See, freeduck asked a question, I answered it and get pummeled for doing so. Yippee.
Of course, Setanta feels the need to come in guns blazing as he always does with hid links to Iraqi police guilt. Makes it look pretty glum and makes all the Iraqi police guilty by association and therefore the effort a complete failure. I wonder how many police forces around the world would be as equally counted as failures by Setanta's dictum? I am sure one could find plenty of horrible stories about the New York City police department committing all kinds of crimes against innocents. Does that make the NYPD a failure?
No, I think all it is is a forum for big thinkers like Setanta to blaze away bristling with hostility towards all things Bush. Nothing new there really.
Sorry I tried to show Freeduck where America has stated defined objectives for victory in Iraq.
Quote:I am sure one could find plenty of horrible stories about the New York City police department committing all kinds of crimes against innocents.
Bad analogy. Because, you see, these stories are vastly dwarfed by the stories of those who had neutral or positive experiences with the police.
Can't say the same thing in Iraq tho.
I'm pretty sure Setanta just felt the need to explain how bullsh*t the stated objectives from the WH are. You should have realized this as well before you posted, them, and therefore carry a certain amount of guilt for repeating such bullsh*t.
And unlike the media, there are people here on A2K who will call you on your bullsh*t.
Cycloptichorn
You can like it or not like it, I doubt it matters even a little bit. It's American policy until Bush is no longer President or it gets changed. Simply repeating it here does not make it bullshit, nor does it need any explaining by bullshit artists like yourself or Setanta.
McGentrix wrote:
Sorry I tried to show Freeduck where America has stated defined objectives for victory in Iraq.
Well, thanks anyway. Those still sound like objectives for the Iraqis to me, but I'm still reading the link so what do I know.
McGentrix wrote: Setanta feels the need to come in guns blazing as he always does with hid links to Iraqi police guilt. Makes it look pretty glum and makes all the Iraqi police guilty by association and therefore the effort a complete failure.
Kinda like your weak attmpt to link democrats and non-Bush supporters to Ahmadinejad.
You can't play from the bottom of the deck then excoriate others for doing the same.
McGentrix wrote:You can like it or not like it, I doubt it matters even a little bit. It's American policy until Bush is no longer President or it gets changed. Simply repeating it here does not make it bullshit, nor does it need any explaining by bullshit artists like yourself or Setanta.
You're right, repeating it here has nothing to do with the inherent bullsh*tness of the 'stated goals' in Iraq.
You are also correct in that Setanta or myself explaining why it is bullsh*t does not change the inherent bullsh*tness of the stated goals either.
Rather, it is a matter of being unable to believe that someone would reprint such tripe as if it were at all meaningful. It is indicative to some sort of mental deficiency or blockage.
Every now and then we try to throw you a bone, man, but we can't make you chew...
Cycloptichorn
candidone1 wrote:McGentrix wrote: Setanta feels the need to come in guns blazing as he always does with hid links to Iraqi police guilt. Makes it look pretty glum and makes all the Iraqi police guilty by association and therefore the effort a complete failure.
Kinda like your weak attmpt to link democrats and non-Bush supporters to Ahmadinejad.
You can't play from the bottom of the deck then excoriate others for doing the same.
I already knew you had no sense of humor, you don't need to keep proving it.
I have only read a very brief summary of the Gates hearing in the local news here, and not yet looked at a fuller version, but I have to say his views seem very realistic and reasonable to me......and more hopeful re a shift in the US' very aggressive policies, eg towards Iran and Syria.
His fears of a ME conflagration etc, and away from the determinedly blind utterings of Bush (whether they are just bumpf for the masses, or what he still actually beieves) is heartening, at least to me.
But, as I said, I have only read a very incomplete version.
dlowan, We still must suffer Bush for the next two years, and he's the commander in chief. It means, he's the boss of our military.
Bush neither understands foreign cultures or politics, and he doesn't listen to the experts. Over and above all that, he never makes mistakes.
McGentrix wrote:See, freeduck asked a question, I answered it and get pummeled for doing so. Yippee.
