Who Lost Iraq?

McWhitey's thesis is based upon the unreasonable assumption that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad actually had a plan.

0 Replies

*whew*

I was afraid I had made Setanta's elusive ignore list...

0 Replies

I don't know how anyone can claim Bush had any plan, except to win the "short" war, because he changed his justifications so often; from WMDs, to al Qaida connection, to 9-11, to getting rid of a tyrant, and to bringing democracy to the middle east. He struck out a long time ago, but Bush apologizers still wants to claim our aggression against an independent, sovereign country was the right thing to do. Even after tens of thousand of innocent dead Iraqis, over 2,800 soldiers dead, over 20,000 soldiers wounded, now costing five billion every month we're there, increased terrorism around the world, and increased instability in the middle east and the world.

0 Replies

McWhitey: I think you often post just to provoke people, but, apart from a particularly vicious attack you had made on me on one occasion, i don't find that you are given to consistently attacking people who post just because that person has posted. I do think you attack people who dare to post that with which you disagree, but that's not that uncommon. The two individuals for whom i've activated the ignore function are people who i'd already taken to ignoring, one because that member is just a contrarian who disagrees just to be disagreeable, and the other because that member is obsessed with attacking me personally. Now i don't have to risk even seeing their drivel.

And, no, i don't intend to respond to your feeble attempt at ironic humor.

0 Replies

Quote:

The US has proven itself to be weak in the face of terrorism

After 9/11, it surely has done so.

The strong thing to do in the face of terrorism is to not abandon your principles. We have done the weak thing - abandoning our principles.

You don't have a f*cking clue what strength is, do you? You really think killing people shows strength.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Your notion, voiced here and in the earlier post, that we are limited (or ought to limit ourselves) to merely believing, accepting and obeying the words and dictates of elected officials (and the set of advisors they bring with them, or the set of existing bureaucracies in the machinery of government) plunks you down into some version of authoritarian and emasculated sheepdom and I won't be joining you there.

The first thing is that I was suggesting that in the context of a war and not in a general sense which is what comes over from the statement although I will admit that I apply the principle quite widely myself but I don't complain of others usually but this is a war. Swallow it whole.

Now- In Chapter 1 of Geoffrey Gorer's little masterpiece The Life and Ideas of the Marquis de Sade he is discussing "those poisoned bombs, the ten volumes of La Nouvelle ou les Malheurs de la vertu suivie de l'Histoire de Juliette sa soeur".

It was alleged that de Sade had sets bound in white vellum and sent to each of the five Directors. (1797).

The next paragraph reads-

"Whenever these books were written, they were published during the only five years of Christendom in which they could be openly sold. Despite the engravings which embellish the first edition and which stress exclusively the obscenity of the work, the books were apparently openly displayed; no copies were seized by the police over quite a long period. In 1801 Napoleon, or his ministers, had all the copies that could be found destroyed; and since that date his work has been almost continuously persecuted and burned.
Organized authority has rightly recognised that de Sade was its inveterate enemy and has declared permanent war on his work and his ideas."

This man spent half his adult life in prison and often under very barbarous conditions and he was an aristocrat who fought like a fiend against the aristocracy, clericalism and organised authority on behalf of republicanism and atheism and science. He has been credited with inventing psychology and psychoanalysis and some people think he started the Revolution. He is almost the prophet of anti-ID.

Treated like that then and still now by those who have swallowed the line of organised authority.

What do you get Bernie for your questioning of organised authority. Attention is one thing and that's a plus I think we can all agree on. You get to pose as virtuous and that's a plus in most places. You get entertainment.

And when your house gets on fire or you suffer from some urgent medical condition out come the uniformed branch of the bureaucracies in the machinery of government to rescue you.

All very nice rewards I must say. And there are many others.

So when it comes to "emasculated sheepdom" consider the general view of de Sade and compare your macho bravery to his.

Read Gorer's book.

We have had a bloke sitting outside the Parliament building in all weathers for months on end protesting the war. And he is getting free food and attention and avoiding work and appearing on TV from time to time which is nowhere near what de Sade got.

I know who the emasculated sheepdom are and you, Bernie, are a member.

Our organised authority is so secure and confident that it can afford you to lambast it in public without turning a hair.

But what is of greater concern is that our enemies observe these divisions in our ranks and it gives them confidence and as they see the prospects of our retreat grow they can be garuanteed to fight among themselves over who fills the vacuum we would leave.

Thus I see this opposition to our voted for war policy as a force to prolong the nightmare with our men caught in the middle. If our war aims are not realised it will be a defeat for us and a victory for our enemies and it will be blazed as such from radio and TV stations right throughout the Islamic world and will politicise them like nothing you have ever seen before.

0 Replies

Set, That's not humor.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

The US has proven itself to be weak in the face of terrorism

After 9/11, it surely has done so.

