View Full Version : Dems pass bill to hasten defeat
Yahoshua
03-27-07, 05:38 PM
Bush will veto it for sure, but if this bill becomes law we're going to lose the war for sure. Then the attacks will be on our homes themselves, and we'll know who to point the finger at when the time comes full.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
Skybird
03-27-07, 05:47 PM
The war is lost since long. Get your boys home and back to their families, don't put them at risk all for nothing. That's the least thing that is owned to them now.
McCain deeply dissapointed me today with his comment that Gen. Patreus is driving around in an unarmed Hummer. As CCN put it, this time "he has tipped out the baby with the bathwater." CCN reporter said that troops and officers in Iraq where laughing when hearing that comment.
Two terror attacks in two Bagdhad regions today that Bush short time ago referred to as having been successfully brought under control. Grim laughter on my mind.
Yahoshua
03-27-07, 06:22 PM
We're still fighting, the war hasn't been lost yet.
Bush will veto it for sure, but if this bill becomes law we're going to lose the war for sure. Then the attacks will be on our homes themselves, and we'll know who to point the finger at when the time comes full.
:roll:
Skybird
03-27-07, 06:44 PM
We're still fighting, the war hasn't been lost yet.
That stubborness to resist any sense of realism gives a new meaning to the term "just killing time".
Yahoshua
03-27-07, 07:03 PM
I'm a very pragmatic person.
What I see is a battle being fought against an enemy being supplied from outside Iraq (much like the Vietnam War and the Korean War). The battle isn't over, and it isn't about fighting an entity so much as it is an idealism that has become a scourge among people.
We will not declare victory when when "stability" occurs as we perceive it in the West since this will NEVER occur (look at Israel and the Arabs for example). We will win when the Iraqi gov't can stand on their own without our help, and the Iraqi people can vote democratically and decide their own future. That is victory.
Vietnam we lost because the politicians willed it to happen as it is happening now, seeing as how from a military standpoint we won EVERY engagement in the Vietnam war when we were involved. But we tied the hands of our commanders, limiting them to sentry duties in South Vietnam instead of destroying North Vietnams' infrastructure. We created our own demise. Once we abandoned South Vietnam, the south collapsed, and the United States is responsible for it.
When the U.S. leaves Iraq, all hell will break loose. If the Iraqi gov't collapses, we have lost the war. If we leave Iraq now, failure is guaranteed.
Kazuaki Shimazaki II
03-27-07, 07:10 PM
When the U.S. leaves Iraq, all hell will break loose. If the Iraqi gov't collapses, we have lost the war. If we leave Iraq now, failure is guaranteed.
Typical gambler's mentality. I might just win if I continue playing, so even if the odds look unfavorable, I'd still keep putting money on the table and lose it.
By your logic, the Soviet Union should have toughed it out in Afghanistan back in the 80s, because if they leave, failure (defined as propping up their favored government) is guaranteed and they MIGHT just succeed if they continue.
Yahoshua
03-27-07, 07:54 PM
It's about hearts and minds now. Not a body count of the enemy.
And we ARE winning the war.
Not every news report from the mainstream media is reliable.
When was the last time you heard anything abous schools being built in Iraq? Or about how happy Iraqis were to vote with just Iraqi citizens making the decision to govern their nation? When was the last time you remember the Media saying anything GOOD about Iraq?
Just like in Vietnam, there is a camp of reporters that want to win the war, and another camp that wants the U.S. to lose the war.
When the U.S. leaves Iraq, all hell will break loose. If the Iraqi gov't collapses, we have lost the war. If we leave Iraq now, failure is guaranteed.
Typical gambler's mentality. I might just win if I continue playing, so even if the odds look unfavorable, I'd still keep putting money on the table and lose it.
By your logic, the Soviet Union should have toughed it out in Afghanistan back in the 80s, because if they leave, failure (defined as propping up their favored government) is guaranteed and they MIGHT just succeed if they continue.
I had never thought of it from the gambler's win/loss perspective. Very interesting.
Skybird
03-27-07, 08:17 PM
Yes, it's always the guilt of others. F### those biased medias. Damn those peaceloving lefties. All opposing people are traitors, and they are even socialists. Impossible that the decision to go to war was a decison for guaranteed failure from the very beginning. How could that be - it is America waging the war, right?
