I said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.
Ok, now we're starting to get something tangible. Darwin predicts that we will "bail out" of Iraq shortly after the election in 3 weeks. He further predicts some sort of change in the public discourse surrounding said "bail out."
Let me ask you this: Who (Democrats? Republicans? Congress? White House?) will make the decision to perform this bail out? What will be the results of this bail out in Iraq? What will be the results of this bail out in the US and the rest of the world? Please answer in the form of tangible events and outcomes, not in vague predictions of doom and gloom.
We're getting closer to a tangible prediction, but we're not quite there yet.
regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.
We'll only be able to see if you're right or wrong if you actually make tangible, testable predictions. "Doom and gloom, right after the election" doesn't cut it, because anyony can take a situation and find reason to describe it as awful or as hopeful, depending upon their agendas. If this is your prediction, then we'll be right back where we started one month from now, arguing about whether the current events connote "doom and gloom." Just look at the two quotes that kicked off this thread.
If you want to be proven right, you have to make predictions that are more specific than the vagueries you've been spouting so far.