Iraq policy shifting soon?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

I specifically quoted the New York Magazine article in reply to August, regarding his point that if/when the Dems are in control, they may prove to be a bigger failure than what the Republicans have been these past years. I was not addressing you in that post.

Ahh. Okay. Let's hope thats not the case or I''ll have to turn around and vote Republican, and after all this........

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

That's an excellent example of a hostile world media twisting his words to mean something he didn't.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" he speaking to the crew of the ship on which he said it. He was not speaking about the war itself. They had just completed a highly successful deployment, having accomplished the mission they had been assigned, hence the statement. No more, no less.

You are the first person I ever heared of who understood it this way. But you always seem to understand a lot of things in a very individual and unique way.

And coming aboard the carrier in flightdress, and a fighterplane as taxi as if he had shared any persoanl risks for health and life like those he send into war - while always having successfully avoided active combat assignment in Vietnam... Reminded me of "Hot Shots" a bit...

[The Noob]

Originally Posted by Gizzmoe

Relax. You won´t find many people here that hate Americans and Skybird is most certainly not one of them. He criticises certain aspects of the US government (and also his own and many others) and his intention is not to bait anyone.

Just for the record on this hot debate, i do not hate Americans in Gerneral. There are only a few people i hate that are from amerca. I just disagree with thier political ideas, and that strongly. But there is no reason to hate anyone.

On other forums i also criticise my own governement, but here, nobody cares for this anyway. And since i am to retarded to Start good topics myself...

*Ducks away again*

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Ahh. Okay. Let's hope thats not the case or I''ll have to turn around and vote Republican, and after all this........

The party is not what's important. They both stink at this point in time.

[ASWnut101]

* in a sniper nest 1 mile away, with a tranquilizer rifle*

crap! he ducked away again! :p

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are the first person I ever heared of who understood it this way. But you always seem to understand a lot of things in a very individual and unique way.

See Wikipedia. Bush didn't say it and even his speech on the carrier (with the "mission accomplish" banner perfectly placed behind him) indicated that the war was not over.

You are NOT the first person I ever heard who has misunderstood it this way.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

And what dream is that Sky? I don't think anyone, except the Europeans, ever thought our intention was to make Iraq the 51st state.

No, not a 51st state, but a stronghold of American influence in the centre of global oil production, and a dominant role of american oil companies in the Iraqi business, as well as trying to start a chain reaction that would spread democracy - in the exclusive american definition - in the region: again, of course dominated by american power, in a way so that it's presence would appear to be inevitable and in the best intrest of the loacal people, so that they would not even think to question about the US presence. If you are seen as a welcomed guest, it is less likely you will be critizised as an imperial power, even when bringing the oil industry under your control by influencing coinstitutions nand laws that would maximize economical advabatges for the Us, but leaves losses and risks to the Iraqis and minimizes the benfits their society would gain from these incomes.

I've said it here more than once. If Iraq comes out of this as a functioning democracy then great, but I was happy with just removing Saddam and his henchmen from power.

And obviously you do not care a bit of how big the price of that is. Maybe because you do not need to pay it. The misery of the Iraqis is not your concern. And when in the longrun the Iraq war will feed back with more open terror than it has ever prevented, it will not be the US being struck first, for you are far away in the other side of the globe, safely guarded by two big oceans on both sides of your country. Europe will catch up the blast first (as if we do not already have anough trouble with the many bad consequences we trigger ourselves...). You wanted your Saddam-removal party, but others behind you need to do the clean.

Your happiness is no reason for war. What your president before gave as reasons for war, and what it has come down to today, and that you "happily" accept to trigger even more violance by your simple presence (although meanwhile it has been made very clear that the majoiirty, the clear majority, of both Sunnis and Shias do not want you to stay) although you have no more chance to reach all what you claim so proudly you want to reach - stability, security, etc etc etc - this is what it is about in the present. Beside that, you risk the life of countrymen of yours all for nothing - by sticking to illusions. Every soldier's ego is hurt to admit he has been defeated, directly or by a mission lost. but it is the case. The objectives can no longer be reached, not this year and not in five years and not in ten. you lost. Your prize is an Iraq that sooner or later will fall the major Shia orhtodox influence, Iran, will be destabilized increasingly (even when being split), will turn into a second Lebanon, and then will be what Bush said in 2003 it already were, but as a matter fo fact was not : a sponsor and major source of international terrorism. You have reached all that you wanted to prevent. You haven't reached any of the official objectives given before the war, escpeically with reagdr to WMDs. Situation is detoriating constantly. When was the first time I said it is detoriating? Must be roughly two years ago. Since then things went down. Iraqis try to flee the country by the thousand. The saudis are building a fence to keep out the masses of refugees they expect in the future. high ranking US militaries having serbed in Iraq have indirectly critised the Iraq policy over the last six months. highest ranking British general today has openly attacked the reasonability of the Iraq war and it'S objectives. the place is a chaos, a place of civil war (you don't acdcept that term, too, don'T you?). Religious extremism and Shia orthoxy is rising faster than you can run. Iran is strengthening it's basis in Iraq. But all that you more or less ignore, and insist on finishing the mission, and leaving not before your socalled objectives are acchieved.

Have I made myself clear what I mean when I said you are dreaming?

[The Noob]

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

* in a sniper nest 1 mile away, with a tranquilizer rifle*

crap! he ducked away again! :p

*In a tunnel right under ASW's sniper nest*

crap! the shovel broke again! :p

[ASWnut101]

:p!

