Political Junkies: Predictions for U.S. Mid-Terms?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

not commercials, news.

I understand that but in the 365 contracts the GAO reported on the DOD advertising contracts are in there. Oh well I think we have a misunderstanding here. The GAO report that had the $1.6 billion in 365 contracts included every single pr contract the gov't signed not just the "fake news" ones that the admin sent out. it included the DOD advertising for the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc... Most of the contracts the gov't signed were legit, however some as you point out are questionable in legality and ethics. The real question is why the party known for "smart spending" is spending 1.6 bil on advertising when I believe Clinton's admin only spent 38 mil?

[Looger]

once is illegal.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Looger

not commercials, news.

Ah... that sounds worse.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Looger

once is illegal.

Well my argument to that is the Justice department said they felt it was legal. This doesn't mean it was, however it means it was enough that they could defend it as such in a court.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well my argument to that is the Justice department said they felt it was legal. This doesn't mean it was, however it means it was enough that they could defend it as such in a court.

unchallenged, everything is legal.

that's the problem.

that's my point.

[Mccree]

I have a quick question. Why does it seem the American's are always voting?
Does it make sense to have elections and NOT vote for the President?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

You are empty and your lack of knowing Biden's proposal confirms that -- further MR. NOT so well read I'll give you yet another reading lesson. Read the Baker bi-partisan plan that was built off of the Biden plan. You are so clueless and have no idea what is actually even going on. Check out the FACTS and then comeback and admit you didn't know about this either. Just the two most important plans dealing with partition -- you know -- that plan you are so read up on -- bye bye to whatever tiny bit of credibiltiy you had on the issue.

Biden blah blah blah, Baker blah blah blah, dodge the issues raised. Nice job Johnny. Expected nothing less. Excuse me for not connecting that the flawed ISG plan was developed from something Biden had proposed. That seems to be your only defense of your argument, is that I did not know that the ISG proposal was developed by something started by Biden. Interestingly enough, the ISG doesn't give credit to Biden for anything, so how could anyone possibly make the connection?

Bottom line, the ISG proposal, which you call the "Baker bi-partisan plan", is flawed and does NOT take into account the security of the region and the needs of those countries that would be most impacted by any decisions to break up Iraq. Go back and try to answer the questions I posed. I know the reason you didn't, because you CAN'T. The plan that you think is so brilliant does not answer these issues, and these issues are key to security of the region. American think tanks like the United States Institute of Peace are focused on thing and one thing only; matters that affect the United States and its security. The American think tank industry is no place to find solutions to international problems. The only ones who can secure that region are the countries that reside in the region. The Americans ****ed it up, they should just leave well enough alone and work with the bordering countries to find a solution. The partitioning plan will only lead to greater misery and instability in the region.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Mccree

I have a quick question. Why does it seem the American's are always voting?
Does it make sense to have elections and NOT vote for the President?

They have various elections every year on the first Tuesday of November. And yes it makes sense to have elections and NOT vote for the President... what would get done if you swapped Presidents every year? A whole lotta nothing.

[Agamemnon]

If partitioning Iraq is such an obviously brilliant strategy, why isn't the US doing it? I haven't heard anything from anyone in the 'main streams' talking about a potential partition. I'm pretty sure the US made commitments to keep Iraq together when they began the occupation.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If partitioning Iraq is such an obviously brilliant strategy, why isn't the US doing it? I haven't heard anything from anyone in the 'main streams' talking about a potential partition. I'm pretty sure the US made commitments to keep Iraq together when they began the occupation.

the neo-con think tanks have been dropping the partition as a 'new' idea when it clearly has existed since at least 1983.

what kills me is that people lap it up as some revolutionary nouveau thing - how the karl roves must cackle at this brand of willful ignorance!

better check the newspeak dictionary. oh, a new plan to solve iraq, double-plus-good!

meanwhile the official line is keep it together, then eventually 'well we may have to bow to regional realities and facilitate a partition.'

man this is such a farce.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If partitioning Iraq is such an obviously brilliant strategy, why isn't the US doing it? I haven't heard anything from anyone in the 'main streams' talking about a potential partition. I'm pretty sure the US made commitments to keep Iraq together when they began the occupation.

