<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Asylum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/</link>
	<description>An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:04:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kim Ritter</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/comment-page-1/#comment-42030</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim Ritter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/08/law-legal-matters/no-asylum/#comment-42030</guid>
		<description>bk- Which Iraqis are we talking about? The 80% who want us to leave? The 60% who think its ok to shoot American soldiers? They aren&#039;t exactly a unified group. Sadaam is gone, and its fine to morph to a supportive role. But our soldiers didn&#039;t volunteer to be sent into the middle of an endless civil war. Other countries had sectarian struggles for up to 15 years (Lebanon, Kosovo). Are we expected to shell out 2billion a week for that long? At the present rate our casualties could easily triple by then-not counting the forces to be sent in for the surge. I just think we need to have a specific plan in mind, and that the commander-in-chief no longer has the credibility to formulate that plan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>bk- Which Iraqis are we talking about? The 80% who want us to leave? The 60% who think its ok to shoot American soldiers? They aren&#8217;t exactly a unified group. Sadaam is gone, and its fine to morph to a supportive role. But our soldiers didn&#8217;t volunteer to be sent into the middle of an endless civil war. Other countries had sectarian struggles for up to 15 years (Lebanon, Kosovo). Are we expected to shell out 2billion a week for that long? At the present rate our casualties could easily triple by then-not counting the forces to be sent in for the surge. I just think we need to have a specific plan in mind, and that the commander-in-chief no longer has the credibility to formulate that plan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bk</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/comment-page-1/#comment-42026</link>
		<dc:creator>bk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:26:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/08/law-legal-matters/no-asylum/#comment-42026</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Because if they stay in Iraq, theyâ€™ll likely be killed.&lt;/i&gt;

Especially if we bail on them despite the promises we have made.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Because if they stay in Iraq, theyâ€™ll likely be killed.</i></p>
<p>Especially if we bail on them despite the promises we have made.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: African American Political Pundit</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/comment-page-1/#comment-41966</link>
		<dc:creator>African American Political Pundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:37:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/08/law-legal-matters/no-asylum/#comment-41966</guid>
		<description>OK, Bush will unveil his new approach to the 4 year Iraq war on Wednesday. I guess we can call it Iraqization. You remember or have read about Vietnamization.

Rewind to the Vietnam era, when Richard Nixon coined Vietnamization as a way to convince Americans to support his vietnam policy. Nixon new that it was necessary to reduce American casualty rates and the number of combat troops in Vietnam. To this end, Nixon defined his policy as â€œVietnamizationâ€? â€” the idea that South Vietnamese would gradually assume a greater combat role and ultimately eliminate the need for American ground forces. Because the US would not withdraw abrubtly, the policy of Vietnamization would require time. The domestic political objective was to convince the public that the Army of South Vietnam could eventually handle the war on their own.

Fast Foward today. As reported in major news outlets, including WaPo, Bush is widely expected to announce a boost in U.S. military forces in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops, a jobs program to put Iraqis back to work and political benchmarks that the U.S. expects Iraqi leaders to meet in forming a national reconciliation government.Snow repeatedly declined at his daily news briefing to respond to questions about specifics in Bushâ€™s speech, which, he said, is still being written.

Letâ€™s rewind back to the Vietnam era on a November 3rd evening when, President Nixon addressed a national television audience from the White House. This speech, whose date was announced just two days before the first moratorium, was designed to buy time in Vietnam and to reach out to dissident Democrats along with Nixonâ€™s core constituency. In the speech, the president traced the history of American involvement in Vietnam, highlighted the negotiating efforts of administration since taking office, outlined his policy of Vietnamization, and placed the blame for the continuation of war on the government of North Vietnam. The speech reached its crescendo when he appealed to the public for support.

Sound Familar? Expect Bush to follow the same pattern on Wednesday.

African American Poilitical Pundit says: P.S. The Iraqization policy of Bush wonâ€™t work, like the Vietnamization policy of nixon didnâ€™t work. It wonâ€™t work for the American people and it wonâ€™t work for our American troops. It wonâ€™t work for the familes of the 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police were killed in the first half of 2006, or the 17,310 were killed in latter half 2006. I guess no one is listening to the American people.

The issue is not training Iraqi people. The issue is America needs to get out of Iraq.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, Bush will unveil his new approach to the 4 year Iraq war on Wednesday. I guess we can call it Iraqization. You remember or have read about Vietnamization.</p>
<p>Rewind to the Vietnam era, when Richard Nixon coined Vietnamization as a way to convince Americans to support his vietnam policy. Nixon new that it was necessary to reduce American casualty rates and the number of combat troops in Vietnam. To this end, Nixon defined his policy as â€œVietnamizationâ€? â€” the idea that South Vietnamese would gradually assume a greater combat role and ultimately eliminate the need for American ground forces. Because the US would not withdraw abrubtly, the policy of Vietnamization would require time. The domestic political objective was to convince the public that the Army of South Vietnam could eventually handle the war on their own.</p>
<p>Fast Foward today. As reported in major news outlets, including WaPo, Bush is widely expected to announce a boost in U.S. military forces in Iraq by as many as 20,000 troops, a jobs program to put Iraqis back to work and political benchmarks that the U.S. expects Iraqi leaders to meet in forming a national reconciliation government.Snow repeatedly declined at his daily news briefing to respond to questions about specifics in Bushâ€™s speech, which, he said, is still being written.</p>
<p>Letâ€™s rewind back to the Vietnam era on a November 3rd evening when, President Nixon addressed a national television audience from the White House. This speech, whose date was announced just two days before the first moratorium, was designed to buy time in Vietnam and to reach out to dissident Democrats along with Nixonâ€™s core constituency. In the speech, the president traced the history of American involvement in Vietnam, highlighted the negotiating efforts of administration since taking office, outlined his policy of Vietnamization, and placed the blame for the continuation of war on the government of North Vietnam. The speech reached its crescendo when he appealed to the public for support.</p>
<p>Sound Familar? Expect Bush to follow the same pattern on Wednesday.</p>
<p>African American Poilitical Pundit says: P.S. The Iraqization policy of Bush wonâ€™t work, like the Vietnamization policy of nixon didnâ€™t work. It wonâ€™t work for the American people and it wonâ€™t work for our American troops. It wonâ€™t work for the familes of the 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police were killed in the first half of 2006, or the 17,310 were killed in latter half 2006. I guess no one is listening to the American people.</p>
<p>The issue is not training Iraqi people. The issue is America needs to get out of Iraq.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gray</title>
		<link>http://themoderatevoice.com/10150/no-asylum/comment-page-1/#comment-41956</link>
		<dc:creator>Gray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://themoderatevoice.com/2007/01/08/law-legal-matters/no-asylum/#comment-41956</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

    &quot;Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!&quot; cries she

    With silent lips. &quot;Give me your tired, your poor,

    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!&lt;/i&gt;

Yup, this sounds sooo onehundred years ago. Which real american cares for such sentimental stuff nowadays? :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,</p>
<p>    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;</p>
<p>    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand</p>
<p>    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame</p>
<p>    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name</p>
<p>    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand</p>
<p>    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command</p>
<p>    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.</p>
<p>    &#8220;Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!&#8221; cries she</p>
<p>    With silent lips. &#8220;Give me your tired, your poor,</p>
<p>    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</p>
<p>    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.</p>
<p>    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,</p>
<p>    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!</i></p>
<p>Yup, this sounds sooo onehundred years ago. Which real american cares for such sentimental stuff nowadays? <img src='http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