You know what - even me does not care anymore for opinions like yours. You will try to still reject reality even when it comes in form of a 60 ton MBT rolling right over you and leaving you flat on the ground. History already is four years beyond where you are standing.
Our country deserved the Iraq problem, unfortunately.
Yahoshua
03-27-07, 08:55 PM
Like I said.
One camp wants to win the war.
One camp wants to lose the war.
and obviously only unpatriotic communists liberals want to lose the war. silly leftists marxist scum!
RedMenace
03-27-07, 09:37 PM
silly leftists marxist scum!
:cry:
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 01:33 AM
The war is lost since long. Get your boys home and back to their families, don't put them at risk all for nothing. That's the least thing that is owned to them now.
I only disagree with sending the boys back home. Leave Iraq but reposition nearby and wait for more important battles in the near future.
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 01:34 AM
and obviously only unpatriotic communists liberals want to lose the war.
No.
silly leftists marxist scum!
Yes.
:yep:
Tchocky
03-28-07, 01:35 AM
Like I said.
One camp wants to win the war.
One camp wants to lose the war.
Barring climate models and the opposite sex, I can't think of many things more complicated than the Middle East right now. It's not as simple as "cut & run/stay the course", the day that anything is is the day a donkey can run the world.
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 01:50 AM
the day that anything is is the day a donkey can run the world.
Well, we are talking about the Democratic Party.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1298/donkey22rc9.gif
How the hell are we losing, were fighting a bunch of suicidal maniacs, honestly are they that hard, this guy comes charging at you strapped with dynomite, SHOOT HIM.:rotfl:
Skybird
03-28-07, 05:12 AM
Very funny, Rilder. And not really what reality is like. Because he is not running, but walking, and not at your direction, but that of the market, and not showing an explosive belt, but driving a truckload of explosives. I agree with AL that in parts the troops should go home (those who have been running longtime service now, or even several tours), while newly arrived troops may find better use in Afghanistan. But i would prefer to see them rotated and other troops from home taking their place in Afghanistan. Several years Iraq is service enough for one man, I think."In Afghanistan I made very personal experiences with the fanatical fighters of Islam, with their utter disgust for death and religiously motivated readiness for self-sacrifice. In that cultural area of theirs we have nothing to win", said Gen. Lebed once. I see much truth in that statement not only concerning Afghanistan. Iraq is lost since long, Afghanistan's chances have diminished so far like never before in the past 6 years. Let's try to save there what is left to be saved. Even that already is a highly uncretain issue. Taleban cannot be defeated militarily, they will just keep on coming, for decades if needed, and the better part of the civil population is so desillusionised that they are more or less hostile towards the foreign troops now. It was not always like that. One did not read the signs in time, and ignored them. The mess today is the result.
By your logic, the Soviet Union should have toughed it out in Afghanistan back in the 80s, because if they leave, failure (defined as propping up their favored government) is guaranteed and they MIGHT just succeed if they continue.
And by your logic England should have thrown in the towel back in 1940 after the fall of France.
Yahoshua
03-28-07, 08:59 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/psychologists_for_war.html
Bush relies on ill founded rampant paranoia to keep support for his war going....and there are just about enough gullible people around to get him the support he needs.
Yahoshua
03-28-07, 09:04 PM
You sound ALOT like this guy:
"There is no terrorist threat....." -Michael Moore.
A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.
Occupying an arab area in the middle east and killing more and more each day is REALLY going to make them love you. As america found out on 11/9 - piss people off enough and they eventually strike back.
You dont make people like you by bombing/killing their families.
A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.
Sadly, this is very true.
The rest of your post, however, I cant roll with. It smells too much like that "America deserved it" bull****.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 09:18 PM
A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.
Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Carefully massaged speeches, statements made without being explicitly worded.
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of 2003, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
CS Monitor article from 2003 - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm
[quote=gnirtS]Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 09:21 PM
Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.
Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.
Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.
Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.
waste gate
03-28-07, 09:42 PM
Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.
Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.
Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.
I guess everyone in this country is just plain stupid. Thanks John Kerry and the elitist people you represent.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 09:51 PM
Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.
Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.
Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.
I guess everyone in this country is just plain stupid. Thanks John Kerry and the elitist people you represent.
Wow, you really don't like reading, do you?
Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.
Well believe this. Not only does the US Army have a much higher average of high school and college graduates per capita than their civilian counterparts, they have complete access to all the sources of information that you do and they have first hand knowledge of the situation over there.
"Told what to believe"? No sir it sounds like its you that has been "told what to believe" and it's a crock of bovine feces.
dean_acheson
03-28-07, 10:47 PM
Where is my beating the dead horse icon when I need it?
I don't know about Democratic Liberal Commie Scum, but if you haven't attended a post-graduate program outside a MBA course in this country in the last decade, then you don't really grasp the internal hate America crowd, and yes, they are for the most part, folks who lost the Cold War, b/c the Soviet Union dissolved, and from more than one professor have I heard that the U.S. and the USSR were moral equivalents. And more than a few students express that belief that the vast majority of problems in this world are/were caused by U.S. foreign policy.
Now some of you might agree with that last statment, or even the last two. That's fine, but you are wrongheaded.
I do not like Foucault, and am not a big fan of FDR, but at least the latter understood that there are something that are real, and worth fighting for, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms, as compared to the modern left's embrace of post-structrualism.
The values that we fight for in Iraq are important, and unless you are bigoted enough to think that that cobbled up nation state can't exist without a strongman, than you should be pulling for the success of the United States and Great Britain in their efforts to create a functioning republic where today only exist theocratic forms of government that stay in power by oil revnues that pay for vast amounts of cultural auturky and hatred for Isreal.
Those that would call the cautionary word that leaving would invite slaughter is simply a 'gamblers bet,' I give you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge.
I can't believe that many of the same people that would stomp their feet up and down and scream and yell about folks like Pinochet now seem to look towards Saddam and his regime with rose colored glasses.
I can't believe the people that would like to see the U.S. fail, and leave this fanantic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad genocide preaching idiot in charge of what could very well be the strongest power in teh region, given an Iraq bathed in fratricide after an early U.S. pullout.
Then again, a lot of folk want to see the United States fail, for their own personal reasons.
I guess it doesn't matter, the Dems will pull funding, the whole region will fall further into despotism and bloodshed, and the left will blame Bush.
I'm glad that I don't live in a big city anymore, so I won't be there when a re-energized terrorist movement funded by Iran, using funds siphoned from Iraqi oil sales in Iranian controlled regions (ala Syria and Leabanon) pays for a dirty bomb in NYC.
Who was it that said that to understand politics, you must understand that the right thinks the left is stupid, and the left thinks the right is evil. I can't help but think about that when I work myself in a froth at the banality of statements I hear coming out of DC concerning current events.... http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=190
dean_acheson
03-28-07, 10:50 PM
A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.
Occupying an arab area in the middle east and killing more and more each day is REALLY going to make them love you. As america found out on 11/9 - piss people off enough and they eventually strike back.
You dont make people like you by bombing/killing their families.
you know, gnirtS, I guess I am one of those idiots, but wth is 11/9?
how many degrees does a person have to earn before they can disagree with you and not be someone taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from "the" government, or is it that until they agree with you they remain a simpleton?
You didn't happen to work at Pravda, did you?
At least Dean and a few others know what they are talking about.
[quote=gnirtS]Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
I don't get where this attitude stems from that you can basically be an idiot and serve effectively in the military.
Do me favor and don't comment on the intelligence of those in the Army. Your broad-based generalizations make you look like a moron.
So far, your entire outlook is a study in Bovine Scatology.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 11:11 PM
you know, gnirtS, I guess I am one of those idiots, but wth is 11/9?
how many degrees does a person have to earn before they can disagree with you and not be someone taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from "the" government, or is it that until they agree with you they remain a simpleton? He's using dd/mm/YY format, as opposed to mm/dd/YY. I'm assuming that you're aware of this already.
You might be one of those idiots, I don't know. There definitely was a PR exercise involving the President, VP and others to link the events of 9/11 to the rationale for war in Iraq. Check the result here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm)
I'd fisk your longer post, but I'm have to get some sleep. Working on a post-grad in the US system is hard work, and as yet, not anti-American hard work :D
edit-
Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
I don't get where this attitude stems from that you can basically be an idiot and serve effectively in the military.
Why don't you put your elitist attitude in check. It is apparent you are not qualified to dictate to others what exactly it takes to be in the military.
