0
   

Americans are losing the Victory... Check it out!

 
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:25 am
An American President also said "Ask Mrs. Coolidge if it's the same hen every time" which I found to be a pretty sharp observation.....
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:26 am
"There are a number of names who would fit better"... Let me help you out here O'Bill...

PANZADE


http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ek867/pogo.jpg
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:28 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Fair enough Joe. I'm just trying to keep the playing field level in this sea of 'We've already lost's'. Yours included. :wink:

A level field in a sea? Your metaphors may be mixed, but your intentions are fairly clear.

Also, you have no doubt quoted Sun Tzu inaccurately. Having written many centuries before the invention of gunpowder, it is highly unlikely that he would have said that a "war plan becomes useless the moment the first shot is fired."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:31 am
Sad but true Panzade. I miss you.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:34 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Why would you say blaming the UN is rather childish? Weren't they the authority that stood by while Saddam pocketed BILLIONs in grocery money, that resulted in MILLIONs of dead Iraqis? Who was in charge after the Gulf War?


It is simplistic to blame the UN for what went on in Iraq. We can go round and round about the role of the UN and what it could have/should have done and how we are a permanent member with veto power who sits on the security council ad infinitum. Who was in charge after the Gulf War depends on what you are talking about. Apparently, Saddam was in charge of Iraq, at least that's what you are claiming and that is why we needed to go in so urgently. Do you have some evidence that the oil for food scandal was resulted in MILLIONs of dead Iraqis? Or is that more of your newfound favorite right wing hyperbole.

Quote:

How do you look past the millions of people brutally oppressed to death, over a dozen resolutions ignored and then blame the sole country who stepped up to the plate to stop the madness? Saddam Hussein is the reason we went to Iraq. The UN's impotence, indifference or flat out incompetence is the reason we had to bypass there mishandling of the affair.


How do you look past those same conditions all over the world and decide that, no, Saddam was the biggest dick in the sea? How do you look past the utter desolation and destruction caused by dropping more bombs than ever dropped in history on one city. How do you look past the continued occupation of a nation half way around the world who did not ask us to come and liberate them, and who do not wish us to stay there, and who do not trust us or any leader we support, and who think that we are trying to turn their country into Israel?

Do you honestly believe (and this is for McG too) that we 'stepped up' out of some moral obligation? Because Bush and his administration just felt so so bad for those millions of Iraqi's oppressed under Saddam's rule? Because Saddam violated UN resolutions (though not as many as our friend Israel, but that's another story) according to our say so? Do you believe that the role of the US in the world is to invade every country that is ruled by a despot and to establish democracy and liberty there? Is that something you could support? You can paint this invasion whatever pretty colors you choose but it still comes up black. It was an unprovoked invasion and there were no good intentions behind it.

Quote:
I have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they? Sun Tzu wrote; a war plan becomes useless the moment the first shot is fired.


You don't have to screw up intentionally to have screwed up. The fact that we apparently understood so little about the country and its people is a fact that supports the conclusion that we had no business invading it.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 10:46 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they?



You're kidding, right?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:01 am
squinney wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they?



You're kidding, right?


Come on, O'Bill .... donch'a 'member Halliburton? Duh!


Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:06 am
do you deny that Halliburton is making a fortune off this war?
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:06 am
LOL...Tico, you knave.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:10 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
do you deny that Halliburton is making a fortune off this war?


Let us not forget Bechtel Corporation . . . they've bellied up at the trough as well . . .
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:13 am
The Kuwaiti's are making a nice dime too, don't let's forget about them.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:14 am
Not sure about this distinction between intentional and unintentional planning. A bad plan is a bad plan, no? I don't think anyone really thinks Bush meant the effort to go so badly. It just has...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:15 am
Good point, McG, the Kuwaitis were undoubtedly singing "Cha-Ching ! ! !" from day one . . .
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:18 am
that's why I always say the real leaders of this world are all in the same club....the money club....they..including our own leaders at the trough are the real enemies in the war on terror...because the war on terror is the latest money grab.....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:09 pm
Joe, I can't remember who I lent my copy of Art of War to, so I couldn't find the passage I paraphrased if I wanted to. Do take notice of the lack of quotation marks though! (not that you'd have any reason to expect proper punctuation from me. Razz)

Freeduck, I doubt either of us have the patience to debate the entire campaign. My point was simply that it is NOT "childish" to blame the responsible party (the UN) for what took place on their decade long watch. Debatable? PerhapsÂ… but certainly NOT childish.
To answer your other questions in the broadest of strokes: Yes, I think the rest of the world's Saddam's should be removed as well and yes I would support that. Why Saddam first? Numerous violations of the ceasefire from our previous war, gave us room to say we had the right (regardless of who disagreed). Why not Israel instead? They don't make a habit of shooting at our planes.

Freeduck wrote:
You don't have to screw up intentionally to have screwed up. The fact that we apparently understood so little about the country and its people is a fact that supports the conclusion that we had no business invading it.
Errors in judgment on how best to prosecute the war do not "supports the conclusion that we had no business invading it" By that rationale, you would be defending the invasion had we understood the people and country better. Nonsense. That's a position of convenience.

squinney wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I have trouble believing that anyone intentionally planned the war poorly. There is no profit in it of any kind, for anyone, so why would they?

You're kidding, right?
Who would be profiting less if the invasion was planned better? Any impropriety that's going on doesn't hinge on poor planning. If you think otherwise, you're making one hell of a charge. Are the spoils of a well-prosecuted war not sufficient for these fiends in your eyes?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:17 pm
Bill, we'll have to discuss this some time when smoke is not piping out of my ears. Suffice it to say that you have misinterpreted my statements at least twice in your post that I can see. I need to go have a drink.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:18 pm
Bechtel, Brown and Root, Haliburton, Carlyle Group, etc. would all have stopped making money off of this war if it really had been Mission Accomplished 18 months ago.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:23 pm
squinney wrote:
Bechtel, Brown and Root, Haliburton, Carlyle Group, etc. would all have stopped making money off of this war if it really had been Mission Accomplished 18 months ago.


even if we pull out tomorrow these corporations will have years of profits in finishing what they started...then of course insurgents will blow it up and they'll have to rebuild...and there security divisions (i.e. mercs) will bag huge contracts to privatize security in absence of US troops....it's practically totally self perpetuating....and the money will continue to pour in to these groups...synonymous of course with bushinc.....in that respect it actually is mission accomplished.... he should have parachuted into a hog farm in coveralls instead of onto a ship in a flight suit, that's all
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:26 pm
[ot]Do you guys sit next to each other or take turns?[/ot]
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:28 pm
do you stalk us both at the same time or are you on a rotating schedule?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 10:31:27