Some food for thought
 

What about the stuff from the Dem party that a Bush win should be followed by weeks of civil disobedience, protest and refusal to accept the decision as being legimate. Just last week Hillary, your friggin party leader. was part of a protest of the election result based upon nothing. Do you think that was a step towards a more secure union, or a less secure union?

Some food for thought
 

You are a caricature of yourself. You know that, don't you?

Some food for thought
 

I'm not familiar with any of that. Cite please. And just to avoid any confusion, we're talking about the election of 2004.

Again, what are you talking about? Is this the protest to the official certification? If so, I think you intentionally misconstrue what it was about.

Some food for thought
 

Right, and Tom DeLay's Bible quote at the Congressional Prayer Service implying that the tsunami victims got what they deserved because they're not Christian enough is the front face and "representative" of the Red States. Ok, I'll give you Ft. Bend county.

Surprising
 

You're right! I was looking for the spending cuts that would reflect the fiscal prudence of the supply siders, but I think I must have left it under the Iraqi WMD.

On a serious note, if the supply-side theory is correct -- that tax cuts "pay for themselves" because of the economic growth they create -- then there is no need for spending cuts to control the deficit. The supply-siders sure act as if that conclusion is true.

Surprising
 

You really are going for "Cutest Poster of the Day" aren't you.

Huh? The paying for itself aspect (if, indeed, supply side theory even reaches that conclusion) means that there should be no revenue deficit purely as a result of the tax cuts. It does not mean that there isn't a need for spending prudence. If there was a deficit before the tax cuts, the tax cut is not a cure all.

Some food for thought
 

And you equate that to being willing to take up arms against the most powerful military the world has ever seen?

Talk is cheap. Planting bombs is not.



And you equate that to being willing to take up arms against the most powerful military the world has ever seen?

Talk is cheap. Planting bombs is not.


Y'know, I can keep copying and pasting this statement for as long as you idiots keep insisting that a mere 200,000 people willing to join an armed insurgency is meaningless, and as long as you keep comparing (unattributed, and most certainly unanswered) calls for "civil war" and "civil disobedience" to an armed insurgency.

As for comparing participation in a Senate hearing to the killin gof US soldiers, I have no comment.

Some food for thought
 

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cg...=sd&ID=SP84605

It's possible Mr. DeLay is just trying to reach out a hand across the ocean to our brothers in the Islamist's struggle.

Some food for thought
 

I'm not sure what number you're looking for to make it big enough to be an insugency. For other examples, I'd ask how many Nicaraguans served with the contras, as a percentage of the population?

You might try searching the WaPo website. I think there was a large article this weekend, but my recollection might be off (sleep deprivation).

I'd say there are elements of both, certainly -- but (to nitpick) it can still be an insurgency if it is directed against a domestic government. The insurgents may not be able to "win" power in the long term -- but if the Sunni radicals are successful in creating chaos over the medium to long term, then the perception will be that the U.S. has lost. Many people will also perceive that the U.S. had screwed Iraq up. [Many people will ultimately choose stability and certainty under a dictatorship to chaos and random murder in the streets.]

Perception is tremendously important in this fight, whether you view Iraq as a discrete war or as part of our ongoing battle against radical Islamism, which will last a generation or two.

Surprising
 

The tax cuts -- whether Bush's or Reagan's -- never came close to paying for the revenue they eliminated. Had spending remained exactly even, a virtual impossibility under our system of goverment, the deficits still would have grown.

But hey -- who am I to argue with a theory first expounded on a cocktail napkin?

Some food for thought
 

Where are you getting 200000?
If I could bottle how to get you to "no comment" I believe the board would stand up as one and applaude my latest contribution.

Not Me
 

Guess who?!

Some food for thought
 

First of all, it's estimated at 40,000. Second of all, it's hardly meaningless. I think it's a real, but surmountable problem. My post was essentially going to the nature of the problem (i.e., that it does not have the hallmarks of a militarily defined "insurgency.")

That said, it is very disruptive to our efforts, and won't be "put down" until the Iraqis are trained sufficiently, in sufficent numbers, and with sufficient equipment to put it down themselves.

Some food for thought
 

Appropos of nothing -- this comment just brought to mind my surprise over how big some of these bombs are getting.

In the past two weeks, roadside IEDs have _destroyed_ two (2) Bradley AFVs and one (1) M1A1 Abrams tank. (Not damaged, but destroyed.) That's extraordinary.

S_A_M

Some food for thought
 

This is a valid point.