I'd say the only ones qualified are those who either have served, or are serving, but this is a sidetrack.
Rather than focusing on gnirtS shooting his mouth off, has anyone got a theory on why so many soldiers think they're in Iraq in reaction to 9/11?
I mean, when it's so obviously for WMD/humanitarian/oil/whatever reasons... :)
you know, gnirtS, I guess I am one of those idiots, but wth is 11/9?
how many degrees does a person have to earn before they can disagree with you and not be someone taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from "the" government, or is it that until they agree with you they remain a simpleton? He's using dd/mm/YY format, as opposed to mm/dd/YY. I'm assuming that you're aware of this already.
You might be one of those idiots, I don't know. There definitely was a PR exercise involving the President, VP and others to link the events of 9/11 to the rationale for war in Iraq. Check the result here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.htm)
I'd fisk your longer post, but I'm have to get some sleep. Working on a post-grad in the US system is hard work, and as yet, not anti-American hard work :D
edit-
Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
I don't get where this attitude stems from that you can basically be an idiot and serve effectively in the military.
Why don't you put your elitist attitude in check. It is apparent you are not qualified to dictate to others what exactly it takes to be in the military.
I'd say the only ones qualified are those who either have served, or are serving, but this is a sidetrack.
Rather than focusing on gnirtS shooting his mouth off, has anyone got a theory on why so many soldiers think they're in Iraq in reaction to 9/11?
I mean, when it's so obviously for WMD/humanitarian/oil/whatever reasons... :)
*EDIT* To get back on topic. lol
I think we all interpolate information differently. There are those that see everything Bush does as backwards and without reason, while there are others who are in total disagreement.
99% of us have the same sources of information yet a majority of us have differing opinions. Why? Who knows....it's probably a nature vs nurture debate. lol
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 11:24 PM
Even the troops in Iraq think that it has to do with 9/11 - http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
As for those that haven't joined the army, a nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;” 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.
Now who's looking stupid? :88)
EDIT: I will also try searching for a link showing the then-assumed connections between Iraq and 9/11. The fact that they may have been based on poor intelligence is another matter but the nonsense that "Bush lied people died" is obnoxiously boring already.
Slow down there, John Kerry.
Intelligence also isnt required to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. They have been misled.
Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.
Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.
Being easily misled is not a sign of a lack of intelligence.
I can show you a TON of Master's and PHD students/graduates that are very easily misled. These people are obviously intelligent, even if their views are different. Being a follower and not a leader does not make somebody an "unintelligent".
Care to explain what signifies "intelligence"?
On a side note, this whole "evil Bush is killing innocent families with his lies!!!11111oneoneone" garbage is non-sensical and boring at best.
Yahoshua
03-28-07, 11:59 PM
Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.
Wow Gnirts.
Have you ever sworn an oath to defend the values of your nation, picked up a rifle and actually DONE something about it? I admit I have not done so, but I most certainly have a desire to join them but as of yet have been prevented by frustrating circumstances involving an utterly inept bureaucracy from doing so (further elaboration is unnecessary). Irregardless of my imposition I fully support our troops to whatever end may come about.
I don't know how you feel about the rights you currently exercise in your nation but you certainly haven't earned them. But here in America they are just that: Inalienable rights guaranteed to the populace. While I may feel that I have not fully earned the rights I do exercise, the difference between us is that I'm working toward earning it while you are busy abusing those who actually earned those rights. Those men have fought for it, shed blood, sweat, and endured bitter tears for it. They have most certainly earned the rights they freely exercise.
You are exactly the kind of person who leave that kind of work to everyone else, riding on the coattails of better men than themselves. All the while you are ridiculing them, putting them under a microscope for every mistake they made while in a position of service these men volunteered for time and again. Have you ever wondered WHY a large number of the soldiers there have volunteered for a 4th tour? You are content with the busy nothings of everyday life while being quick to criticize the faults of others before correcting your own.
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/RantONRantOFF.gif
P.S. Here's the Dead horse Icon that dean was inquiring about (copy it and use it in photobucket, it's a grat free service).
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k84/yahoshua/Smilies/deadhorse2.gif
dean_acheson
03-29-07, 08:38 AM
That is something that I have always had a hard time with Mr. Jefferson about. His postulation that there are 'inalienable' rights. He makes it sound so easy.....