It isn't and obvious strategy because there's too much at stake. Johnny apparently doesn't care if the muslims kill each other off, he only likes the Kurds so we would only protect them. Also, the short sightedness of this plan is unbelievable. It's going to create another Israel in the middle east, not while the US is there but in 20 years Kurdistan(or whatever it will be called) will be cause for just as much conflict as Israel is. If this plan goes through than 2040 is going to be US, Israel and the Kurds vs Muslims in WW3.

[Looger]

Sowa, i think that this is the 'battle of civilizations' that we keep hearing aboot.

it hasn't been happening in real life so plans like P20G will make it happen.

that's why western special forces have been caught red-handed staging sectarian violence.

i started a thread on this awhile ago:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=31730

included in there, daniel pipes article.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It isn't and obvious strategy because there's too much at stake. Johnny apparently doesn't care if the muslims kill each other off, he only likes the Kurds so we would only protect them. Also, the short sightedness of this plan is unbelievable. It's going to create another Israel in the middle east, not while the US is there but in 20 years Kurdistan(or whatever it will be called) will be cause for just as much conflict as Israel is. If this plan goes through than 2040 is going to be US, Israel and the Kurds vs Muslims in WW3.

Johnny doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The whole Kurdistan issue is a joke. Turkey and Syria will both fight that tooth and nail. A Kurdistan homeland would have to include lands in both of those countries where large numbers of Kurds live and own property. Neither Turkey or Syria want any piece of that social issue, so they will NOT be supportive of that proposal. So the United States would have to make a decision. Create Kurdistan in the partitioning, and create an enemy in Turkey and lose an important country from NATO. The same thing plays out with each of the ethnic groups. Iran and Saudi Arabia both have huge stakes in this as well. There are too many potential problems on the horizon that partitioning presents, and the countries in the region are the ones who would have to deal with the matters, not the United States. The whole partitioning plan is a poorly thoughtout farce.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The whole partitioning plan is a poorly thoughtout farce.

Lanny, i have to disagree strongly with you here.

it's a greatly thoughtout farce.

this has been the plan, partition iraq, stir up the pot, keep the situation 'fluid'.

iraq has been in the crosshairs ever since it was realized that it was going modern.

60% of doctor graduates being women? womens' rights and literacy? actual secular, modern state?

iraq was becoming successful, and it had to go.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Biden blah blah blah, Baker blah blah blah, dodge the issues raised. Nice job Johnny. Expected nothing less. Excuse me for not connecting that the flawed ISG plan was developed from something Biden had proposed. That seems to be your only defense of your argument, is that I did not know that the ISG proposal was developed by something started by Biden. Interestingly enough, the ISG doesn't give credit to Biden for anything, so how could anyone possibly make the connection?

Bottom line, the ISG proposal, which you call the "Baker bi-partisan plan", is flawed and does NOT take into account the security of the region and the needs of those countries that would be most impacted by any decisions to break up Iraq. Go back and try to answer the questions I posed. I know the reason you didn't, because you CAN'T. The plan that you think is so brilliant does not answer these issues, and these issues are key to security of the region. American think tanks like the United States Institute of Peace are focused on thing and one thing only; matters that affect the United States and its security. The American think tank industry is no place to find solutions to international problems. The only ones who can secure that region are the countries that reside in the region. The Americans ****ed it up, they should just leave well enough alone and work with the bordering countries to find a solution. The partitioning plan will only lead to greater misery and instability in the region.

Ahhh poor Lanny. Yep you did't know and doubt anyone finds that amazing. Again Lanny try learning by reading and then you might actually know who is responsible for plans and what state those plans are in. Did you bother to read the plan? I sincerely doubt it(in fact quite obviously NOT) -- the questions first brought up on the Biden plan(Turkish concerns etc) are addressed. Oh and Lanny the group was bi-partisan and CONGRESSIONALY created.

So yep I can answer a person who rants and raves without knowing what he is talking about. You don't know who created the original plan which is pathetic when you try to give the impression you have read up on it which clearly you haven't.

Then when you are called on it you resort to asking the same dumb questions not knowing that yep the answers are there in the plan.


