molson_golden2002

What? Tom is stable?

Interesting. Seems like a lot of good talent is not being properly supported. To bad for all of us.

Actually it was my bad, thinking for a brief moment you were somewhat intelligent. I know better now

Things would most likely improve if we left. Reformers would agin have a voice and not be labled and pro-Bush scum and traitors. The disasterous invasion has helped the dictators in that region a lot.

If we left Iraq things might actually improve there. With so many Iraqis killing other Iraqis for associating with Americans it is a factor in the violence. Not saying the violence would end, but it might lesson. Those Iraqis fighting us might turn to solving their own problems. It is no doubt a fact that our presence there is a divisive influence. All I'm saying is that us leaving does not automatically have to be a disaster for Iraqis, might be a good thing, which would explain why most Iraqis want us out of there. Staying there just means more of the same

After 17 months some units will be getting ready for their 5th tour of duty in Iraq. If the Iraqis want to make war on one another, if they won't stand up and defend their own government, then its not our problem. We gave it a good try, I guess. 17 months should be enough added time for them to at least get an army together, if they can't do it after 6 years, they never will.

Wacka!

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070325/D8O2TGV80.html Meanwhile, the American public wants to bring our boys home: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=29...TC-RSSFeeds0312 So I guess America is undermining the troops

The Iraqis want us to leave. The American people want us to leave. Its real easy "saving" the world by declaring we need to send the troops back to that sh-- hole for their fourth and fifth deployments while the rest of us sit around and argue, but that's not really reasonable. Maybe if Bush would reach out to his base and ask them to join in in the hundreds of thousands to go over there and serve, it might be worth it, but he won't. Send recruiters to College Republicans, Conservative Evangelical Churches, Anti-Gay and Anti-Abortion organizations and see who is in. The Dems have reasonable set a 17 month goal for this disaster to end. That's well over a year. Another year of our troops deployed while every else sits around picking their asses. If the Iraqis are not will ing to form an army, a police force and a security appartus, then its not our problem.

So, the people against wars of naked aggression are the same ones who want help in stopping a genocide that is preventable. Ya, that makes sense. What's your problem there?

Ah! Back to the McDonald's thing! I went back and read where you bozos got the "service" sector crap from. I never once said drug companies were part of "service sector." I just said they provide a service by making these drugs that save people's lives. "Service sector" is a a classification the government developed, I wasn't using that. Hell, Ford provides a service by making cars. So again, my point still stands, if the government develops drugs they can turn them over to a private firm to manufacture. I have no problem with the company making the profit.

1) Yes they are attempting to bring them home, by playing politics. That's how it works in America. The Democrats are clearly drawing a line in the sand. They are against the Iraq occupation, Bush is for it. Eventually Americans will decide the issue at the polls. Things take time. 2) Yes, Hey Iraqis you have 17 months to get your country in order, recruit your own troops and police so we can bring our troops home. 3) Who cares? 4) No, this is exactly what we want, to push this thing to get our troops out of there. And the abortion was invading in the first place, or the Bush Presidency, what a joke it has been. One of the very worst Presidents in our history

Dude, I get your point. I may have errored in classifying the company but my point is still valid. If you want to declare victory becuse of service/manufacture error, go ahead. I was making a serious point and you ran wild on a silly tangent. Congradulations for splitting hairs and creating strawmen.

Yes! YOU took it to the stupid "logical" conclusion, not me. I understand that the government can turn over a new discovery to private industry and the world will not end. Everything else you dreamed up flowed from that stupid conclusion you reached. So you "demonstrating" for me "my" logic was BS. You made up an argument and attached it to me. You can't attack my argument so you make one up. You are an idiot. And a news flash for you, university research into cures for all kinds of diseases is having successes and its being turned over to private companies. The horror! It goes on all the time. And its a good thing. Example: Achievements during 2005/2006 include: From January 2005 to July 2006, three anticancer drugs developed in the Section for Cancer Therapeutics were licensed to major pharmaceutical companies. The Section continues to identify on average two clinical development candidates per year http://www.icr.ac.uk/about_us/achievements/index.shtml

Chuckle, career navy experts in the past have dismissed ironclad warships, air craft carriers, submarines and many other weapons. Ever hear of Billy Mitchell? Do you remember the attack on the USS Stark? That was an old missle that hit that ship, I'm sure the technology has improved since then and so should the defensive capabilities

1) Dave, I think any reasonable person can see the difference between selling a fvgging cheeseburger and selling a life saving drug. 2) Enough to afford a big mac

Big drug companies are not fast food joints and you comparing the two is beyond silly. Further, you trying to argue that if we turned over new drugs to the big companies to produce and sell to save lives--yes they will make a profit--that we would somehow have some major moral and ethical delema because fast food and drug companies are somehow related is even stupider. What? the government will develop a new special sauce for the Big Mac? What will Burger King say?

Complete BS? I guess that's why the Pentagon is so adament about addressing this issue. I guess they should consult you first before they start worrying. And as top this weapons potential, if it is as good as is claimed, it could be launched from land around the Persian Gulf at American ships, and not just Air Craft carriers. If they knocked out a few cruisers that would be a serious blow.

Take your partisan blinders off for two seconds, will you? Claiming the Replicans "care" more about slaughters overseas is beyond simplistic and stupid. What has Bush done over Sudan? Didlly squat! The only reason Bush and his mindless legions care about Iraq is because it is an embarassment to them. They don't want to "lose" the "war" there. That's it. Bush is still talking about "winning," whatever that means. His only concern now is to dump this on the next President. Kosvo was a real attempt to stop a bloodbath and it was largely opposed by the GOP. Inspite of that it worked with few casualties.

I wonder if Iran has these missles? http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070323...rg/ako7y_orw538

Who's current estimate? Seems like its hapopening now only slowely. We leave it MIGHT speed up or the neighboring countries might step in and help out. Either way it won't stop by us staying and wasting our national treasure and young lives there So the Democratic response is to ignore genocide? You saying the Republicans are any better? Republicans created one in Iraq, to be sure. Remember the opposition to Kosovo? BTW, how many GIs died in Kosovo war?

The problem there is, it was Republicans who freeked out over it. Right wing radio was going nuts over that deal. The Dems did egg it on a bit, but only to divide the GOP. Still not good, but still mostly a Republican thing

I think I understand now. Your inane and non-real world logic lost me. You are making an ideological stand somehow by comparing a drug company to McDonalds. That's not so bright if you ask me. Ask a person who might be saved by turning over a cancer cure developed through government funding to a private firm to manufature if its the same as subsidizing McDonalds. Somehow I don't think they will care if the government gave the drug company a money making idea, as long as it is for the greater good in the long run. I think the other question raised was how do you determine who gets to manufacture it? Who wins who loses? I could give a flying fug as long as the life saving product is on the market.

Again, you are just making crap up. Grow up

Your whole post is full of it. I love how you slip in the lie, by why of saying its an "implication" on my part, which it isn't, that the government is the only one doing research. Never said that, never implied it. So you are making crap up. Why? Because you have to. Yet another straw man arguer. No surprise. A lot of you righties do that. Better than arguing the facts I guess. Still, no private research company can match the Feds for money. As has been pointed out by me an others, federal grants are important and should be funded. Why should cancer, lukimiea, and diabetes researchers have to resort to begging for quarters at store counters for funding. Imagine if we funded the disaster in Iraq that way? Take it easy strawman!