Slashdot Mirror
Obama Sets End of Iraq Combat For August 31st
eldavojohn writes "President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011. It's been a long seven-and-a-half years, with no guarantee of this announcement actually signifying the end of violence. Pundits are already speculating on whether or not this withdrawal speech is 'Mission Accomplished 2.' It's possibly the most significant confirmation of and commitment to a withdrawal the world will hear from the United States in Iraq."
is what kdawson and Taco have in common.
You're kidding, right? It guarantees that the few remaining insurgent groups will prepare for the date, and then attack with whatever they have left. That's why you *don't have a specific date* nor do you release your plans to the enemy.
Really? Like the 'few remaining insurgent groups' couldn't figure out that, oh hey! the Americans are gone. Because after we are gone, they have all the time to prepare that they need. And why, exactly, would they need to attack exactly on the date we leave? This is just more Obama Derangement Syndrome, fear of the Big Black President causing people to throw all logic and common sense by the wayside and find something, anything, to justify their fears. So our President has a bigger dick than you, and can please women in ways you'll never be able to. Is that any reason to hate him?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No coincidence, nope nothing to see here. Move along.
Unlike chickenhawk Republicans, Obama will NOT be playing politics with our soldiers' lives.
No sir.
No Him.
Did I miss that part? Certainly invading a sovereign nation without provocation and killing civilians, women, children, reporters, first aid workers, is not something that would go unpunished? Not in the 21st century.
It isn't like this is 1939.
Umm... right?
There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.
In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.
I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.
Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.
That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?
Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.
After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.
Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.
When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakesp
Backwards. To the pr3viously thought backward and said a fact: FreeBSD The political mees To place a paper - Netcraft has bleak future. In large - keep your
You do realize that you're a cock-smoking tea-bagger, right?
And now, our buddies in the UK are decentralizing their healthcare because the quality of their socialized healthcare sucks.
No, it's being decentralised because the current lot of far-right fruitcakes have figured out that it's their best chance at selling off what was left after the previous lot of far-right fruitcakes sold off public assets.
Unfortunately, we appear to be moving towards the same third-world system as the US has, where you have to pay for all your healthcare in cash up front.
And now, our buddies in the UK are decentralizing their healthcare because the quality of their socialized healthcare sucks.
No, their problem is that it doesn't suck enough. They want it to suck as much as yours.
Obama's whole first year was a pointless waste.
That's your opinion. I think it was filled with monumental accomplishments given the obstructionist policy of your party.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this the plan outlined by former President Bush.
Only difference is if a man with a [D] after his name does it. The media will praise him. If a man with an [R] after his name does it, they'll demonize and attack him.
You think the President is responsible for the recession? Get a grip, moron.
The really scary thing to Europeans, is that people of the US have been conditioned to think socialism is a synonym for bad, to the extent that some institute trying to prove (falsely) that the current administration's health care plans are socialist is a viable tactic. In the rest of the world, saying the health plan was socialist would just get a shrug (and some corrections from those that understood what Socialism actually means). In the US, supporters of the plan have to scurry to prove that it isn't socialist.
It's a shame the plan isn't socialist, btw. The US pays far more than most of the world per capita for its health care than most Western European countries which have socialised care.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.