The strong thing to do in the face of terrorism is to not abandon your principles. We have done the weak thing - abandoning our principles.

You don't have a f*cking clue what strength is, do you? You really think killing people shows strength.

Cycloptichorn

I dunno, but the terrorists sure have a lot of people believeing they are unstoppable. Many liberlas seem to have that message ingrained into them and wish we would leave them alone in hopes they don't bother us anymore.

Do you believe dealing with terrorist diplomatically, or ignoring them is a better tactic then killing them?

It is my opinion that the only good terrorist, is a dead one. That you differ from that opinion hardly surprises me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote-

Quote:

*whew*

I was afraid I had made Setanta's elusive ignore list...

I've been on and off that list a few times.

Is there an annual get-together? Complete with effigy.

0 Replies

Hey, McG, I finally made Set's ignore list. We "do" have something in common. LOL

0 Replies

Quote:

Thus I see this opposition to our voted for war policy as a force to prolong the nightmare with our men caught in the middle. If our war aims are not realised it will be a defeat for us and a victory for our enemies and it will be blazed as such from radio and TV stations right throughout the Islamic world and will politicise them like nothing you have ever seen before.

Boo f*cking hoo. Perhaps this should have been thought of in advance before we comitted ourselves to such a disastrous action.

You Right-wingers act like the football team who is supposedly invincible. Wars go this way - you win some, you lose some. We are currently losing. We aren't losing because of people's negativity, we are losing because those who planned the war, didn't. Those who are running the war, are screwing it up royally. Those who are supposedly doing reconstruction in Iraq are stealing vast amounts of monies, and the leadership doesn't give a whit.

But, Screw all that. Let's blame our failures on the people who were right all along.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I dunno, but the terrorists sure have a lot of people believeing they are unstoppable. Many liberlas seem to have that message ingrained into them and wish we would leave them alone in hopes they don't bother us anymore.

Do you believe dealing with terrorist diplomatically, or ignoring them is a better tactic then killing them?

It is my opinion that the only good terrorist, is a dead one. That you differ from that opinion hardly surprises me.

Leaving aside the problem of those whom you choose to see as terrorists, this is just one long strawman.

0 Replies

ooh, aah -WMDs,Saddam...well, while everyone was happy to be whipped up into a frenzy (i still maintain, that in current times, the US has gotten to become the poster child of the saying, an idle mind is a ... ), since 1998 NO WMD's had been found in Iraq. Now, it's common knowledge that there were no WMD's. so there goes a very BIG reason for pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Back in 2002, it was already known that the sensational story abt Iraq purchasing uranium from niger was a figment of someone's imagination. someone who was interested in going to war with Iraq, regardless of whether there was a reason or not. and, btw -- GW was talking abt going to war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11. sure, the rest of the jokers were screaming for the hills abt Saddam and the threat he presented even before GW came to be Dictator, but NONE of them took the US to WAR! georgie porgie pudding and pie...what a delightful little draft-dodging leader he is.

McGentrix wrote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq explains why war was waged with Iraq. Have you read it?

i just did. very good. reads like fighting words to me.

but, a few questions - what was the nationality of the bulk of the hijackers that caused 9/11? and the reason i bring this up, is because pre-emptive WAR against a sovereign nation was carried out as a response to 9/11. so, what were the nationalities. i must be mistaken, but i am not sure that any of them were iraqi. i do know that the bulk of them were saudi.

and that dude with the beard, hiding in the cave - he is a member of the Al-Saud family, seeking shelter in afghanistan and pakistan?

i must be mistaken. i must be reading the newspaper, again!

McGentrix wrote:

The governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do not fund terror groups and are working with us to rid their countries of terrorists. They may not be doing so in a timely manner acceptable to some, and I am sure Walter will post an article showing an example of this (providing another Waltism (tm)). We have no need at this time to provide military intervention in either country.

hee hee hee..yessirie! we certainly have no need at this time to provide military intervention..hehehe... i am sorry, you are funny and i cannot help it.
besides, we cannot possibly anger with "Bandar (Oil) Bush's" family. what would that do to oil prices and the Biz. that would be retarded!

McGentrix wrote:

Our government thought the Iraqi people would be able to handle not living under a dictator and having a democratic government. Boy, were they wrong!

oops! i did it again.

((Britney Spears for Prez!!))

McGentrix wrote:

Turns out too many Iraqi's are only interested in their personal power and killing their fellow Iraqi's.

wow! they must be Martians! that beard, that language, that anger at being invaded by a go**am foreign nation who decides to step in and f**k things up -- they must be martians, or INSANE!

