IndependentTexan
New member
You know I was talking with some friends the other day and I thought of a great thing to relate Iraq to. Vietnam....when we leave Iraq the terrorists will just take over, and all those lives will be lost in vein
walvaro said:This is the list of political parties and coalitions with representation in the Congress or the Senate, for alphabetical order, in Spain
* Bloque Nacionalista Galego (BNG)
* Chunta Aragonesista (CHA)
* Coalición Canaria (CC)
* Convergència i Unió (CiU)
* Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC)
* Eusko Alkartasuna EA
* Izquierda Unida (IU)
* Nafarroa Bai
* Partido Nacionalista Vasco (PNV-EAJ)
* Partido Popular (PP)
* Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) <--- Now is in the government. Yes socialists.
And here, the political parties and present coalitions only in town halls or autonomic courts.
* Andecha Astur (AA) (Principado de Asturias)
* Bloc Nacionalista Valencià (BNV) (Comunidad Valenciana)
* Centro Democrático y Social (CDS)
* Euskal Herritarrok (EH): Nowadays prohibited by apology of the terrorism.
* Iniciativa per Catalunya - Verds (ICV)
* Iniciativa por La Orotava (IpO) (Canarias)
* Partido Andalucista (PA) (Andalucía)
* Partido Aragonés Regionalista (PAR) (Aragón)
* Partido Nacionalista Canario (PNC) (Canarias)
* Partido Regionalista de Cantabria (PRC) (Cantabria)
* Partit Socialista de Mallorca - Entesa Nacionalista (PSM-EN) (Islas Baleares)
* Tierra Comunera-Partido Nacionalista Castellano (TC-PNC) (Burgos)
* Unión del Pueblo Leonés (UPL) (León)
* Unión del Pueblo Navarro (UPN) (Navarra)
¿In USA, what number of parties there are in the congress or the senate?
IndependentTexan said:You know I was talking with some friends the other day and I thought of a great thing to relate Iraq to. Vietnam....when we leave Iraq the terrorists will just take over, and all those lives will be lost in vein
RightatNYU said:Wow, you made a tenuous, unsupportable connection that nobody except every other liberal in this country has made. Congratulations.
A while back I saw an interview in which an "Oil Sheik", responding to a question, stated that the problem was not on the oil producer's end but on the oil refiner's end in the US. He cited the increased demand for gasoline caused by the explosion in the number of SUVs and the fact that US refining capacity has been declining. He said that if the US was buying as much crude oil as the demand required, it would be produced and the price per barrel would be much lower.akyron said:$2.16 was the national average this am(NPR). Where is all the oil?
Arch Enemy said:That's not true.. I say we're never going to leave Iraq.. we never left Germany so why do people think we're going to pull out of Iraq?
You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?RightatNYU said:You and I agree. Was Germany like Vietnam? Not in the slightest.
We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
Had we not bugged out of Viet Nam, it, too would have stabilized and several millions in Southeast Asia would still be alive, today.RightatNYU said:You and I agree. Was Germany like Vietnam? Not in the slightest.
We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
You toss in a comparison with Israel.anomaly said:You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?
Germany was not like Vietnam, well, atleast in WW2. WW1 made about as much sense as Vietnam and Iraq. We will one day pull out of Iraq, but we'll always, for as long as this country lasts, probably, maintain a sphere of influence, probably a bit more than that, in Iraq. I see it becoming a situation similar to the current disaster with Israel. But it will be the US that maintains the so-called democratic government in Iraq. And taking away the people's choice over their own government, expecially through means of force, is not a good idea. Someday we may see a scenario much like what happened in Allende's Chile, where the people choose a leader, but the US just doesn't approve of their decision.
How soon is 'soon'?RightatNYU said:We are going to be in Iraq for a long time, and soon, it will become a relatively stable place, much like Germany.
anomaly said:You and Arch enemy raise a good point: why are we still in Germany?
Germany was not like Vietnam, well, atleast in WW2. WW1 made about as much sense as Vietnam and Iraq. We will one day pull out of Iraq, but we'll always, for as long as this country lasts, probably, maintain a sphere of influence, probably a bit more than that, in Iraq. I see it becoming a situation similar to the current disaster with Israel. But it will be the US that maintains the so-called democratic government in Iraq. And taking away the people's choice over their own government, expecially through means of force, is not a good idea. Someday we may see a scenario much like what happened in Allende's Chile, where the people choose a leader, but the US just doesn't approve of their decision.
Simon W. Moon said:How soon is 'soon'?
Gandhi>Bush said:The fanatics, terrorists, are bred by this war. There's no telling the consequence this war will have on the world. You can't undo hatred with war. These terrorists, people that can't even read, see the self-proclaimed Greatest Nation on Earth solving problems with war and violence, and then we wonder why terrorism is growing? This war will not stop terrorism. No war will.
The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
RightatNYU said:We're not there to kill, or destry, but rather to protect.
GarzaUK said:Protect the Iraqi people from the terrorists and insurgents that arose when USA/UK soldiers took their first step in Iraq. We brought all the terrorists of the Islamic world to a single place where they can kill their sworn enemy. And as always in war the innocents suffer between the two sides.
RightatNYU said:The number of people being killed by insurgents in Iraq pales compared to the number that were being killed by the leaders of Iraq before we invaded.
Battles have to occur someplace. I don't think we could convince all the terrorists to come to Antartica with us to have a "fair fight" without civilian casualties.
Please explain.RightatNYU said:First off, WWI was not unnecessary.
All else aside, the violence in Iraq is fanned by other Arab nations who, after seeing two of their neighbors replace their regimes with democratically elected governments, don't wish to follow suit.GarzaUK said:But you see that is what terrorism is about and always has been about, doing what they can to keep the war alive even if it means killing innocents.
The point being the Department of Defense did not great care to look at the possible situations after the fall of Saddam.
It's been two years since the fall of Saddam and terrorist attacks are not decreasing, in fact they have increased of late.
I'm still listening for this brilliant plan that Bush is going to pull out of his arse for actually winning this war. "Bring em on." doesn't constitute a plan with me.
But now they are saying "We will train the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, then bugger off, leaving the mess to the Iraqis. How very noble.
I guess the Bush administration bit off more that it can chew and it can't swallow it and finish the meal.
RightatNYU said:Second: Nobody in their right mind can make the comparison of the actions of the US to that of any terrorist group.
If when we had invaded Iraq, there had been no insurgency, we would have been out of there without any trouble. We're not there to kill, or destry, but rather to protect.
GarzaUK said:But you see that is what terrorism is about and always has been about, doing what they can to keep the war alive even if it means killing innocents.
The point being the Department of Defense did not great care to look at the possible situations after the fall of Saddam.
It's been two years since the fall of Saddam and terrorist attacks are not decreasing, in fact they have increased of late.
I'm still listening for this brilliant plan that Bush is going to pull out of his arse for actually winning this war. "Bring em on." doesn't constitute a plan with me.
But now they are saying "We will train the Iraqi security forces to defend themselves, then bugger off, leaving the mess to the Iraqis. How very noble.
I guess the Bush administration bit off more that it can chew and it can't swallow it and finish the meal.
Fantasea said:Please explain.
Gandhi>Bush said:I don't recall making such a comparison.
The fact remains that we are killing (terrorists). We are destroying (the archaic system of government that oppressed 28 million people and led to mass murders). And we're doing a lousy job of protecting (if by that you mean we're making it more safe in Iraq than it has ever been).