Dick Durbin Quote

Solve all the world's problems in this forum.
NOTE: While debate is a good thing, we expect all parties to have respect for individual opinions here.

Dick Durbin Quote

Postby bermbits » Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:09 am

This morning on "This Week," Dick Durbin said, "It's time for the Iraqis to stand up and defend their own country."

I have to ask, which Iraqis? With at least three religious groups fighting each other (and us), who would rule, and what would be different? It is obvious to me they are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before they are Iraqis. How could this work?

This is a serious question for which I expect serious responses.
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

Postby AJRC_CS » Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:16 am

This is a question that should have been answered in 2003, before 2003 even. "Who would rule Iraq after the war was over," it's a simple question that has been made more difficult by 4 years of foreign occupation. What needs to be done is not try and force our government type on the Iraqi's but also not let it revert back to the shambles it once was. Iraqi's say they were better under Saddam than they're under US occupation, but they're not seeing the big picture. One of the most important components of any new Iraqi government is national unity! Before, under Saddam, they had politicians who were not elected because of their merit, but rather on considerations of wealth, influence and ethnic or sectarian affiliations. This is starting to surface again!

The problem with the new "Democratic" Iraqi government at the moment is that it was founded abroad with US funding and support. This has meant it's often at the mercy of US policies and because of this there are discrepancies between what the government wants and what actually happens in regard to Iraqi domestic policy.

The Iraqi's must be allowed to run their own country, they must have a government that is a true participatory democracy, as opposed to democracy that supports the vested interests of Washington and London.

In my humble opinion there will be civil war no matter what, the Shi'ite Arabs who make up the majority of Iraq's population hate the Sunnis who make up about 20% of the population. You must remember that it was the Sunni Baathist party that ruled Iraq before 2003. The Shi'ite's will not forget this! The Sunnis on the other hand hate the Shi'ite's because they see them as an abomination of their religion, the Shi'ite's while Muslim split from Islam over the rightful heirs to Muhammad. Also while the Sunnis have great political leverage, the Shi'ite's have all the money as most of the oil-rich regions of Iraq are inhabited by Shi'ite's. As for the Kurds, very Liberal in their outlook, and not Arab in the slightest. They dress in western clothes and have western ideals, they hate the Sunnis for the atrocities carried out by Saddam.

So in a nut shell if there is a Democratically elected government that has complete support of the people then there'll be no problem. But until that cold day in hell, we'll see secular hatred with ethnic and religious differences causing violence and bloodshed. Hey, they are getting more and more like the west everyday.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby van » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:46 pm

Kia ora Dave

It is obvious to me they are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before they are Iraqis. How could this work?


Were the Protestants and Catholics in Eire religion first and Irish 2nd?
The divisions in Eire were political , yet there too the occupying power fomented the division religiously in an effort to rule

Despite what the biased media will tell you, Sunni and Shi'ite are able to get along
Do we currently see the west divided along religious lines?
Is there strife between Sunni and Shi'ite in Mecca and the other places where they gather?

When you read that the majority of Iraqi's from both sides of the fence have the desire to oust and kill the occupying forces, does that not tell you something?

I read an article recently where an Iraqi cleric recently posited that with the invaders gone, they would be able to sit down and mend their fences, unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment

Everything that comes from Iraq is couched in western terms and values, and that has little relevance to the Iraqi people
I watch a number of debates on the BBC and the comments that make most sense are those from people who live in the region, be they Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian etc
These are the people from the region/culture who have a far greater insight of the minds of how those cultures work

The Kurds I know little of, save that they support Israel, and are a pain to Turkey
The whole of the Middle East is in a mess due to Western interference, and what if any chance is there of peace as long as the West continues to enforce its ideology?
They couldn't handle it then, and they can't handle it now

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby van » Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:50 pm

Kia ora Andy

Hey, they are getting more and more like the west everyday.


Couldn't agree with you more!!!

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby Yogi » Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:11 pm

Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and our presence there is seen by the natives as an occupation, not as a peace keeping mission. With Saddam's absolute rule being history, the old hatreds among the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites are back in focus.