What changes were made to the Biden plan by the Baker group -- Do you know? You don't know who came up with the plan as you have already admitted and heck you don't even know what the plan is ---Too funny and way too easy winning this argument.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Sowa

It isn't and obvious strategy because there's too much at stake. Johnny apparently doesn't care if the muslims kill each other off, he only likes the Kurds so we would only protect them. Also, the short sightedness of this plan is unbelievable. It's going to create another Israel in the middle east, not while the US is there but in 20 years Kurdistan(or whatever it will be called) will be cause for just as much conflict as Israel is. If this plan goes through than 2040 is going to be US, Israel and the Kurds vs Muslims in WW3.

Don't forget that the Kurds are sunni muslims, too--it's doubtful they would align themselves politically alongside Israel against other muslim nations. But otherwise, I agree with your point about it becoming a new political powderkeg.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Don't forget that the Kurds are sunni muslims, too--it's doubtful they would align themselves politically alongside Israel against other muslim nations. But otherwise, I agree with your point about it becoming a new political powderkeg.

israeli mercenaries and special forces have been training kurdish-based paramilitary forces since 2003.

the western-backed terrorists operating inside iran like the MEK and what used to be the kurdish PKK are for some reason not in the news...

if there's an israel-kurd conflict of interest it (like most actual conflicts) has almost nothing to do with religion, it may have to do more with israel's cooperation with turkish security and the capture of ocalan, leader of the PKK (kurdish workers' party) during a rough round of turkish crackdown on kurdish independence.

EDIT:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...e_in_iran.html

Now the U.S. military, with Israeli commandos lending a hand, is arming and secretly training a different breed of mujahideen, or Islamic fighters—Kurdish militias with links to ethnic Kurdish communities in Iran and Syria, and fighters from the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), which has bases in southern Iraq and has provided the United States with information about the Iranian military and Iran’s nuclear sites.
...
Israel’s relationship with the Kurds goes back a long way. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Israelis supplied the Kurds with weapons to attack Saddam Hussein’s forces. Then, after the first Gulf War, when the United States and its allies abandoned the Kurds, Israel continued to provide them with weapons and training.

To that end, Israeli special forces and Mossad have been training and recruiting Kurds for clandestine operations and surveillance in Iran and Syria. The advantage of having Kurdish fighters carry out operations is that they can easily blend into ethnic Kurdish communities and sow dissent.

They can also recruit rebel elements and build bases for future operations. Kurdish militiamen and fighters from the MEK are seen by Israel as ideal insurgents.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Johnny doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The whole Kurdistan issue is a joke. Turkey and Syria will both fight that tooth and nail. A Kurdistan homeland would have to include lands in both of those countries where large numbers of Kurds live and own property. Neither Turkey or Syria want any piece of that social issue, so they will NOT be supportive of that proposal. So the United States would have to make a decision. Create Kurdistan in the partitioning, and create an enemy in Turkey and lose an important country from NATO. The same thing plays out with each of the ethnic groups. Iran and Saudi Arabia both have huge stakes in this as well. There are too many potential problems on the horizon that partitioning presents, and the countries in the region are the ones who would have to deal with the matters, not the United States. The whole partitioning plan is a poorly thoughtout farce.

Ahh the blab, blab don't know what I'm talking about king continues. In fact the partioning of IRAQ is now referred to as a loose federation. As for Turkey Richard Holbrooke said that in fact Turkey would like American troops in the Kurdish state and that the Kurds would agree to it. He also states that the plan is the basis for a solution.

1. Three loose states in a Union

2. Tax policy that shares the wealth.

3. American troops in Kurdish state to stabilize the region.

Yep you have a bi-partisan and Congressionally created committee backed by the former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that thinks the plan will work. Yeah you know the guys who have actually been in government or are and those who have actually been involved in diplomacy.

But yeah it's flawed cause well Lanny says so --- LOL what a joke!!!

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yep you have a bi-partisan and Congressionally created committee backed by the former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that thinks the plan will work. Yeah you know the guys who have actually been in government or are and those who have actually been involved in diplomacy.

But yeah it's flawed cause well Lanny says so --- LOL what a joke!!!

Yeah because we all know those gov't and diplomacy types are always right.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Yeah because we all know those gov't and diplomacy types are always right.

A ton of experience dealing with diplomacy/negotiation etc. in the names involved -- Who would you like to deal with it?