Of course, Setanta feels the need to come in guns blazing as he always does with hid links to Iraqi police guilt. Makes it look pretty glum and makes all the Iraqi police guilty by association and therefore the effort a complete failure. I wonder how many police forces around the world would be as equally counted as failures by Setanta's dictum? I am sure one could find plenty of horrible stories about the New York City police department committing all kinds of crimes against innocents. Does that make the NYPD a failure?
No, I think all it is is a forum for big thinkers like Setanta to blaze away bristling with hostility towards all things Bush. Nothing new there really.
Sorry I tried to show Freeduck where America has stated defined objectives for victory in Iraq.
So, when you read (if you bothered to read), that an entire police brigade of 3000 members was transferred out of Baghdad because of allegations that they participated in death squads, you consider that a sign of success? Do you suggest that this is just a case of a few bad apples? I don't claim to be a big thinker, but one needn't be a big thinker to do the math on that one.
Nice snide response, though, McG. Long on vitriol, short on cogent rebuttal. What evidence can you present us that the police and other security services in Iraq are a success, to counter the linked information i provided which suggest that they have become nothing but another sectarian militia?
McGentrix wrote:You haven't heard the
defined objective? Have you been listening?
Quote: * Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Given that the White House has now defined what "winning" in Iraq means, doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff apparently is unaware of that fact? Shouldn't someone have told him?
Our senses of humor are different McG..
Yours seems to lack the humor part.
* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Progress? Would you define what is happening in Iraq as "progress" if you were living in Iraq? Sectarian violence is getting worse every month, more innocent Iraqis are getting killed, and the Iraqi army/police is recruiting people that are killing their enemies/fellow Iraqis. Be honest.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
"Defeating terrorists?" You are living in another world. Terrorism in Iraq is increasing every month/year.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Talking about "peaceful, united, stable, and secure" are worthless values when there is no end in sight of the violence now active in their country. Dreams and realities are too far apart to even think "long term." The sectarian violence in Iraq is not new: learn a little history.
"Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough."
Nor did Mr. Rumsfeld seem confident that the administration would readily develop an effective alternative.
The entire exercise has been a scam from the beginning. Why shouldn't they be able to redefine what it means to 'lose'?
Hi JPB, Most Americans have now realized that Bush cannot be trusted. There are those minority of Americans who still believes we will "succeed" in Iraq, no matter how situations continue to deteriorate. The Bush cabal can't even admit Iraq is in a civil war, because that would mean they failed.
I am hoping against hope that Gates is not just trying to appease the democrats now that they have some little power in congress, but if he is serious, at least we finally got someone who seems to look at reality in the face. The question will then be, what will he do and will he have the power to do it over Bush and Cheney in any case if his views differ too radically? I mean at the end of the day Bush is still Commander- in-Chief, God help us.
Quote:Gates, Pleasing Senators as Iraq Skeptic, Moves Toward Approval
By Ken Fireman
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Robert M. Gates will give the U.S. a new defense secretary who's openly skeptical about the way the Bush administration has handled Iraq and is eager to consider new courses of action.
During his Senate confirmation hearing yesterday, Gates drew several implicit contrasts between himself and outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- and made it clear that, unlike Rumsfeld, he will probably be no ally of Vice President Dick Cheney in the administration's inner councils.
Gates, 63, said he didn't think the U.S. was winning in Iraq and disagreed with some of the crucial early decisions made by his predecessor. He repeatedly said that ``all options are on the table,'' although he opposed setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
Gates even refused to say whether President George W. Bush's 2003 decision to invade Iraq was right. ``That's a judgment that the historians are going to have to make,'' Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee just hours before it recommended confirmation on a unanimous vote. ``Was the decision to go in right? I think it's too soon to tell. And I think much depends on the outcome in Iraq.''
While that answer -- to a question that Bush routinely answers in the affirmative -- was perhaps the most striking way in which Gates distanced himself from current administration policy on Iraq, it was hardly the only one.
When asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the committee, whether the U.S. was winning the Iraq conflict, Gates replied crisply: ``No, sir.''
In response to questions from other lawmakers, Gates essentially validated many of the key arguments critics have made of the way Bush has handled Iraq.
Insufficient Force
The administration ``clearly'' sent an insufficient number of troops to control Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled from power and badly underestimated the real costs of rebuilding Iraq, Gates said.