The first thing that has to happen is for the various factions to establish strength. The side with the most power and strength will emerge to control the situation. The losers will not be pleased but they will be willing to negotiate a reduced power sharing role, and thus bring a form of stability to the country. I don't believe the Iraqis ever wanted a democracy, and they will forever be bitter about Bush's efforts to use them as a model for other Arab countries to follow. However, they are all interested in living a somewhat normal lifestyle. That will happen once the civil war ends. I'd guess some five years out before that happens completely.

The current administration in Washington has too much at stake to simply admit their efforts in Iraq were, and are, a mistake. However, a pull out is necessary before Iraq will stabilize; and the sooner the better. There is still time for Bush to look like a hero, but that would mean admitting he was wrong, and that will never do. When the Democrats take over completely in 2008, and vacate the premises, Iraq might in fact get more bloody after we leave. But, as I mentioned above, it is a necessary evolution for the Iraqi people, and civil war should not be considered an error in judgment of whoever is in the Oval Office at the time. It was an inevitable outcome of regime change.
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell happened.
User avatar
Yogi
Big Kahuna
 
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:29 pm
Location: near Chicago

Postby Skinjob » Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:28 pm

Most of the answers on this thread are inventive, to say the least, and are patently wrong due to media distortion of the facts, and hype. It all depends on who you talk to.

The media designed the whole thing to make it's sheeple followers "clutch defeat from the jaws of victory". The lying leftist media is relentless, and will never give up until they force a loss in the Mideast. Repeating the "Big Lie", is what caused millions of people to die in the Twentieth Century. History repeats itself. "The farther back I look, the farther forward I can see."
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby van » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:44 pm

Kia ora Skinjob

Most of the answers on this thread are inventive, to say the least, and are patently wrong due to media distortion of the facts, and hype. It all depends on who you talk to.


" I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce."

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby van » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:51 pm

Kia ora Dennis


When the Democrats take over completely in 2008, and vacate the premises


If only one could be persuaded that this would happen
I perceive that immaterial as to who is in power in 2008, the politicians are too beholden to those who grease the wheels to get them elected for this to happen

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

" Understand death and you understand war, which is primarily about the
extinction of human life rather than victory or defeat."
Robert Fisk?
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby bermbits » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:57 pm

I am afraid I agree with Van when he says, "I perceive that immaterial as to who is in power in 2008, the politicians are too beholden to those who grease the wheels to get them elected for this to happen."
"Veritas et probitas super omnia."
User avatar
bermbits
Stone Cold Crazy
 
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:51 am
Location: New Hampshuh! Ayuh!

Postby Skinjob » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:13 pm

Democrats are more deadly for Americans than the Republicans are. After all, when they mismanaged the Korean War, they lost it at great cost in lives to the United States. Now, due to their botching, we have to deal with a Nuclear Korea. They didn't learn from that mistake.

Since they didn't learn from that mistake, they repeated it in Vietnam, and it cost 58,000 American lives. In 1964 I voted for Johnson, "The Peace Candidate". His political machine effectively branded Goldwater a "Warmonger". A casual examination of past world situations shows that the Democrats are actually the Warmongers, not the Republicans. General Eisenhower, the Republican President that followed the Korean War President, Truman, had the United States remain free of foriegn wars for his entire terms, even with all the unrest and provocation from the commies. Then of course there was Ronald Reagan, who defeated the communists without firing a shot; thus it saved millions of lives that would have been lost had the Democrats decided to fight and lose again. Putting aside all the political rhetoric, it is easy to see who the real warmongers are, and it wasn't the Republicans.

The same political philosophy and foreign policy that lost both those wars, is still present today, and will cause us to lose this one, and at great expense in lives and safety to this country. The Democrats are devoid of honor, and are morally bankrupt. Fight them!
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby Yogi » Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:50 pm

I'd be very interested in seeing the media quotes that show how Democrats went against all past foreign policies and made a preemptive and unprovoked attack against Iraq. Regardless of whether you believe the Bush administration's justifications for this war or not, it is a war completely initiated and carried out under the direction of a Republican controlled government. I find it hard to understand why any previous wars, be they Democrat or Republican in origin, have any relevance to the blunders being carried on in Iraq today. But, I do understand why conservative extremist might think so.

