|
Post by scooter on Feb 2, 2007 14:17:47 GMT -4
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16944672/Sh*t or get off the pot... Here's where the opposition can speak, up or down vote, fight or fly. This half assed "fighting", micromanaged by the lying media, is just killing our troops. I guarantee that the opposition, majority, Congress will pass the bill. Keep the limited, no-win war going, hamstringing ROE and bad press will keep the blame on Bush. But they have the power to stop it, what motivates them not to? Why, despite their vocal opposition to the war, do they, the Congress, the "funders", keep it going? It cannot continue without their direct approval. If the war continues, blame it on the Democrat party. Bush wants it, but Congress allows it. Who's lying now? And where is the inquisitive press? I look forward to seeing the vote results, "supporting" the troops. Suddenly, they just can't blame the Administration, they as Congress are enablers. They make it continue. Why would they do this? Yes, the press lies and misleads, but not as some seem to think. It's all about Bush, soldiers be damned. /rant mode.
|
|
|
Post by gwen on Feb 2, 2007 15:00:34 GMT -4
Haha! All politicians are gangsters, the lot of them, it's only a question of how much. I don't think Mr Bush plotted 9/11 but his government's response to it has been wholly a disaster for the US and the world, which he indeed wants to rule and skim profits from for his buddies, who've made billions from the war in Iraq which is starkly illegal and amoral oh and by the bye Saddam Hussein had naught to do with 9/11 or OBL, but he did draw a paycheck from the CIA whilst exiled in Cairo during his 20s, for starters. I wouldn't call any of this conspiracy, more like business as wonted, opportunism with tonnes of incompetence and cluelessness stirred in but who cares when you're making all that loverly money?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 2, 2007 18:22:47 GMT -4
Gillian, he'll be home safe, the odds for that are greatly in his favor (as opposed to living in inner city DC or Philly, say). Wish him my best, and you hang in there, he'll be home soon...and quit watching the news, they just want you, and everyone else, demoralized. You pain and despair is their aim, they have no positive message for you. I know intellectually he'll be home safe. But that's not the point. The point is, he's over there for no good reason, fighting a war that he doesn't even support himself. I don't need to be told about "the lying media," because the media doesn't lie any more often than the President. I'm not sure myself that just pulling out is a valid solution, though it's the one my heart wants. Still, blaming the media is just ridiculous. Despite their regular reporting that no WMDs were found, an astonishingly large number of Americans have believed they were. For the love of Gods, Rocky, stop posting so damn many links and tell us, in your own words, what you think. You say you don't have time to, but you are really quite demanding of our time. No, I don't particularly have a life, but a lot of other people do, and they have better things to do with their time than reading every damfool conspiracy-hyping site on the whole Web. Heck, I have better things to do with my time, and I just read and watch movies all day most days.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 2, 2007 19:32:01 GMT -4
Agreed. That's what Hamilton is most known for. All the panel was composed of politicians - not an Arabist, Islamist, Anthopologist, Economist or Historian among them. Not one General or Admiral. And especially no enlisted soldiers.
The entire concept of the Baker/Hamiliton commission was a political tool for political purposes.
There is a notion running about that the problems in Iraq have a "military solution" or "political solution." As if those are the only two tools in the toolbox. That's like approaching a leaky plumbing pipe with a power hacksaw and the periodic table of the elements as your only tools.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Feb 2, 2007 21:29:36 GMT -4
You misunderstood me. I said that if we can inform enough young people of what the US government is really up to, they will take the conscienable stand of being against it and refusing to participate. I disagree. There are lots of people in the USA who want the chance to fight. Do you really think that some of those of military age even care that we used to support Iran and Iraq? No, they will fight for the chance to fight in those countries just because they can. Some of them will lose the stomach for fighting after they get a taste of it, but others will not. Ranb
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Feb 3, 2007 6:38:20 GMT -4
You people are forgetting the oil factor. We are in Iraq for oil. That has always been the reason. Most of you people see to be trying to skirt around this. If there had been weapons of mass destruction in an Iraq with no oil, there wouldn't have been an invasion. They probably wouldn't have done anything. www.chomsky.info/interviews/20061225.htm(excerpt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These matters, though obvious, are largely excluded from Western discourse. Doctrinal managers would like us to believe that the US and UK would have "liberated" Iraq even if its major exports were lettuce and pickles and the major energy resources of the world were in the South Pacific. It takes really impressive discipline "not to see" the obvious. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ video.google.es/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&pl=true There are probably lots of small countries with WMD. They mainly have them for self-defence against imperial powers like the US. If we don't want to fear countries with WMD, we should stop giving them reasons to want to defend themselves against us (see links in reply #19). www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_louise_01_03_03_mockingbird.html(excerpt) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that 6 million people had died by 1987 as a result of CIA covert operations, called an "American Holocaust" by former State Department official William Blum. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You might be right about that. Still, if American foreign policy were explained to all of them, I'd bet that more than fifty percent would refuse to participate. Please send those links in reply #19 to all of your friends.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 3, 2007 10:49:23 GMT -4
I know that too. I don't need to read CT sites to figure that out.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 3, 2007 11:23:05 GMT -4
I have a rule that anybody who presents a link to prisonplanet is an unreachable, blind ideologue.
Rocky you are no different than some rabid neocon jingoist presenting ultra conservative links to support his arguments; just the other side of the woo woo coin.
Sorry. That's just me. You totally believe you are right just like any extremist of any political stripe on any subject in the world.
Thank God for moderates.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 3, 2007 11:26:21 GMT -4
You're welcome! (Okay, I'm not God. Just moderate.)
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 4, 2007 1:04:09 GMT -4
You're welcome! (Okay, I'm not God. Just moderate.) Yup, and that's one thing God is not: a moderate
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 4, 2007 10:17:04 GMT -4
I don't know Jason the arguments you present soundlike a rehash of what we (or in many cases our parents) were told were reasons for staying in Vietnam. We pulled out of that country in 72-73 under pretty much the same terms we could have 5 years and thousands of deaths earlier. Vietnam was a result of the politicians trying to run the war instead of leaving it to the generals. The greatest kinship the Iraq war has to Vietnam is in this aspect. Any evidence to support this claim? At the height of US involvement it had about 536,000 troops* there and its foreign allies an additional 66,000*, more kilotons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam than on Germany in WWII and millions of Vietnamese civilians died. History has shown us that it is almost impossible for unpopular foreign armies far from home to defeat determined well armed and organized guerillas there are regions of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Russia and Colombia beyond government control. * members.aol.com/warlibrary/vwatl.htm According to a study published in the Lancer one of the world’s top two medical journals about 600,000 more Iraqi civilians died since the invasion than would have died if we hadn’t invaded*. Much of the country’s infrastructure is destroyed, the standard of living has plummeted. No wonder most Iraqis want us to go. * www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html The US is having a hard time getting people to enlist and no many more are available for deployment. So what could the generals have done differently in Vietnam and what could they do differently in Iraqi. “Victory” would have to achieved at a price the American people would be willing to pay. Those polls were carried out by the ICRSS which is run a moderate Sunni Iraqi who spent several years in exile during which time he earned “PhD in social psychology from Keele University” and is (or was) Iraqi’s defense minister*. This greatly adds to the credibility of the surveys his group has carried out, which have repeatedly shown that the majority of Iraqis including Shiites want the US and it’s allies to leave*, if anything we would expect someone who was part of the government to fudge the numbers the other way (i.e. to show that the occupation forces which help prop his government up are popular). * www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...rategic_StudiesEvidence? If true that would be a major reason for talking to them. They like he US want to have influence over Iraqi’s destiny Great more of the same! I’ve seen this rerun before. No this is “The Iraq Debacle V” (or is it VI?) the sequel which is all but indistinguishable from its forerunners You ignored the part about him ignoring the advice of numerous generals and Republican legislators. The majority of the Iraqi and American people say he is talking the wrong approach as do generals and leaders of his own party, even his dad seems to think invading Iraq was and error but you are among the ever shrinking number of people who think he’s right. The main point he ignored was not engaging Iran or Syria. You could call that appeasement but perhaps its being realistic, we invaded their neighbor the situation is not analogous to Europe 1936 – 9. I should not have spoken so generally. Quite an understatement perhaps the biggest was thinking he had the competence to be president, the second was invading Iraq and the third refusing to honestly deal with global warming number four was ignoring terrorism and the pre9-11 warning signs and number five was covering up the degree of toxic contamination of ground zero and number six he and his administrations handling of Katrina but that he honestly has the country's best interests at heart and is doing the best he can, The same could have been said about Hitler, not that I think Bush is anywhere near as bad We’ll have agree to disagree on that one. I believe the country would be a lot better off know if Gore or Kerry or any other Democrat or even most other Republicans were president.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 4, 2007 10:23:37 GMT -4
Agreed. That's what Hamilton is most known for. All the panel was composed of politicians - not an Arabist, Islamist, Anthopologist, Economist or Historian among them. Not one General or Admiral. And especially no enlisted soldiers. The entire concept of the Baker/Hamiliton commission was a political tool for political purposes. There is a notion running about that the problems in Iraq have a "military solution" or "political solution." As if those are the only two tools in the toolbox. That's like approaching a leaky plumbing pipe with a power hacksaw and the periodic table of the elements as your only tools. The Warren and 9-11 Comissioners also lacked people with appropriate expertise that what "blue ribbon" pannels are like in the US. The did have ex -Secs of State and Defense among their members and they consulted numerous experts. Achieving consensus was inportant the US is a democracy.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Feb 4, 2007 10:26:48 GMT -4
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16944672/Sh*t or get off the pot... Here's where the opposition can speak, up or down vote, fight or fly. This half assed "fighting", micromanaged by the lying media, is just killing our troops. I guarantee that the opposition, majority, Congress will pass the bill. Keep the limited, no-win war going, hamstringing ROE and bad press will keep the blame on Bush. <snip>, It's all about Bush, soldiers be damned. /rant mode. I agree but pulling the plug against Bush's disaproval would be very difficult politically. The vast majority of the blame does lie with Bush
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 4, 2007 15:29:25 GMT -4
Vietnam was a result of the politicians trying to run the war instead of leaving it to the generals. The greatest kinship the Iraq war has to Vietnam is in this aspect. Any evidence to support this claim? I go primarily by the opinion of my grandfather, who served on the staff of the Joint Chiefs - specifically on the section of the staff concerned with Vietnam, later as commander of the 79th Engineering group in Vietnam, then as Director of Engineering of the Engineer Command Vietnam, and finally as deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army. He is very much of the opinion that Robert McNamara (who he refers to as a "treasonous liar") is the man primarily responsible with the loss, and Lyndon Johnson to some degree by having supported McNamara. In '67 my grandfather prepared a paper for the Joint Cheifs that predicted that casualties would eventually reach 55,000 (actual number 58,000), that the war would drag on for another five to seven years (which it did), and that the congress, the press, and the people would tire of supporting the war and as a result we would withdraw and leave the country to the enemy (which we did). His advice was essentially a heaving bombing campaign followed by ground troops occupying Hanoi and North Vietnam. The paper met an immediate political backlash and was never actually presented to McNamara. My grandfather regards Strategy for Defeat by Admiral Sharp, and Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMasters to be accurate accounts of the war. Edit: I might add that yes, my grandfather's opinion could be wrong or it could be right, but at least it is an informed opinion.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 4, 2007 15:47:32 GMT -4
IIRC General McArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China in order to avoid defeat in Korea. I would imagine that would decrease the chances of any generals being entrusted with the sole conduct of any subsequent wars.
|
|