And the U.S. needlessly made thousands of enemies among ordinary Iraqis right after the invasion by hastily disbanding the Iraqi army and purging Baath Party members from government posts, he said.
Gates also expressed strong reservations about the Bush- Cheney doctrine of pre-emptive war, at least as it might be applied to Iran. Asked if he would support a U.S. attack on Iran as a response to its support for Iraqi insurgents and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, Gates said he would advise against it except as ``a last resort'' because of the likely Iranian reaction.
War Unpredictable
``We have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed it becomes unpredictable, and I think that the consequences of a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic,'' Gates said. ``Their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror in the Middle East and in Europe and even here in this country, is very real.''
Gates also said he didn't believe that the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing military action in Iraq or one passed the previous year approving force in response to the Sept. 11 attacks would give Bush authority to attack Iran or Syria.
The nominee expressed a willingness to engage those nations' governments diplomatically, while saying the outcome was uncertain. ``In the long run, we are going to have to acknowledge the influence of Iraq's neighbors and potential to make the situation either better or worse in Iraq,'' he said.
Lawmakers -- especially Democrats -- who have chafed for years under Rumsfeld's dismissive attitude could hardly contain their enthusiasm. Levin almost couldn't wait to hold the vote confirming Gates. ``The faster that the president can hear the kind of candor that we heard this morning about the situation in Iraq, the better,'' he said. The full Senate is likely to confirm Gates by the end of the week.
Graham Pleased
Gates's rejection of a withdrawal timetable and skepticism about Iranian and Syrian motives in Iraq were enough to please Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who say the U.S. should be adding troops to Iraq, not withdrawing.
``He will pursue strategies in Iraq that allow us to come home, but more importantly to come home with victory,'' Graham said.
Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said Gates's testimony was calibrated to meet a political need. ``He was selected because Rumsfeld is seen as a major liability, and anything he said that echoed Rumsfeld would damage the president,'' Cordesman said.
Yet, even as Democrats warmed to Gates's answers, they repeatedly asked him whether he could bring Bush around to his way of thinking.
Up to Bush
``You seem to be a very reasonable man. What leads you to believe that the president of the United States will accept your counsel?'' said Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat.
Replied Gates: ``Because he asked me to take the job.''
He acknowledged that it would ultimately be up to Bush whether to adopt a new tack in Iraq. Yet, he said the president told him privately that ``he wanted someone with fresh eyes to look at the situation and make recommendations'' and that Bush ``has indicated a willingness to consider different options.''
Gates portrayed himself as a potentially central figure in an urgent administration review of Iraq policy. He said he planned to receive views from several sources -- an independent commission due to report its findings today, the armed services chiefs in Washington and military commanders in Iraq -- and synthesize them into a set of recommendations for Bush.
Move Fast
And Gates made it clear that he intended to move fast.
``This process is going to proceed with considerable urgency,'' he told Senator Hillary Clinton, a New York Democrat. ``As soon as I'm sworn in, I intend to actually move very quickly in terms of the consultations with the commanders in the field and with the chiefs and with others in terms of formulating my recommendations.''
Clinton said afterward that while she was encouraged by Gates's ``straightforward and candid'' answers, she was reserving judgment on how effective he would be in changing U.S. policy.
``The proof is what happens when he comes forward with proposals that, for whatever reason, the president is unwilling to consider,'' Clinton said in an interview. ``We won't know how effective he will be in the job until he's actually there and performing.''
source
About the recent stream Iraq study plans or whatever:
According to the polls, most Iraqis feel that we are part of the problem, in my opinion, the only reason the Iraqi government wants us there is to fight the "insurgents" who for the most part seem be Sunni in their civil war. We are not staying out of some kind of do good desire to help the Iraqis keep security but because we don't want to admit we have lost. By phrasing it as saying, if you don't stand up we are going to leave; we get all the mud off our back and onto theirs and leave without the smell of a defeat clinging to us.
revel, According to reports from the major medias, most Iraqis want the US out of their country. People like "ican" wants proof about the 80 percent used by the media.
joe, It's my personal opinion that Gates will "change course" in Iraq. He's not going to sacrifice his name to appease Bush. He knows what happened to Colin Powell and Rummy's credibility by being "yes" men.