It's pointless to assign blame at this stage of the game. The realities are that we are not losing the war in Iraq. It is already lost. There is no hope for a win or even a graceful exit. The country of Iraq is in utter chaos and it is not helpful for us to be there. The people of Iraq have to go through a process of learning how to govern themselves, and as it stands now that means civil war. There is no chance for a democracy to be set up there any time soon, if ever. We are not pulling our troops out now because the president fails to accept what is obvious, and never did have a contingency plan for an exit. If anybody needs to learn lessons, Bush would do well to read up on what happened in Viet Nam and why,

I have no clue regarding which party will be in control of the presidency next time around. However, I would be interested in opinions about why that party, whichever it is, will be elected. Perhaps that would be a great discussion for another thread. My feeling is that we are in for a regime change in this country. The people of the United States are becoming disillusioned with the current powers that be, and they will do something to change it.
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering what the hell happened.
User avatar
Yogi
Big Kahuna
 
Posts: 3351
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:29 pm
Location: near Chicago

Postby van » Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:35 am

Kia ora Dennis

I have no clue regarding which party will be in control of the presidency next time around. However, I would be interested in opinions about why that party, whichever it is, will be elected. Perhaps that would be a great discussion for another thread. My feeling is that we are in for a regime change in this country. The people of the United States are becoming disillusioned with the current powers that be, and they will do something to change it.


I share your sympathy
It is my belief that many countries are that this moment in time
Ever since the first tribal community tried to rule its people, there has been a search for a better way
So far, it is my opinion that all have failed to deliver on their promises

The most stable govt I am aware of is the Swiss, a fiercely nationalist community, yet with no pretensions to seek to dominate others
I find it incomprehensible, that given its record, that other nations have not sought to duplicate it
Again, my knowledge of it is not that great, and I understand that some are not happy with it, but given their economy and stability, it must have something going for it

We had the choice of implementing it here some yrs ago when we converted from the 2 party system to MMP, but there was insufficient knowledge and political will to examine it and offer it as an alternative
While many here are not all that happy with MMP, it is however an improvement to the 2 party system
"Divide and Rule" has always been the political aim, but at least with MMP, the people too can exercise this option!

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby van » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:16 am

Kia ora Skinjob



Democrats are more deadly for Americans than the Republicans are. After all, when they mismanaged the Korean War, they lost it at great cost in lives to the United States. Now, due to their botching, we have to deal with a Nuclear Korea. They didn't learn from that mistake.


I am somewhat surprised at your outburst!
Let's face it, America, no matter which political party was in power, sallied forth to "kick ass" against the "leftist commie bastards" and you are unhappy????

You mention "not learning from that mistake"
Allow me to assure you that there are many ignorant, arrogant nations and their elected leaders that continually have not learned from their bloody mistakes!!

Again you mention Nam
Given your outburst, I note that you like to hedge your bets, for if the "dirty Democrats" had not tried to stem the "yellow peril" (ie aforementioned 'commie bastards') you would be gloating yet again, because they did nothing!!!
Furthermore, given your absolute and often repeated diatribe against these "commie/leftist etc bastards" am I to conclude that in your opinion, those who fought them died in vain?, should have stayed at home because the "wrong" party send them to their deaths???

" Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental."

Arohanui
Shalom
Bill

Ps at the top of this post was the following admonission
This is a serious question for which I expect serious responses.

So far your contribution has been on the hilarious side rather then the "serious"
I'll concede the possibility that it may have escaped your attention, but now that you have been reminded, perhaps you can comeup with some serious input

Have a nice day
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby AJRC_CS » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:24 am

I agree with everyone except, Skinjob.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Skinjob » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:49 am

So far, you've done a pretty good job of personal attacks against me, and administering Straw Man fallacies; but none of you have made a dent in my original assertions. (Isn't that typical of liberals? Whenever you are stuck on rhetoric, you resort to attacking the person, not the message.)

