Politics - 15 November 2007

2007-11-15 08:50:31 · 9 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

2007-11-15 08:48:30 · 15 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

Government spending has been out of control since Dubbya took office (6 years with a republican Congress) and with the lower taxes we have been borrowing money from China like crazy. Does anyone think that’s a good thing? I mean, don’t we have to pay that back sooner or later?

Republicans talk about fiscal discipline and reduced government spending during speeches, but they don’t seem to vote that way. So they cut taxes, spend more and borrow to cover the rest.

2007-11-15 08:48:19 · 6 answers · asked by arvis3 4

Osama is still alive and our borders and ports aren't secure. It's just a matter of time people.

Plus look at the government's horribly slow response to hurricane Katrina.

Does that not just show you how unprepared our government is for another terrorist attack of that magnitude?

2007-11-15 08:48:16 · 8 answers · asked by MadLibs 6

Success of surge drops Iraq from front pages

FORGET the briefings from generals, the intelligence evaluations and the Pentagon status reports. There is a handy indicator for whether the war in Iraq is going well — its relative absence from the front pages.
During the past month, the country’s top newspapers have splashed Iraq stories on Page
A-1, but most of them have had to do with the scandal concerning the security contractor Blackwater and the impending (but yet to materialize) Turkish invasion of the Kurdish north. Reports on major trends in the war tend to be relegated to inside pages because — from the blows dealt to al-Qaida, to the rise of Sunni security volunteers, to Muqtada al-Sadrs cease-fire — they have been largely positive.
In Israel, there’s a law that bans reporting on sensitive national-security operations; you could be forgiven for thinking that the U.S. has a similar ban on any encouraging news from the hottest battlefront in the war on terror. The United States might be the only country in world history that reverse-propagandizes itself, magnifying its setbacks and ignoring its successes so that nothing can disturb what Sen. Joe Lieberman calls the narrative of defeat.
In an incisive account of the surge in the new issue of The Weekly Standard, military analyst Kimberly Kagan writes: The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted
to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004.
Seemingly every day brings a new encouraging number. The latest is that rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq have fallen to their lowest level in nearly two years. The lefts initial reaction to the surges success in reducing violence in Iraq was to declare Gen. David Petraeus a liar. Now, a new tack has become necessary — finding creative ways to deny credit to the surge. Democrat Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin says insurgents are simply running out of people to kill.
So between January and today, everyone who could die in violence in Iraq perished? This is childish. It is true that the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad neighborhoods, once it is complete, creates a perverse kind of stability. But the reduction in violence has happened all around the country, in all-Sunni areas as well as in areas in parts of Baghdad that are still ethnic fault lines.
As Kagan writes, U.S. forces interposed themselves between warring factions in Baghdad, and on the outskirts of the city, attacked al-Qaida strongholds. This is why American casualties went up earlier this year and now — with al-Qaida on the run — are back down. As security has taken hold, the Sunnis have felt comfortable partnering with American forces to battle al-Qaida.
Defeating the terror group has been a consensus goal of all sides in the Iraq debate. Now that some U.S. commanders consider al-Qaida in Iraq all but routed, Democrats should be delighted. Instead they avert their eyes from the signal accomplishment of the U.S. military during the past year. Troops have never been so notionally supported by everyone, while having their accomplishments so ignored.
The political reconciliation that is so important to Iraq’s long-term stability has yet to take place, but the first, necessary step is to get Iraqis to stop resorting to violence to resolve their differences. And whatever comes of Iraq, eliminating al-Qaida in Iraq is a desirable goal in its own right.
Bush repeatedly has said that there will be no ceremony on the deck of a battleship to mark victory over al-Qaida; when it comes to any eventual victory over al-Qaida in Iraq, not only will there be no ceremony, well be lucky to get a headline.

2007-11-15 08:42:48 · 9 answers · asked by mission_viejo_california 2

2007-11-15 08:35:34 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-15 08:34:27 · 8 answers · asked by Darth Vader 6

American way of life?

2007-11-15 08:33:26 · 28 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

Five points for best answer.

"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The "best man" at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

2007-11-15 08:30:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_politics.php

2007-11-15 08:29:49 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-15 08:28:57 · 8 answers · asked by Run Lola Run 4

I guess he'll have to decide...

2007-11-15 08:28:01 · 8 answers · asked by Madmax 2

2007-11-15 08:25:55 · 9 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5

2007-11-15 08:19:24 · 14 answers · asked by Madmax 2

2007-11-15 08:16:38 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

For me, it's Obama.

2007-11-15 08:16:05 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-15 08:13:11 · 23 answers · asked by NEO PIRATE 3

US is encouraging tribal and other Sunnis to form regional associations to counter al-Qaeda and build support for the Maliki government. Tribesmen and former insurgents who join are paid 600 dollars a month to fight al-Qaeda, and US forces have recruited thousands of men, who are given uniforms and paid 300 dollars a month to act as guards in the neighborhood.

2007-11-15 08:11:58 · 15 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-11-15 08:11:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-15 08:04:06 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous

As a % of her people, and in total, more than China, Russia, and other repressive regimes.

2007-11-15 08:00:12 · 22 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5

Federal budget deficits, needless wars, horrible diplomacy abroad, and attacking poor immigrants?

2007-11-15 07:57:37 · 11 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5

2007-11-15 07:55:21 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just have the words:

FALALALALA ISLAMABAD

I cant think of the rest

2007-11-15 07:53:33 · 14 answers · asked by NEO PIRATE 3

2007-11-15 07:52:04 · 13 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5

2007-11-15 07:47:06 · 33 answers · asked by Page 4

2007-11-15 07:45:37 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-11-15 07:42:02 · 35 answers · asked by Evil Conservative Man 2

2007-11-15 07:41:49 · 12 answers · asked by realitycheck 3

In the first scene it talks about the USA not making anything anymore and not growing anything except tobacco and wheat and the USA is practically begging other countries to give it medical supplies.

2007-11-15 07:28:18 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous