just keep going right over that every single time I say it, because my message doesn't cowtow the Democrat talking points. THEY ARE BOTH wrong, and they are BOTH wrong for political reasons. That's the part that sucks the most. Our guys are being politicized... and I hate it. But, we're there, and if the political ramifcations were taken off the table, I think we could have a lot more success.

Who cares what it has to do with? And candidly, I'm not "angry" at anything. Topics change around here all the time within the same thread, and BS really took this a different direction anyway - if you go through this thread, it's been all over the place... you're just getting pissed off at me and it's starting to show from the whole AQ = Dem thing. I don't really give a rat's ass if you or any one else are going to follow me around and tell me how meaningless everything I have to say is, because that's pretty much what's happened for the past two days now. What it really boils down to is, people have "made their minds up", like most in this forum and will not listen to any piece of "good news" from Iraq. So what we get are these "polls" saying that America sucks and get the hell out. It seems to me that I have cited at least one first hand source from over there - and his sector has been cleaned up - and they are treated well (oh NOES we can't have THAT!). There are COUNTLESS other blogs from Iraq that say the same thing. The Patreaus report is saying the same thing (but THAT has to be discounted because it's "washed down" by the Administration...) When I read you all putting stuff like that, you've already discounted everything that's "good" because you feel nothing is "justified" over there. You all come across as righteous, pompous and arrogant as you are making me out to be on the flip side. Fine. But at least ADMIT your bias. That's all I'm saying. There's never any easy answers to any of this. It's so easy to just say "screw it, bring them home"... and it's really easy (especially in this media environment) to support that notion. You have to work a little harder to find things going well - which says something in and of itself that not much is (going right). I freely admit that, and I understand that very well. The difference is, I don't just take every piece of news and say to myself "oh, woe is me, it's over, bring our guys home, because we can't fight the war on terror". Whether we like it or not, that is exactly what it is, and I don't care about the circumstances that led to it. It is what it is, so it's time we start acting like it. And time marches on...

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 05:46 PM) Does that mean that if you don't smoke in a bar, the terrorists will have won? I say, "Smoke em out!" But that's a WMD and we can't use those types of weapons.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 04:55 PM) Questioning is all good. Kap isn't questioning here - he is saying its B.S. because somewhere, someone might have a counterpoint. In that way, anything anyone ever says can be made into a pile of steaming crap. It makes it pointless to have a discussion about it. If there is a counterpoint, let's see it. Instead of just immediately saying its B.S. Come on, NSS. That's all I'm going to say about it. So, who said this?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 03:53 PM) It was across all 18 provinces across the entire country of Iraq. They didn't cherry pick the provinces. Your analogy does not work. Because you KNOW how the poll was conducted, because you were the one taking it. It may have been done in a "non biased" way, certainly. And Tex's post is right: what the hell else are they going to say when their country is at war? More to the point, though: if I produced a poll saying that things are not as bad in Iraq as what is painted... you would be all over it. Your favoritism toward YOUR opinion is very clear. That's why you post all these things that you do, because it supports your opinion. I don't see you posting anything that is "good news" - I see you posting everything that supports your position. OF COURSE you dismiss every single thing that I say that could potentially discredit any information you may have. It only makes sense to you to do things in that manner. The difference is, I can honestly say that both sides of the equation, both good and bad on ANY topic, can tell two sides to a story. To you, there's only one side, and that's the position of "get out". Have a nice week.

And, again, there is information to counter some of the information in this poll. Every time I say that, I get told to "prove it" or it just gets immediately dismissed as bulls*** - whatever - I'm sick of playing that game. Look at NUKE'S blog, for an example. And there's plenty of other examples like that which would counter the "poll" information. When I post stuff like this, my intent is to counter the validity of the poll and perhaps get some of you to realize that everything that is spoon fed to you might not necessarily be the exact truth. Is this poll relevant? Absolutely! But there is more then meets the eye. Of course, though, my messages and my intent is "bulls***" and I should "prove" every letter of the alphabet that I type. Another example: 450 neighborhoods in a country the size of California. That would be like taking a poll in 25 neighborhoods in or near downtown Chicago and saying that they are most likely to vote Democrat. DUH! Edit: And by the way: I think that the rose colored bulls*** that the White House produces should be taken under the same scrutiny. I also think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it damn near always is... but whenever I say things like that, it gets glossed over as though I have spoken nothing - and my negativity toward "Democrats" and "Liberals" gets cherry picked as me being an asshole. I am finding the pack mentality on a lot of these topics quite interesting... and I'll just leave it at that.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) I, like a large percentage of the American populace, think we should get out of Iraq. Not really sure that would be a 'cause'. EDIT: Instead of "American populace" what I meant was "the American, European, and Iraq populace". Which further goes to show that any poll taken could perhaps be biased, unless again, it's for your cause, then it's an "important" poll showing just what you all (those wanting to "get out of Iraq") want it to show. I'm not saying that you're "wrong", but you might be biased.