During the Eisenhower administration, were several grave situations in Europe that could have faced us off against the Soviet Communists. Specifically, they were the "Berlin Uprising" of 1953 and the "Hungarian Revolution" of 1956. Both put us face to face with the Soviets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germa ... _June_1953

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_ ... on_of_1956

Of course those were before your time, but they were Cold War powder kegs. President Eisenhower managed the country then.

Contrast that with Kennedy's botched "Bay of Pigs", and the surrender of Cuba to Soviet Communism.

You can quote revisionist history all you want, but I was in the service during all of that stuff, from 1952 through 1976.

The Democrats/Liberals are quick to squeal like stuck hogs about the Republicans and how they manage wars, but the fact remains that the Democrats left our soldiers stranded and ill equiped in Korea; American soldiers froze to death in summer clothing during a cold and bitter winter.

Liberal Democrat President Truman went against his Generals and lost the war in Korea. Now, we have to face a nuclear armed North Korea that spreads weapons to our enemies world wide. You can admonish me personally all you want, but you can't change the facts.

Liberal President Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, and based on that lie, "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution", lost the lives of 58,000 Americans. both from the lie and from mismanaging the war. You can jump on me all you want, but you can't change those facts.

I didn't see any war with President Reagan, and he defeated Soviet Communism without firing a shot; the Soviets dropped like a wet condom.

Also, Van, don't put words in my mouth or attach attitudes to me that I never expressed. That's called "Strawman", and it's a logical fallacy. Your history is no more accurate than a Scud Missile.
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby AJRC_CS » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:35 pm

I think the point others were trying to make, Skinjob. Is that history is just that, history. Korea and Vietnam have absolutely no relevance to Iraq, it's like comparing the Crusades of a thousand years ago to what is happening today. If you constantly live in the past, as you seem to do, then you will never learn from the mistakes of the past. You will forever be doomed to have the same fears you did 50 years ago. You need to learn to live in the here and now.

Van was correct when he said you hedge your bets. If Vietnam had been won, then you would have claimed it a great republican victory, but as Vietnam was lost it's obviously a disastrous Democrat defeat. Just more empty rhetoric.

Yes, we have to face a nuclear armed North Korea. What has Dubya done about that? Why didn't he attack a nation with WMD instead of a weak nation with no WMD? Can you answer me that one, Skinjob? It's easy to blame the past, but how about living in the present for a change and putting blame where blame is due!

This isn't a game, Iraq is not some computer game that we can watch on TV and then switch off and forget about. Iraq is real, and it's a real mess. You can blame the dreaded leftists all you want, but the republicans got us into the war, so who should we blame? There is no exit plan, there never was, who should we blame? Was it the Commies? Was it the Marxists? Was it the Leftists? No, it was the republicans.

I guarantee that if the Dems win in 2008, all the conservative extremist's will come out saying the war in Iraq is a mess and it's all the Democrats fault, i will bet my life on it. Hedging the bet, a cowards tactic.

Now you can quote as many "logical fallacies" as you want, but they are just more meaningless rhetoric.

Now bermbits clearly asked for serious responses. How about answering the discussion without blaming the leftists/Democrats or bringing up Korea and Vietnam every five minutes. How about posting something of meaning like, how will the Iraqi's defend themselves when the troops pull out, who will rule Iraq when the occupation is over?
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby Skinjob » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:58 pm

AJRC, They certainly do have relevance to Iraq, and the rest of the world. The examples I gave indicate a morally bankrupting Democrat foreign policy that has remained the same. If there is any lesson to be learned from the past is that appeasement has never worked with dictators; their attitudes and actions remain the same, and that is tyranny, horror, and war.

The Democrats haven't changed, and that is relevant to the conversation, because they are preparing to orchestrate another similar disasterous foreign policy all over again.

You can attempt to slough it off, but if you list each failed foreign policy and botched war since WWII, it didn't come from the Republicans Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, or the first Bush.

The Democrats/Liberals are still messing around with the same attitudes, philosophies, and actions as before. That sets their trend line. Losers, they have not learned, and the label fits them to a 'T'. They are caught in a closed loop, and repeat the same errors over and over again.