Quote:

McGentrix wrote:
A massive strike, early in the insurgency, would have eliminated much of the strife that we are seeing now. We should have cut the head off every snake that popped it's head up, when it popped up.

over HALF A MILLION civilian Iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. we can afford the luxury of argument and debate self-righteousness, affront, revenge, anger, disgust and morality. but the fact still remains: over HALF A MILLION civilian iraqi's lay dead post-US invasion. HALF A MILLION civilian IRAQI'S. like that 2 year old little boy that was accompanying his dad to a neighbourhood tea shop on Saturday morning. he had his head blown off.

McGentrix wrote:

half a million now? Huh. Those Iraqi insurgents and arab terrorists can sure build up a body count, huh? Perhaps if they put their efforts into building up their country instead of tearing it down

why break when not broken, why build when they did not ask for it to be broken?

McGentrix wrote:

We must inflict severe and immediate damage to those perpetrating those vile acts. WOuldn't you agree?

nope.

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
McG is blood-thirsty in his attempt to seek revenge. wouldn't you know that the most powerful force is one's conscience?
had the US responded in a manner that was just and driven by conscience following 9/11, it would have represented what the founding fathers of this nation intended for the american spirit to be, and the world would have applauded. instead, it behaved like the representation of an incensed rabble, thirsty for blood.
the US has proved itself to be the largest terrorist nation on earth. it is reprehensible, in my opinion. and every day that passes, i feel the burden of death on my soul get heavier.

What exactly would you have had the US do following 9/11?

The US has proven itself to be weak in the face of terrorism and should we leave Iraq before it is stable nothing more then a paper tiger. Empowering the terrorists is not the way to defeat them and defeat them we must. If you see the US as a terrorist nation, I pity your blindness, but I will not change my view to calm your conscious.

you cannot calm my conscious. but you can tap into your conscience. for goddsakes, be an american. stand for personal liberties, justice and fairness to all. how can you be so blinded by a dim-witted group of sharks in the white house who are only interested in feeding the military industrial complex??????
this is not a conspiracy theory. this is the sad reality when you are being wire-tapped and your liberties and freedoms are being trampled upon. when the country is being raped and pillaged monetarily, unemployment is surging, the economy is slumping, defense contractors are publishing huge profits.

you love your country and you hate the m'f'ing iraqi civillians. these emotions, first of all, are mutually exclusive. you love your country and you have to staunchly support a small group of unconscionable unlawful businessmen who happen to be passing through the white house. these 2 emotions are mutually exclusive. love your country and protect it from ruin, at all costs. your loyalties should, first and foremost, be with the United States of America. protect the ideals that she was founded on. be fair, just and promote peace. it just feels a whole lot better than writhing in hatred.

but to answer your question, immediately following 9/11, the world drew closer and united in their sympathy for what the people of the US had faced. This was not the first terrorist event in the history on mankind. countries around the world routinely face the threat of terrorism. but it was the first in american soil. what the US should have done, is sit down with the rest of the world, do an information transfer from nations that have been under terrorist attacks for decades and mobilized a joint, global effort in ferreting out terrorism all over the globe. this would have been historically monumental. it was a moment in history, when time paused to see what we, as mankind, would do with a systemic problem that we have faced for decades.

one man, squandered the opportunity, alienated the world, antagonized the muslims and made america look like a renegade, terrorist nation.

god forbid, if another 9/11 happens today, the world will say - serves that country right.

i do not believe that americans and america need to pay for the sins of a reprehensible cowboy and his sh*t-eating advisors.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

A propos of the post by Heartofthesun:

Quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering

zigackly!

0 Replies

hots wrote-

Quote:

georgie porgie pudding and pie...what a delightful little draft-dodging leader he is.

Come on man. Give us a break. Would you not have dodged the draft if you had been in Mr Bush's position at that time. I think I would. I think most people I know would.

Would you not have? It's not much to do with avoiding fighting. It's all the **** that goes before that bit. The small matter of the training and the dickheads running it has more to do with dodging the draft than bothering about fighting.

Nobody there ever thinks about getting it. They think they lead a charmed life and the worse it is the bigger the heroes they'll be when they get back and it's the longing to get back home that's the worst. The "silly pillocks" to quote McTag.

Nobody gives a flying fornication whose bloody fault it all is--it is what to do next.

Can you not run them out of office or something like we can. They are not going to take any notice of rants on A2K. If they are as bad as some are saying shouldn't they be run out.

You're shouting into a hurricane. A lone voice crying "look at me. I'm against people getting killed and maimed." After that it's rhetoric.

Let's have some suggestions to go forward with. Ones that are credible I mean.

0 Replies

Let me see if I can wade through your response here. It won't be easy considering the amount of anti-Bush filler you have typed, but I will try to translate it into something manageable.