*marks spot for tank to drive on*

heheheee!

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Latest polls show that Bush not only has lost the majority of Americans to support his views on Iraq, they also show that currently the democrats are thought to have better competence in the traditional field of Republican's strength: security in general.

The "latest polls" show that we are fed up with:

1. Mexicans, Columbians, Venezulans, Cubans, Iranians, Saudi Arabians, Syrians, Chinese, Nigerians, Libyans, Chadians (??!?!), South Africans, friggin' Irish and Scots, and everyone else in the world being able to swim across the Rio Grande and catch a bus to anywhere in the United States.

2. Social Security, in direct relationship to...

3. Our god d*mn national debt. The Treasury department reports out an $8 trillion debt, but if you add in all the social security loans, it's closer to $50 trillion. No company in America can use the same "accounting" techniques that our Congress does. Microsoft reports a loan when they take it, not when it comes due.

4. Our educational system. With all the historical revision and unaccountability by instructors, students are either getting half the story or they're being given the answers to the test and expected to just memorize them.

5. Contraception. Mandatory contraception, for both the men and the women. By which I'm talking about women who are addicted to crack, show up at the emergency room every 10 months for a delivery, and are unemployed. And the giggalos running around, hittin' dis and hittin' dat. Mandatory planned parenthood.

[Coda]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No, not a 51st state, but a stronghold of American influence in the centre of global oil production, and a dominant role of american oil companies in the Iraqi business, as well as trying to start a chain reaction that would spread democracy - in the exclusive american definition - in the region: again, of course dominated by american power, in a way so that it's presence would appear to be inevitable and in the best intrest of the loacal people, so that they would not even think to question about the US presence. If you are seen as a welcomed guest, it is less likely you will be critizised as an imperial power, even when bringing the oil industry under your control by influencing coinstitutions nand laws that would maximize economical advabatges for the Us, but leaves losses and risks to the Iraqis and minimizes the benfits their society would gain from these incomes.

And obviously you do not care a bit of how big the price of that is. Maybe because you do not need to pay it. The misery of the Iraqis is not your concern. And when in the longrun the Iraq war will feed back with more open terror than it has ever prevented, it will not be the US being struck first, for you are far away in the other side of the globe, safely guarded by two big oceans on both sides of your country. Europe will catch up the blast first (as if we do not already have anough trouble with the many bad consequences we trigger ourselves...). You wanted your Saddam-removal party, but others behind you need to do the clean.

Your happiness is no reason for war. What your president before gave as reasons for war, and what it has come down to today, and that you "happily" accept to trigger even more violance by your simple presence (although meanwhile it has been made very clear that the majoiirty, the clear majority, of both Sunnis and Shias do not want you to stay) although you have no more chance to reach all what you claim so proudly you want to reach - stability, security, etc etc etc - this is what it is about in the present. Beside that, you risk the life of countrymen of yours all for nothing - by sticking to illusions. Every soldier's ego is hurt to admit he has been defeated, directly or by a mission lost. but it is the case. The objectives can no longer be reached, not this year and not in five years and not in ten. you lost. Your prize is an Iraq that sooner or later will fall the major Shia orhtodox influence, Iran, will be destabilized increasingly (even when being split), will turn into a second Lebanon, and then will be what Bush said in 2003 it already were, but as a matter fo fact was not : a sponsor and major source of international terrorism. You have reached all that you wanted to prevent. You haven't reached any of the official objectives given before the war, escpeically with reagdr to WMDs. Situation is detoriating constantly. When was the first time I said it is detoriating? Must be roughly two years ago. Since then things went down. Iraqis try to flee the country by the thousand. The saudis are building a fence to keep out the masses of refugees they expect in the future. high ranking US militaries having serbed in Iraq have indirectly critised the Iraq policy over the last six months. highest ranking British general today has openly attacked the reasonability of the Iraq war and it'S objectives. the place is a chaos, a place of civil war (you don't acdcept that term, too, don'T you?). Religious extremism and Shia orthoxy is rising faster than you can run. Iran is strengthening it's basis in Iraq. But all that you more or less ignore, and insist on finishing the mission, and leaving not before your socalled objectives are acchieved.

What's your point?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

The party is not what's important. They both stink at this point in time.

Yes I know but it's the only two parties we have unfourtunately and they don't mix and match.
I'm still waiting for that third one.

[ASWnut101]

independents?

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6060544.stm

Iran and Syria will not only take over, no, they really will get asked to do so - according to Talabani.

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

You are NOT the first person I ever heard who has misunderstood it this way.

Okay, point taken, the story about the banner I did not know.

Originally Posted by Coda

What's your point?

.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Yes I know but it's the only two parties we have unfourtunately and they don't mix and match.
I'm still waiting for that third one.

I vote per individual. It's true that at present, I cannot think of any Democratic candidates I'm elgible to vote for that I would vote for but it wasn't always this way.

The Democratic party has veered to the wacky left to a much greater extent than the Republican party has gone off the sharp right edge. Here in Israel, we've watched the same thing happen to both formerly "centrist" parties: the Likud and the Labor (socialist) parties. The Likud has shifted left and is not noticeably different from the Labor party a decade ago. The Labor party is not much different today than Israel's idiotic leftist Meretz party was back then and still is today.