We hold these truths to be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evident), that all men are created equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal), that they are endowed, by their Creator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity), with certain unalienable Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights), that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness).
What a radical statement. In fact, there are none. There is just the belief, that if we belive, then they exist. They are based on faith. The same faith the leads men and women to stand up and fight for these ideas. They are not defended by snarky comments that stike the less washed anarchists amongst us as being radical chic iconoclasim.
No. My President did not orchastrate 9/11. No, my President did not lie about the intentions and capabilites of Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi invasion. Yes, Hussein was a destablizing threat in a region declared vital to American security interests by Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine). And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.
The other day I was downstairs at work, and a recuriter was there to talk to me, and a woman sitting around made a snarky comment about how she bet he 'wished the war was over and the boys could come home' from behind her Lisa Loeb glasses, and he said "yes ma'am, but not until the job we are there for is done."
squigian
03-29-07, 10:39 AM
It will be interesting to look at Iraq in a decade. It could go any number of ways. Here's a brief analysis of two possible routes:
If we pull out..:
The weak Iraqi security forces cannot contain the internal unrest adequately without the help of the Shi'ite militias. Seeing this new state of a weakened and Shia-based, Iran may attempt to move in for the sake of 'regional stability'; if so, ordinary Iraqis may resist their old enemy's overtures whilst Shia hardliners welcome the change. An internal conflict, between hardliners, backed by Iran, and moderates, backed by the US (perhaps) develops.
If we stay in...:
Our troops are worn down by attrition but reinforced by new soldiers from America and Iraqi volunteers. The ordinary people will either loathe us the more for staying or become used to our presence over a longer period. The focus will have to shift from anti-insurgent offensives to reconstruction in order to win the people on-side. Heavier troop presence will be necessary to ensure the security of the reconstruction teams; maybe a draft will have to be taken. It's a long and hard struggle with a very uncertain future.
Factors to consider:
How strong are the insurgents? 20,000 is a liberal estimate.
How strong are the terrorists? An 'unknown known'. Probably growing in number but losing organisation as leaders are killed off.
What is the mood of the ordinary citizen? They just want security first, and to have Iraq be independent,
Will 'Operation Persian Freedom' be undertaken? Most likely not. No military strategist, even an amateur, would see anything to gain from opening up a third front.
Will new foes/friends emerge? An 'unknown unknown'.
Will Afghanistan draw off troops/attention? Perhaps a little; the Taliban cannot win an offensive war, though.
Who'll be in power in the relevant nations? In the US, it's hard to tell. In Iraq, most likely a Shia leader. In Iran, Ahmadinnerjacket will be gone due to high unemployment and inflation.
Conclusion:
Whichever route is taken, it won't be easy. We must prepare ourselves for some hard times ahead no matter what we do. Of course, it was wrong to start a war in the first place, because:
- Saddam had no connection with Osama bar a mutual hatred of America: a secular dictator and a fanatical theocrat getting on? Come off it.
- Saddam was an introverted dictator. That is to say that he kept his dictatorship to itself, not causing mass regional disturbance and simply maintaining his powerbase within Iraq.
- Iraq did not have and was not capable of developing WMD.
- Iraq is ammunition for propagandists.
- The war has left only one regional power: Iran, a theocratic democracy covertly supporting terrorism.
- Afghanistan was not and is not won.
So, how to win? The only way to win would be politically unacceptable. That is, a mass draft in the 100s of thousands. To maintain order, a vast body of infantry is required, standing on every street corner, watching from the rooftops, patrolling the roads. This is no surge but a medium-term strategy for ensuring stability. In the relative peace afforded by this heavy presence, Iraqi troops and police must be recruited and trained; not disbanding the Iraqi army in the first place would have helped. Also, money must be poured into restoring infrastructure. This strategy has be employed time and time again by numerous empires conquering unstable territories. In order to win, it will cost us highly in lives and monetary resources; the question is, is it worth it?
tycho102
03-29-07, 02:31 PM
Bush will veto it for sure, but if this bill becomes law we're going to lose the war for sure. Then the attacks will be on our homes themselves, and we'll know who to point the finger at when the time comes full.
Bush?
For refusing to secure the borders because it will impact Republican financial donors and influential hedge-fund managers?