Quote:

since 1998 NO WMD's had been found in Iraq. Now, it's common knowledge that there were no WMD's. so there goes a very BIG reason for pre-emptive strikes on Iraq. Back in 2002, it was already known that the sensational story abt Iraq purchasing uranium from niger was a figment of someone's imagination. someone who was interested in going to war with Iraq, regardless of whether there was a reason or not. and, btw -- GW was talking abt going to war with Iraq BEFORE 9/11. sure, the rest of the jokers were screaming for the hills abt Saddam and the threat he presented even before GW came to be Dictator, but NONE of them took the US to WAR!

Lots of stuff here. Let's see... There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads. None of which can be either proven, nor disproven without Syria's cooperation.

After 12 years of Saddam's tricks and dodging of UN resolutions, it's good that someone realized the reality of the threat posed by Saddam and had plans to evict him from leadership. It's too bad Clinton didn't have the inclination and that it took an event like 9/11 to wake America up to the dangers of terrorism and those that supply arms and money to terrorists.

Quote:

i just did. very good. reads like fighting words to me.

but, a few questions - what was the nationality of the bulk of the hijackers that caused 9/11? and the reason i bring this up, is because pre-emptive WAR against a sovereign nation was carried out as a response to 9/11. so, what were the nationalities. i must be mistaken, but i am not sure that any of them were iraqi. i do know that the bulk of them were saudi.

and that dude with the beard, hiding in the cave - he is a member of the Al-Saud family, seeking shelter in afghanistan and pakistan?

i must be mistaken. i must be reading the newspaper, again!

I am glad you read it. I wonder if you understood it based on your follow up questions though. No where in that resolution is 9/11 given as a justification for the attack on Iraq. rather, as a result of 9/11, we recognized the danger Saddam presented.

Osama? A member of the Al-saud family? Is that true Setanta? I was not aware of a familial connection between the Bin Ladens and the Al-saud family.

What was the newspaper you were reading, the National Enquirer?

Quote:

but to answer your question, immediately following 9/11, the world drew closer and united in their sympathy for what the people of the US had faced. This was not the first terrorist event in the history on mankind. countries around the world routinely face the threat of terrorism. but it was the first in american soil. what the US should have done, is sit down with the rest of the world, do an information transfer from nations that have been under terrorist attacks for decades and mobilized a joint, global effort in ferreting out terrorism all over the globe. this would have been historically monumental. it was a moment in history, when time paused to see what we, as mankind, would do with a systemic problem that we have faced for decades.

An information transfer... perhaps we could have had all the intellligence agencies from many various nations get together, pool their evidence, weigh the greatest threats and act upon that information. Surely that would be a slam dunk if that happened, huh?

Maybe we could have had the UN make some resolutions...

0 Replies

Quote:

There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

spendi wrote: Come on man. Give us a break. Would you not have dodged the draft if you had been in Mr Bush's position at that time. I think I would. I think most people I know would.

Wrong, spendi. Many young men and women served in Vietnam, because they felt it was their responsibility to fight in America's war - wrong or right. When one serves in the military, you don't have a choice when and where they send you.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
There is credible evidence that most of Saddam's WMD's were moved to Syria as has been discussed on this forum in other threads.

No, there isn't.

I mean, you have a theory, but it has zero credibility.

Cycloptichorn

I am not going to rehash the whole issue again here Cyc. You can search the forums and read the info if you like. Whether you believe it or not or find it credible or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it raises enough doubt to be credible.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

hots wrote-

Quote:
georgie porgie pudding and pie...what a delightful little draft-dodging leader he is.

Come on man. Give us a break. Would you not have dodged the draft if you had been in Mr Bush's position at that time. I think I would. I think most people I know would.

yes, yes. hence pause before hurtling down the war path. jog your memory, think abt the moment when you were sh*ting your pants because you didn't want to die in a foreign land, away from momma Bush. and then, transfer that thought. apply it to that fresh faced kid that really, really, really, really loves his country, but does not want to die.
pause, think, and consider all options before sending that kid off to DIE.

spendius wrote:

Would you not have? It's not much to do with avoiding fighting. It's all the **** that goes before that bit. The small matter of the training and the dickheads running it has more to do with dodging the draft than bothering about fighting.

Nobody there ever thinks about getting it. They think they lead a charmed life and the worse it is the bigger the heroes they'll be when they get back and it's the longing to get back home that's the worst. The "silly pillocks" to quote McTag.

Nobody gives a flying fornication whose bloody fault it all is--it is what to do next.

Can you not run them out of office or something like we can. They are not going to take any notice of rants on A2K. If they are as bad as some are saying shouldn't they be run out.

You're shouting into a hurricane. A lone voice crying "look at me. I'm against people getting killed and maimed." After that it's rhetoric.

Let's have some suggestions to go forward with. Ones that are credible I mean.

i agree. and i apologise for being that lone, whinny, ineffectual voice. there is much to be done. and talking abt whose fault it is, is a huge waste of time. mine too.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know