0
   

'We're Going to Win'

 
 
Zippo
 
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 02:01 pm
Quote:
'We're Going to Win'

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.


While the parasitic sycophants line up to admire the emperor's new clothes, let us remember a few facts that Bush is ignoring.

1. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

2. The American people know this.

3. Both Bush and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion even started.

4. The American people know this, too.

5. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

6. Iraq was not aiding Al Qaeda.

7. The American people know all this as well.

8. This last election the American taxpayers sent a clear message to Washington DC. They did not so much vote a new Congress in as vote the old one out. But as the machinations surrounding Senator Tim Johnson's illness have shown, together with the potential of offering Joe Lieberman Bolton's old job, the politicians are not interested in what the voters want but in gaming the system to get what the politicians want.

The incoming Congress hasn't even seated yet and already the leadership, typified by Nancy Pelosi, are proving to be just as much the sell-outs as their predecessors. No doubt the Democrats would be perfectly happy to see the Senate swing back under Republican control as it will give them an excuse for why nothing is changing.

I think the US is headed for a "Saigon Moment" in Iraq, and, given the choice of that humiliation versus the "100 year war on terror" being offered up as an alternative, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 737 • Replies: 16
No top replies

 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 02:47 pm
What role do the Jews play in all of this, Zippo?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 02:49 pm
I hate it when I have to side with Ticomaya
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:09 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
What role do the Jews play in all of this, Zippo?


Oh, nothing, they're too busy, showing/proving to the world that they're the one and only true democracy in the M.E. Therefore they deserve billions in US aid. (wish you didn't ask maybe?)

http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_6.jpghttp://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_4.jpghttp://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_5.jpg
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_1.jpghttp://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_2.jpghttp://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/images/israeli_gun_child_3.jpg


Now can you get back on topic please, instead of trying to derail my thread as usual?
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:11 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I hate it when I have to side with Ticomaya


Why just side ?, when you can buy a double bed ?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:11 pm
Really. The PNAC role in the Iraq war is well established. They were the architects of the war. They even went so far as to say in writing that a new Pearl Harbor would help their cause no end when time came to sell the war to Americans. It's no fun in the present atmosphere to have to tell the truth in a country where defending Israel no matter what they do brings cries of anti-semitism. A childish and warped bit of Swift Boating at best. But yes the PNAC had major Jewish players. Wolfie, Feith, Richard Pearle, Eliot Abrams and others who put their selfish aims above all else. And the game they play is the ends justifies the means even as the ends have turned to disaster. As for Israeli players in the scam that's well documented also. So let's hear some infantile screams of anti-semitism and dont forget to add that the many Jews on the planet who agree with the "anti-semites" are merely a bunch of "self-hating Jews". After all Swift Boaters have all the answers they need to provide themselves cover no matter how easy it is for objective people to see through the scam. "The spies who pushed for war"


Julian Borger reports on the shadow rightwing intelligence network set up in Washington to second-guess the CIA and deliver a justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force

Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html
The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party.

In 1996, he and Richard Perle - now an influential Pentagon figure - served as advisers to the then Likud leader, Binyamin Netanyahu. In a policy paper they wrote, entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, the two advisers said that Saddam would have to be destroyed, and Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would have to be overthrown or destabilised, for Israel to be truly safe.

The Israeli influence was revealed most clearly by a story floated by unnamed senior US officials in the American press, suggesting the reason that no banned weapons had been found in Iraq was that they had been smuggled into Syria. Intelligence sources say that the story came from the office of the Israeli prime minister.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:28 pm
blueflame1 wrote
Quote:
Really. The PNAC role in the Iraq war is well established. They were the architects of the war. They even went so far as to say in writing that a new Pearl Harbor would help their cause no end when time came to sell the war to Americans. It's no fun in the present atmosphere to have to tell the truth in a country where defending Israel no matter what they do brings cries of anti-semitism. A childish and warped bit of Swift Boating at best. But yes the PNAC had major Jewish players. Wolfie, Feith, Richard Pearle, Eliot Abrams and others who put their selfish aims above all else. And the game they play is the ends justifies the means even as the ends have turned to disaster. As for Israeli players in the scam that's well documented also. So let's hear some infantile screams of anti-semitism and dont forget to add that the many Jews on the planet who agree with the "anti-semites" are merely a bunch of "self-hating Jews". After all Swift Boaters have all the answers they need to provide themselves cover no matter how easy it is for objective people to see through the scam. "The spies who pushed for war"


This is the compelete truth. Well said.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:50 pm
Democracy? Israel? Well yeah sure. If you ignore the assassination of Rabin and the 2 state solution he was on the verge of finalizing. "Murder in the Name of God: Where Religious Extremism Can Lead" link and much more
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 04:08 pm
Re: 'We're Going to Win'
Zippo wrote:
Quote:
'We're Going to Win'

Now Bush is ready to gamble his presidency on a last-ditch effort to defeat the Sunni insurgency and establish a sustainable democracy in Iraq. He is prepared to defy the weary wisdom of Washington that it's too late, that the war in Iraq is lost, and that Bush's lone option is to retreat from Iraq as gracefully and with as little loss of face as possible. Bush only needed what his press secretary, Tony Snow, called a "plan for winning." Now he has one.


While the parasitic sycophants line up to admire the emperor's new clothes, let us remember a few facts that Bush is ignoring.

1. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

2. The American people know this.

3. Both Bush and Blair KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion even started.

4. The American people know this, too.

5. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

6. Iraq was not aiding Al Qaeda.

7. The American people know all this as well.

8. This last election the American taxpayers sent a clear message to Washington DC. They did not so much vote a new Congress in as vote the old one out. But as the machinations surrounding Senator Tim Johnson's illness have shown, together with the potential of offering Joe Lieberman Bolton's old job, the politicians are not interested in what the voters want but in gaming the system to get what the politicians want.

The incoming Congress hasn't even seated yet and already the leadership, typified by Nancy Pelosi, are proving to be just as much the sell-outs as their predecessors. No doubt the Democrats would be perfectly happy to see the Senate swing back under Republican control as it will give them an excuse for why nothing is changing.

I think the US is headed for a "Saigon Moment" in Iraq, and, given the choice of that humiliation versus the "100 year war on terror" being offered up as an alternative, maybe that isn't such a bad thing.

Zippo, you chose the one most critical-looking paragraph within Fred Barne's article, which, out of context, makes a bullish article appear bearish in message. I liked this portion of that same article:

Quote:
The Keane-Kagan plan is not revolutionary. Rather, it is an application of a counterinsurgency approach that has proved to be effective elsewhere, notably in Vietnam. There, Gen. Creighton Abrams cleared out the Viet Cong so successfully that the South Vietnamese government took control of the country. Only when Congress cut off funds to South Vietnam in 1974 were the North Vietnamese able to win.

Before Bush announces his "new way forward" in Iraq in early January, he wants to be assured of two things. The first is that his plan can succeed. Initial evaluations of the Keane-Kagan plan at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the government have been positive. Alone among proposals for Iraq, the new Keane-Kagan strategy has a chance to succeed. Bush's second concern is to avert an explosion of opposition on Capitol Hill. Because this plan offers a credible prospect of winning in Iraq, moderate Democrats and queasy Republicans, the White House thinks, will be inclined to stand back and let Bush give it a shot.

The sooner Bush orders the plan into action, the better chances are that next Christmas he'll be telling White House guests that winning in Iraq is not just a goal. It could actually be happening.


I've never waivered from my belief that the strategic course of the Iraq War has been very successful, including defeating Saddam's Ba-athist regime in 23 days, killing Uday & Qusay Hussein, capturing Saddam Hussein, facilitation of a new charter & constitution and three elections, and conviction of Saddam Hussein of war crimes.

The insurgency has been largely fueled by Iran and Syria, with efforts to affect the 2006 U.S. Congressional elections.

The anti-war, Vietnam nostalgic contingent here in the U.S. along with the koolade drinkers of the anti-war media and radical wing of the democratic party have been the strongest enemies against winning this war, as they were in the late 1960's and 1970's, during the Vietnam War years.

Whatever your core beliefs about our place in IndoChina and whether we should have assisted the French and South Vietnamese governments, without the domestic anti-war movement, north-Vietnam would have lost. They would have lost despite their funding from the U.S.S.R. In 1968 and 1974, the Vietcong were ready to call it quits. We have Walter Cronkite to thank for spinning the 1968 Tet Offensive into a North Vietnamese win when it was a major North Vietnamese defeat, and the radical antiwar majority in Congress for cutting off funding in 1974, when the Soviets and North Vietnam viewed the 1974 Land Grab as a failure and conceded defeat. Nixon had been much more aggressive than Johnson at military operations and had Congress not cut funding, there would have been a much different outcome, not to mention less bloodshed, after our departure.

The best thing Bush can do is trash the Iraq Study Report and continue to keep the terrorists (and their sponsoring governments) off balance.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 04:18 pm
Re: 'We're Going to Win'
Monte Cargo wrote:

I've never waivered from my belief that the strategic course of the Iraq War has been very successful, including defeating Saddam's Ba-athist regime in 23 days


I've never waivered from my belief that 3yrs later, Baathists are now needed to help in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.conference/index.html

Only Iraqis can save themselves....sooner US realizes, the sooner we stop our losses....
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 04:50 pm
Re: 'We're Going to Win'
Zippo wrote:
Monte Cargo wrote:

I've never waivered from my belief that the strategic course of the Iraq War has been very successful, including defeating Saddam's Ba-athist regime in 23 days


I've never waivered from my belief that 3yrs later, Baathists are now needed to help in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.conference/index.html

Only Iraqis can save themselves....sooner US realizes, the sooner we stop our losses....

Above, you mentioned that there were no WMD in Iraq. Later, you quoted a source that postulated that Republican Guard's General Georges-Sada testified and authored a book that is merely part of a Lukid conspiracy.

There exists no credible report that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was a deranged and corrupt dictator who paid off nations through the oil for food program and traded petrodollars for looking the other way at his WMD program and the other provisions of UN resolution 1441.

There never was any direct connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 tragedy. George Tenet, the former CIA director was on record as indicating that Ba-athists, Al Queida, militant Shiite groups, and other extremist Islamic militants would cooperate against western intervention. Saddam's role was not, as you suggested, in a direct relationship with 9-11 or Al Queida, but as a facilitator of arms to rogue terrorist organizations.

One of the other reasons we went to war, also not mentioned in your list is Bush's statement that a successful war effort and spreading of democracy would serve as a beacon to other nations who have extremist militant governments, and inspire the public at large to overthrow those governments.

If you read the article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061211/wl_mideast_afp/irandemostudents_061211165012, which reports students yelling "Death to the dictator!" and where students protested and burned Ahmadinejad's pictures, there is some kernel of truth in this. Once again, Kadafi surredered his nuclear materials and WMD program to Bush, citing the U.S. led invasion in Iraq as the triggering cause of Libya's surrending of their nuclear program.

Conversely, doing nothing and adopting an appeasement posture will not only assure a nuclear Iran, and a possible missle attack on Israel, but six other Arab nations have indicated their additional willingness to develop nuclear weapons if Iran succeeds in building a nuclear bomb.

Adopting the suggestions of the Iraq study group would most certainly lead to a unfathomable loss of U.S. respect, bloodbaths in Iraq while Syria and Iran divide the spoils and the oil, and assure a level of shortage of fossile fuels to this country that could only be described as devastating. There is no upside to adopting the Iraq report.

The terrorists love it though. You can read about it here.
Quote:
"The report proves that this is the era of Islam and of jihad," said Abu Ayman, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin.

The Islamic Jihad terror group is responsible for every suicide bombing in Israel during the past two years.

"[With the Iraq Study Group report], the Americans came to the conclusion that Islam is the new giant of the world and it would be clever to reduce hostilities with this giant. In the Quran the principle of the rotation is clear and according to this principle the end of the Americans and of all non-believers is getting closer," Abu Ayman said.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:03 pm
Monte Cargo "including defeating Saddam's Ba-athist regime in 23 days". Golly gee whillikers Rummy couldn't have spun it better. What that misses though is reality. Rummy and Bushie took on Saddam. Saddam saw the futility of meeting American military head on. His tactics were prepared ahead. Pull back into the shadows and fight a hit and run guerrilla war. Now 3 years later most everyone but the most in denial admit the war is lost and Bushie and Rummy are complete failures. Saddam's personal goose is cooked but his strategy aginst the world's only Superpower has prevailed. That's disgusting. A moron like Saddam beating America's best military head on. Bushie could have patiently worked with Blix and the international community eventually putting Saddam on trial and achieving regime change and a saner political outcome for Iraqis and been one very huge hero. That was not ever what he had in mind though.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:31 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Monte Cargo "including defeating Saddam's Ba-athist regime in 23 days". Golly gee whillikers Rummy couldn't have spun it better. What that misses though is reality. Rummy and Bushie took on Saddam. Saddam saw the futility of meeting American military head on. His tactics were prepared ahead. Pull back into the shadows and fight a hit and run guerrilla war. Now 3 years later most everyone but the most in denial admit the war is lost and Bushie and Rummy are complete failures. Saddam's personal goose is cooked but his strategy aginst the world's only Superpower has prevailed. That's disgusting. A moron like Saddam beating America's best military head on. Bushie could have patiently worked with Blix and the international community eventually putting Saddam on trial and achieving regime change and a saner political outcome for Iraqis and been one very huge hero. That was not ever what he had in mind though.

Let's pull the superlatives and emotion out of the discussion, Blue. You are making a fine and legitimate point that Saddam loyalists and the Ba'athist underground are leading the Sunni insurgency networks.

The rest of your post is high pie in the sky dreamworks.

