|
|
#41
08-24-2007, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The war in Iraq is a major front in the global war to combat al-Qaeda and is critical to the outcome of U.S. efforts to contain Iran. At the same time, Iraq is the site of a bloody insurgency that threatens to explode into a full-blown civil war. The U.S. has much at stake in this conflict, and a pullout now would bring grave consequences: massive sectarian violence, a humanitarian disaster, and the creation of a failed state that would serve as a springboard for radical Islamic forces to destabilize neighboring states and launch terrorist attacks against a wide variety of targets, possibly including some inside the United States. [/ QUOTE ] So basically we got caught bluffing on the flop, called with a 1 outter on the turn, and now we're pot committed so we may as well push all our chips in the middle and pray? Simply WANTING something to be possible does NOT make it possible! [/ QUOTE ] If you insist on weak poker analogies, its much closer to "We didn't bet enough to shut out draws when we flopped a set, the flush card came on the turn, but we have plenty of redraws on the river." 
|
|
#42
08-24-2007, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win.
COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008.
|
|
#43
08-24-2007, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] US policy after 1/09 will not be much different than it is now, no matter what happens in 11/08. The Dems are already hedging their bets, and recognize that you don't fold with favorable implied odds, even if you misplayed your hand to this point.
|
|
#44
08-24-2007, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
That doesn't make it any more right. And if the Dems do the same [censored] starting in 09, then I'll pack my bags and move. Because it will be the last proof that I need that government no longer gives a rat's ass about what it's people want.
|
|
#45
08-24-2007, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] What significant relief do you forsee from any of the likely presidential successors? (Barring a miracle nomination then win by RP)
|
|
#46
08-24-2007, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] US policy after 1/09 will not be much different than it is now, no matter what happens in 11/08. The Dems are already hedging their bets, and recognize that you don't fold with favorable implied odds, even if you misplayed your hand to this point. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, re. the Iraq situation, rather than favorable implied odds, I think we have horrible reverse effective odds.
|
|
#47
08-25-2007, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] US policy after 1/09 will not be much different than it is now, no matter what happens in 11/08. The Dems are already hedging their bets, and recognize that you don't fold with favorable implied odds, even if you misplayed your hand to this point. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, re. the Iraq situation, rather than favorable implied odds, I think we have horrible reverse effective odds. [/ QUOTE ] Ahh, so you acknowledge we're ahead right now. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#48
08-25-2007, 02:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] US policy after 1/09 will not be much different than it is now, no matter what happens in 11/08. The Dems are already hedging their bets, and recognize that you don't fold with favorable implied odds, even if you misplayed your hand to this point. [/ QUOTE ] Actually, re. the Iraq situation, rather than favorable implied odds, I think we have horrible reverse effective odds. [/ QUOTE ] Ahh, so you acknowledge we're ahead right now. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Of course we're ahead but we have no win.
|
|
#49
08-25-2007, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make it any more right. And if the Dems do the same [censored] starting in 09, then I'll pack my bags and move. Because it will be the last proof that I need that government no longer gives a rat's ass about what it's people want. [/ QUOTE ] The Dems will not win the white house, nor hold the majority in the senate. When bush's rating was 32%, the majority of repubs still backed his policies. It was the fact that only 8% of the Dems believed in his policies that brought the total down to 32%. That's also why the current congress has such a low rating. Dems are quick to condemn their own party members, as compared to repubs.
|
|
#50
08-25-2007, 03:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why should the US continue to occupy Iraq?
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, you're not against a flush. You're against top set (history), and your one outer is the chance that America snapes out of it's idiocy and adopts a non interventionist foreign policy. For the win. COME ON RIVER. ONE TIME. The river card comes... November, 2008. [/ QUOTE ] What is the history that suggests pulling out of Iraq is the best decision? As I said in my earlier post, all instances where America remained committed until the end resulted positivley, when we pulled out, there were negative results (American Revolution, WWI, WWII, Korea, vs. Afganistan, Somolia, Vietnam, Gulf War)
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