Also, there you go again, attacking me instead of the message. It has nothing to do with whether I "live in the past" or not, nor whether I am "doomed", or whether I live in the "here and now", or whether I "hedge" my bets. The topic of discussion is to be examined and answered accordingly.

What is really irrelevant is opinionated rant with no factual or logical basis to support it.

You are still the dumb bully, trying to discredit and ridicule other posters personally, but no clearly defined or educated answers of your own.
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Postby AJRC_CS » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:35 pm

Whatever, skinjob. I won't be drawn into your pathetic flame wars. You want to spew mindless rhetoric, be my guest. You want to blame everthing on Liberals, fine. I answered the discussion first, i stand by my comments. I take the high road, you take the low.
The ignorant close their mind and convince themselves that there's only one truth. The wise keep an open mind to the different possibilities leading to and stemming from the present. Look not with your eyes but with your mind.
User avatar
AJRC_CS
Outlaw Torn
 
Posts: 1049
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:39 am
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Postby van » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:51 pm

Kia ora Skinjob

The examples I gave indicate a morally bankrupting Democrat foreign policy that has remained the same. If there is any lesson to be learned from the past is that appeasement has never worked with dictators; their attitudes and actions remain the same, and that is tyranny, horror, and war.


It is interesting to read that comment
What about the "morally bankrupt foreign policy" of the USA fullstop?
What about its support for those dictators with whom it has reached an accomodation?
It was after all American support for Saddam that emboldened him to do America's dirty work against Iran
I would also remind you of the American support Hitler received from the Bush family and Henry Ford among others

You have a blinkered view which seeks to lay blame, excuse your own parties misadventures and denying that no matter which party is/was in control there is collective responsibility and accountability

If you research history, accomplished via a simple Google Search, you will find that as a people, Americans desired no adventures beyond their own borders, but various administrations pressured by the big business that saw them elected, ensured that war was joined and profits made

"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
van
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: nz

Postby Skinjob » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:57 pm

AJRC,

You are still the dumb bully, trying to discredit and ridicule other posters personally, but no clearly defined or educated answers of your own.

I stand by that statement, and if there is a flame war, then you started it by bullying and attacking people personally.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay, Van, here we go again. I’ve addressed your stuff here and on other forums. About Saddam; it wasn’t America’s Policy to appease Saddam in Iraq.

Nations, including the U.S., decided that it was better for there to be a balance of power in the Mideast; that meant that no country there should take over the other countries, because it is better to deal with several little tin-horn dictators, than to deal with one large tyrannical power in the region. That policy is more complicated than can be elaborated on here. But, it was not only the U.S. that supported the policy, but other countries. Your statement is an over simplification of a complicated policy, and it was not a unilateral American policy.

No, there isn’t always a “collective responsibility and accountability”, here it depends on which party is in charge. I even hate the word “Collective”, in that it usually refers to a cluster-suck of mentally goose-stepping socialists, not free thinking and rational legislators. The “collective” is tribal thinking.

I don’t recognize a “Google Search” as providing any ultimate truth about past events or motives behind those events.

Your posts are fraught with inaccuracies, and leftist propaganda; and your sources are no more legitimate than any others, especially mine.

You talk about “Hedging your bets”, well you seem to place America into a position of damned if we do, and damned if we don’t. If we work with the dictators, then you accuse us of “support for Saddam or Hitler; but if we don’t then we are the aggressors that provoke those dictators. It’s funny that you invoke Hitler, and not Stalin, in your arguments. America sucked from the same trough with Stalin, and in effect made the world safe for Communism.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bermbits, “It is obvious to me they are Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before they are Iraqis. How could this work?”

It will work about as well as Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, do. Not too well, but it is improving all the time. It will work about as well as Northerners and Southerners did after the Civil War in the States. It takes time.
Sixty miles per gallon? Not really. Cheap? Nope. Phoney and stupid? Yes, the Prius is global warming on 4 wheels.
User avatar
Skinjob
Hero Of The Day
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: Oregon

Next

Return to Politics and Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron