Trent

Well one nice thing is that we are showing committment to helping the Iraqis get themselves set up on a secure and democratic path. No, but apparently plenty of people can be convinced that all is lost because of some pictures and articles in the news. No one thinks that the troubles are over, no one here has said that. No, like I just said, it won't be all roses and happy times just because of this vote. BUT, it is a big step in the right direction, and it showed that Iraqis are determined, in the face of danger, to have control over their own destinies. What do I expect after? More steps in the right direction, one step at a time. As usual, I find it hard to understand what you mean by this. People are happy for the Iraqis. You and a few others seemed to have a problem with it. Who's dancing around the bonfire? Oh, hello again!

What exactly don't you like about it? That it requires schools to meet minimum test results or provide supplemental education to those needing it? That schools with repeatedly poor performance can lose students since they weren't doing a good job educating them? Or maybe you don't like that it places some kind accountability on schools and teachers. I don't get it... where does it say that we have to promote kids even if they're failing just because it'd hurt feelings? Guess you get the oops on that one. But at least he was visiting a school. But you're right, we can just pretend he hates education and wants a completely retarded USA. Well, I guess being a teacher isn't relevant at all in setting education policies. Would it be better to have someone who only had experience in bad schools so that policies could be set to take away from good schools to make bad schools better? Or is her experience just not worthy since she's the First Lady? Why are the schools better in nice parts of town? Why won't putting the pressure on schools to educate students to a minimum level be better? As long as the resources are provided to let these schools get the job done, what's the problem? What would you say is a better solution? (not that NCLB is the best, but I'm interested) Seems like that sometimes, doesn't it? It's something that almost all of us beleive in. It was a pretty big point in the elections, if I recall. How is that overlooking it? I can understand that you don't agree with his plan on education, but at least they're trying to do something. Go read the website, the goals for NCLB don't seem like anything you wouldn't agree to. Now the implementation, as I have said before, needs work. Oh, hello again!

Great news for the Iraqi people determined to make their country better. It was very nice to watch the people in the coverage this morning and last night. Despite what you may think, Christel, there was dancing and celebrating and many many smiles. Despite what you may think, the best remedy for the terrorism problem in Iraq is having a strong, representative government and a people who are ready for the nonsense to stop. What exactly are you not happy about in this situation? Or is it just that you like to be contrarian? Oh, hello again!

First, if I'm not mistaken, he is over there so he has a much more "educated" position on the subject of what the troops might be thinking than you do. Second, your generalization of cops and soldiers is repugnant. You must really know a lot of them to know that they are all bullies and so overzealous. I wonder what they think about your opinion of them? You responded to him asking people to educate themselves about a situation, which I'll remind you again, that he seems to have 1st hand knowledge about, with a slam at his punctuation and grammar. That is the lamest type of argument I've seen on message boards like this. George Bush is not a murderer, if you think so... just say it. Explain it. Argue about it. But please, think about what you post, and who you're arguing with. Sometimes, they MAY know more than you about something... and they probably don't care how they spell it or punctuate it. Oh, hello again!

John, I expect the silence on your post to be as deafening as it was when I went through the anti-war site, "Iraq Body Count's" list of casualties case by case and tried to identify what was probably a casualty from terrorist action, US action, and indetermined action. Bottom line was... terrorists seem to kill more than people think, very very few incidents could be identified as 100% "innocent" casualties resulting from Coalition action, and many claims of casualties were aggregate claims from hospitals and included any deaths from the beginning of the Coalition efforts and, incedentally, had no means of identifying a casualty as an "innocent" or terrorist. When you come down to it, you have the people here who think that anyone who dies in Iraq was an innocent deliberately murdered by Coalition forces, and you have those who think about it and ask questions and realize that the rhetoric isn't very accurate at all. This battle has been fought several times already. Most anti-war people won't even question anything that seems to (logically) dispute their claims. Oh, hello again!

Actually, a lot of teachers I know think it is a good idea, but needs work on how it is implemented. That's funny, I guess Laura Bush being a teacher and all those accusations that the Michael Moore-ites made about President Bush spending TOO MUCH time in a school on September 11th is all some kinda wierd dream. Come on... you usually do better than that. Your attacks are getting weaker, man. Oh, hello again!

You've gotta appreciate a network that would release a statement like that. That's hilarious. Good job to Fox for being funny. Oh, hello again!

I'll beleive it when I see it. Oh, hello again!

Forget it, dude. You're right, the article was perfect. Oh, hello again!

So, you agree that the headline and the content of the article/poll are at funny odds with each other? Or not? Opinions on CNN aside, it's funny and they might have done better with a different headline. Oh, hello again!

Or he could be implying that you're like those little "Anarchy Kiddies" that we see at all the "peace" protests. They're usually the loudest, most aggressive, but they're afraid to show their faces. It's kind of a silly little left-wing phenomenon here in the US. I'm not comparing you to them or anyone, but hopefully you'll see that there is another option than assuming that he's calling you a terrorist. Oh, hello again!

I guess you didn't catch the irony in the headline did you? Any way you look at it, it is pretty funny. Unrelated, but since you brought it up... So how about when they publish articles only showing one side of a story? Maybe they haven't drawn any conclusions in the article directly, but it definitely causes people to lean one direction simply because they're only getting what the outlet tells them. Oh, hello again!

Thats pretty funny... just the kind of high quality reporting I expect from CNN. I think they write a lot of things without ever reading them themselves. Oh, hello again!