First, another colossal statement to demonstrate the keen judgement of Hans Blix:
http://www.payvand.com/news/06/sep/1305.html
Quote:
Calling Iran and North Korea acute cases confronting the world, Blix nonetheless says he does not believe it can be concluded that Iran intends to build a nuclear bomb.

...and you talk about people in denial.

The time for talk was long over, Blue. Talk was what constituted UN resolution 1441. Only when a quarter of a million coalition troops were all around the border pointing guns at Baghdad did Saddam even allow inspectors in.

You make the point that only those people "in denial" don't see that Bush and Rumsfeld were complete failures. I suppose that when you talk about those people in denial that don't see Bush and Rumsfeld's prosecution of the Iraq War as a failure includes the now dead Mussab al-Zarqawi.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2004/n02102004_200402103.html
Quote:
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy operations director for Combined Joint Task Force 7, said the letter is evidence that Zarqawi's biggest fear is that the coalition's strategy in Iraq is working. Kimmitt and Dan Senor, the coalition's senior spokesman, first commented on the letter at a Feb. 9 Baghdad briefing.

"He is terrified of the coalition's will," Kimmitt said today. "He's terrified of the coalition's military capabilities. He is terrified of the fact that we are building (an) Iraqi security structure that prevents him from establishing a base inside this country. And he is terrified of a country that, rather than bowing to terrorism, is moving toward democracy."

The general said the letter confirms the coalition's current strategy is the correct one. "And as we continue to work - the coalition and the people of Iraq together - to hunting down Zarqawi and those of his ilk, that is the best strategy we have to ensure that we limit his capability to operate inside Iraq."

Senor said today the letter makes it clear Zarqawi is frustrated by the increasing difficulty he's having in trying to hide in Iraq. The country's geography, combined with an ever-dwindling number of Iraqis willing to help or harbor terrorists, are working against Zarqawi, Senor said.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 05:40 pm
Monte Cargo, what I see are arms merchants and war manufacturers like Bush/Walker, Rummy, Cheney, James Baker who armed and funded Saddam and bin Laden making a bundle off blowback they knew would come. Cheney was doing business with Saddam right into 2000 when he joined the Bushie ticket. America is ruled by those who have betrayed us over generations. That's the axis of evil I see and it's well documented evil at that. I also see their only out is to greatly escalate their war until there is too much bloodshed and fear for people to think about anything else but war.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:26 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Democracy? Israel? Well yeah sure. If you ignore the assassination of Rabin and the 2 state solution he was on the verge of finalizing. "Murder in the Name of God: Where Religious Extremism Can Lead" link and much more

We've had presidents assinated, are we not still a Democracy?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 06:39 pm
LoneStar, and those assassins have ruled ever since. Especially since 2000 American elections are very suspect. In Israel the anti-peace bloc that called for Rabin's assassination rule and control events. A little false flag terrorist attack here and there, a new Pearl Harbor to fill people with fear allows us to be lied into war. Works like a charm every time. A tried and true formula.
0 Replies
 
Monte Cargo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 07:41 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Monte Cargo, what I see are arms merchants and war manufacturers like Bush/Walker, Rummy, Cheney, James Baker who armed and funded Saddam and bin Laden making a bundle off blowback they knew would come. Cheney was doing business with Saddam right into 2000 when he joined the Bushie ticket. America is ruled by those who have betrayed us over generations. That's the axis of evil I see and it's well documented evil at that. I also see their only out is to greatly escalate their war until there is too much bloodshed and fear for people to think about anything else but war.

Alliances have changed throughout history. In the days when Reagan funded Bin Laden, we didn't know him as an anti-U.S. fanatic. At that time, the imperialist U.S.S.R. had invaded Afghanistan, unabetted by the likes of Jimmy Carter. The Soviets, unprepared for the mountainous terrain, were no match for Bin Ladin and his guerilla warriors. The focus of our foreign policy was not as much to support Bin Laden as it was to fight the cold war.

As the Shah was deposed by the Ayatollah in Iran, our hostages were held in Iran for nearly four years. Helping Saddam Hussein was a means of outsourcing a military strike on Iran at the time. Again, the support was not as much to support Hussein as to get at Iran.

The double message with Iran certainly was strange as Ollie North facilitated the sale of munitions to Iran in exchange for money which was funneled to Nicaragua, where paramilitary troops were fighting with Ortega. The strategically timed release of the hostages from Iran, also was the result of years of negotiations, all which goes against the grain of treating Iran as one of the three spokes turning this "Axis of Evil".

When you write that Cheney was doing business with Saddam up until 2000, I'm guessing that you are referring to Haliburton contracts with Iraq. There are more U.S. contractors in Iraq than there are troops.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 'We're Going to Win'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 03:35:36