For refusal to actually build nuclear power plants, alleviating the need for crude oil from hostile and malicious nations?
For refusal to jeopardise the $20 trillion business model of Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, DuPont, Boeing, British Petroleum, Shell, who all tend to lobby the Republican party more than the Democratic Party?
For refusal to let the moslems kill each other, driving up the price of oil, allowing the "free market" to develop energy alternatives to the oil industry's $20 trillion infrastructure investment?
Why, yes. I know where to "point the finger (http://tron-chaser.net/images1/ani_bushflip.gif)". (NESFW, not entirely safe for work)
dean_acheson
03-29-07, 02:42 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/27/83651/6231
Thank God there are folks out there helping us simpletons understand the news....
Pentagon Psyops? Sometimes it is hard to tell the parody from the real anymore.....
Dude.
Yesterday, it was:
I guess it doesn't matter, the Dems will pull funding, the whole region will fall further into despotism and bloodshed, and the left will blame Bush.
...and today, this.
Yeah, yeah yeah. The left hates America. Wants to lose the war. zzzzzz *snore*.
I havent read the whole link you posted. Why? Because as a guy that leans and tends to vote to the left, i find Kos to be a huge pile of paranoid noise making foil hat wearing maniacs that give liberalism a bad name. I criticize the Joe Klein's and Ann Coulters of the world daily for their lunacy and downright stupidity. But I dont assume they are like the rest of the right wingers I know. I guess its easy to sit there and assume that because I voted for Democrats, think the current administration is a joke, and because your sources for left leaning view point comes from trash heaps like Kos, that somehow we are all America hating traitors. Well, thats really too bad for you. Too bad.
It would be too bad if I were to begin to assume that Coulter, Klein, and the like speak for you.
...or...do they?
Oh, and by the way....the left will blame bush when Iraq becomes a disaster after the funding is pulled?
Who, then, is to blame for the last 4 years of consecutive disasters, not only in Iraq, but here at home, too?
Dont bother answering.
No. My President did not orchastrate 9/11. No, my President did not lie about the intentions and capabilites of Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi invasion. Yes, Hussein was a destablizing threat in a region declared vital to American security interests by Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine). And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.
Interesting. So whenever a Democrat makes a strategic decision to love the bad guy we can slam him but when Ronald Reagon funds the Contras its a different story. Yea thats some nice selective history.
But the war in Iraq has little to do with the 'inalienable rights' of its people. From day one its been a business trip to secure economic wealth. If it was all about the Iraqi's then why was that only an afterthought? Why wasn't Colin Powell at the UN showing pictures of dead Iraqis at the hands of Saddam? If it was about the freedom of that country why was the first thing that the army occupied the oil fields while it left all the government buildings to be ransacked, including the banks?
The Iraqi Freedom tag line was an afterthought. And no matter how noble it might seem, just because Democracy is good doesn't mean that you can force it when it won't go.
The McVote isn't a universal solution for ethnic hatred. You can't EXPORT western ideology. And who gives us that right anyway? Is this like giving the naked indians clothes? They'll thank us for civilizing them?
Tchocky
03-29-07, 04:51 PM
It's a no-win situation, I think. Rather similiar to the one that existed in the weeks before the war..
fredbass
03-29-07, 05:25 PM
Well I haven't stuck my nose into this subject for a while, so why not. :lol:
Prediction: America will leave Iraq with their tasks unfinished.
Iraq will fail to do the job on it's own and will have an all out civil war, ending with horrible amounts of bloodshed, dwarfing what we hear about now, leaving the country divided into multiple zones of dictated control for a number of years until a new dictatorship evolves that probably won't be much better than when Saddam was there.
Somewhere in the middle of all this disaster, America gets attacked again and our new Commander and Chief will start a new round of retaliatory measures that may or may not end up any better than this one did.
There: Everybody feel better now? :roll:
America will leave Iraq with their tasks unfinished
Depends which task we are flogging this week. Is it WMD's? Yeah, they wont complete that mission.
Getting rid of Saddam? We did that!
Instilling "Freedom"? Hmm. That ones tougher than we (they?) thought, eh?
Setting up a government? Somewhat completed...