Both Russia and Iran were invading Afghanistan and Iraq. But lets forget that, right? Nor without the actions of Iran and Russia at the outset of the situation. But again, forget that, let's blame only the US. Please read the posts Bill and I have made prior to your last post. Maybe that will help you out. Ah, you know what, you can still blame the US. I see you enjoy it too much to see more than that. Oh, hello again!

Did I say that what, in fact, did happen with Afghanistan was better than having Russia control it? No. Did I say September 11th was a "good" outcome, never. Don't try to imply that I'd even think that, please. But would the world have been better had Russia taken over? Maybe the US would have in the long run, but I bet Russia and the Afghanis wouldn't have been. Anyway, it's one of those alternate paths that didn't happen and can't be predicted. Just a question to make you think. Again, what was the rest of the world doing when Russia and Iran were trying to take over Afghanistand and Iraq? Imagine, Syria and Iran as allies... yeah right. Under current leadership... not a chance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. You see covert operations to eliminate terrorist camps and support networks as lowering ourselves to their levels, while I do not. If the host countries won't stop their people from doing this, someone will have to. I also don't think that eliminating terrorist threats in Syria or Iran will hurt our reputation as much as it would hurt Iran and Syria's, since they claim to not support terrorism. Oh, hello again!

In retrospect, perhaps you're right. But what were the other options at the time? Was the UN sitting around, scratching their balls? Probably. Who can really say if we'd be better off today with Afghanistan as a Russian state and Iraq an Iranian state? Maybe so, but I don't think the Iraqis or the Afghanis would have been any better off. On the topic, I do think it is a mistake to let Syria and Iran get away with supporting terrorism in Iraq. If they want to do that covertly, then we should combat it covertly. What would be another option? Oh, hello again!

Yes you are. Read the rest of your post. Unfortunately, when dealing with humans... you cannot trust them 100%, no matter how much you help them. Should we stop helping everyone? Would you have been happier today if Afghanistan was part of Russia and Iraq was part of Iran? Times change and so do people. Helping get Russia out of Afghanistan seemed to be the right thing to do at the time, so did helping Iraq defend herself from Iran. Still, to blame the US without blaming Russia and Iran is silly. Oh, hello again!

So we could just as easily blame the Soviets for OBL and the Iranians for SH, right? I mean, they were the initial reasons for these guys to even get started in their respective countries. Ah, fuck it, let's blame the US... it IS the cool thing to do nowadays. Oh, hello again!

Of course you're right, but there is also a high risk of doing nothing. I think that, like I said, they'll lose any international support if it is found out that they are indeed supporting terrorism in Iraq, so if they lose some pieces on the sly... I don't think they'll make too much noise. But you're right, it could go the other way too. Oh, hello again!

I guess it depends on who you ask. I don't know if it has ever been radical to the point of massive popular agreement on the matter. Of course, that's not to say that it can't or won't happen. Like you said, I just found the dichotomy of the situation quite interesting. Oh, hello again!

There's an amazing amount of trust placed in the supreme court. If it ever got radical one way or the other, it would be impossible to stop. It just seems a little strange to me that so many people can distrust our government, but trust our judicial branch with so much power. Oh, hello again!

I think it would be a "really bad idea" to openly engage Syria and Iran as well. But when, if, there is evidence (not evidence to you and me as much as to our people on the ground) that there are indeed targets supporting the terrorism in Iraq, that it should be dealt with quickly and quietly by SF. At least since Iran and Syria officially deny meddling in Iraq, while doing the opposite, we shouldn't let them get away with it. If "unofficial" terror funding and support networks start to disappear, there's not much recourse for these two countries. They're playing a secret game of chess, and can't complain when their pieces get taken. Outright engagement wouldn't be a good idea, I agree, but we, and Iraq, cannot let them get away with meddling. Oh, hello again!

Sorry to hear about the situation in El Salvador with your family. That is very saddening. I've spoken to a few people from there and they all just shake their heads and feel very disappointed with how things are when they feel it could be so much better. I just want to clarify my position, I do not support the wanton destruction of innocents and villages by groups of thugs trained by us. But I do think that we should train some counter-terrorism elements from within Iraq to handle their internal problems and to gather intelligence which may justify sending our special forces into Syria or Iran to disrupt the funding and support for foreign fighters in Iraq. Until the people we train have proven that they can be effective and trustworthy, we have to handle the brunt of it ourselves to avoid what did happen in El Salvador. Oh, hello again!

I agree that it is a bad idea to have the legislative branch meddling with the judicial. No good there. But Metalslug brings up a good point in one of his quotes... should these judges be accountable to the people that they serve, the citizens? What happens when you start having judges making decisions that go against the sentiments of the people again and again? They should have to answer to someone... and that should be "us". Oh, hello again!

Wow, replace Bush with "Shrub" and you'd have the most original posting of the year. Nice contribution. So let me get this straight.... Counter Insurgency Ops = good Counter Insurgency Ops in Iran or Syria = bad Syrian and Iranian Supported Terrorists Crossing into Iraq = Acceptable So it's okay that Syria and Iran host and support the terror in Iraq, but not okay if we go and prevent them from doing exactly what you don't want us to do? Come on. Sometimes I think you guys are still so hung up on the fact that you don't think we should be there at all that you can't think clearly about what we should do since we're already there. Like Rhino said, this shouldn't even be discussed in the open. It should have already been going on. Oh, hello again!