It all depends how you define these tasks. The stroy of why we are there, if you listen to the President, has changed every 6 months or so. We got rid of Saddam, theres a government in place, and it's time for Iraq to handle Iraq.
Yahoshua
03-29-07, 05:35 PM
Bush?
For refusing to secure the borders because it will impact Republican financial donors and influential hedge-fund managers?
For refusal to actually build nuclear power plants, alleviating the need for crude oil from hostile and malicious nations?
For refusal to jeopardise the $20 trillion business model of Halliburton, Exxon, Mobil, Phillips, DuPont, Boeing, British Petroleum, Shell, who all tend to lobby the Republican party more than the Democratic Party?
For refusal to let the moslems kill each other, driving up the price of oil, allowing the "free market" to develop energy alternatives to the oil industry's $20 trillion infrastructure investment?
Why, yes. I know where to "point the finger (http://tron-chaser.net/images1/ani_bushflip.gif)". (NESFW, not entirely safe for work)
Both Republicans and Democrats have refused to defend our southern border, both sides are guilty on this issue.
Both sides have propogated their side of donors in return for "campaign donations." And letting the Moslems have at eachother over there doesn't necessarily mean that Texaco is immediatly going to go out and invent a renewable energy source. They're gonna want to empty our wallets before that happens.
As for nuclear power; who complains the loudest over environmental issues but decries the building of hydroelectric dams and other attempts made toward discovering renewable energy? It certainly isn't the right that is doing so.
Along the same lines of Left Vs. Right: Why is it that the left criticizes the United States for inaction on Darfur when European nations are perfectly capable of doing something about it themselves? Or that the massacres against civilians is so horrid, yet push for "womens' choice" in killing their unborn child? How do you justify that?
How do you rationalize leaving the Iraqis to be slaughtered by the Islamofascists while the Left ties the hands of our soldiers in this war?
PeriscopeDepth
03-29-07, 05:36 PM
And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.
The White Man's Burden, eh?. But the fact of the matter is, these inalienable rights are about as foreign to the Middle East as space invaders, and frankly aren't worth a single American soldier's life to try to bring them. Especially when they WILL use these inalienable rights to institute shariah rule eventually (most likely with some 'help' from Iran). And there isn't anything we can do about that, no matter how many Iraqis watch American Idol knockoffs. The Arab/Islamic mindset has always been not only unaccomodating to western political philisophy, but outright hostile to it. Iran is the real threat to stability in the region, and with the turbulence in Iraq we are making it all to easy for them to work their evil. I mean, even SoDamn Insane eventually realized you should only antagonize the West to a certain point before you get the cr*p bombed out of your $hithole homeland. And you damned sure shouldn't openly proclaim to have a nuclear program.
We need to get out of the Iraqi cities. Our troops seem to only accomplish two things there: 1) drive around and wait to get shot at/IED'd and 2) pull random people out of their homes and interrogate them, 95% of which have NOTHING to do with the insurgency. If the Iraqis truely want democracy, fine. But they NEED to be able to do it themselves, because anything REQUIRING our assistance will be patently unworkable down the line when we DO pull out come next (in all likelihood, Democratic) administration. The most valuable thing in Iraq now is the remote airbases, because we WILL need these in at most a decade. We will be able to entice/force the Iraqis to let us keep a few of them through ample reconstruction funding. And House of Saud will not let us use our airbases there for any offensive action against Iranian territory. While the Gulf principalities might, they are far too close to aero ballistic/cruise threats/popup Iranian threats to prove useful and safe.
Face it, our lofty (foolish) ambitions for Iraq are over, and should have been years ago. Shoving democracy down MEastern country's throat is not going to overcome millenia of culture and history. AL's signature sums it up quite well: "Hope is not a strategy."
PD
Along the same lines of Left Vs. Right: Why is it that the left criticizes the United States for inaction on Darfur when European nations are perfectly capable of doing something about it themselves?
My biggest problem with out inaction in Darfur is because it exposes the deception and propaganda of this administration. If they were truly interested in ridding the world of "brutal dictators", spreading "freedom", and being the saviours of those who cant defend themselves, as so often has been pushed by Bush as one of the many revolving reasons we are in Iraq, then we would have been there a while ago.
having said that, Bush has made some financial moves in the interest of Darfur and other areas that have been highly benificial to that problem, and for those acts, I applaud him.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.