Republicans...

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:38 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
SunCoastSooner wrote:
m2 wrote: Can republicans think... without "talk radio"?
Ah heem...

<~~~~~~~~ Liberatarian dumbass
You classify yourself as a “Liberatarian dumbass”?

Typo... I left out the comma.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:50 pm

Vice President Cheney:
Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Ouch. That one left a mark.

The only thing missing is Homer and a rousing DOH!

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:57 pm

I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq.

Yeah, great. He spoke to some expats who, sitting in the White House, told him that everything would go smoothly.

Are you starting to understand why I used the term "childish"?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:36 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
Are you starting to understand why I used the term "childish"?

I'm afraid I am. Perhaps you could take a more mature approach in the future.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:50 pm

Way to go after the substance of the discussion, Tom. Oh well.

The next war that goes "smoothly" will be the first in recorded history.

Is that your only criterion for support? That it be easy?

Ask these questions of Cheney, instead of nuzzling his peasack.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:57 pm

classic, just classic...coming from you.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:57 pm

PSUFAN wrote:Way to go after the substance of the discussion, Tom. Oh well.

What substance ? Your only contention is that Rumsfeld was derelict. Only you try to be cute and call it "childish" and paint Rumsfeld and Cheney like cartoon characters, I think THAT is childish.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:05 pm

Rumsfeld ignored all but his own inclinations regarding occupation. His inclinations were to establish his own vision of how the military should go about things.

To ignore the advices of military leaders, and to act instead on an idealized view...well, that defines childish, Tom.

Cheney was even worse. He could give a flying fuck about how the occupation goes down as long as his financial interests...and those of his cronies...were served. That's his M.O. for everything about the office of VP. His greed is childish, and his neglect of the responsibilites of his office - serving Americans - is even worse.

The only thing that confuses me is why folks like you are willing to ignore these things. What the hell is wrong with you? Next thing you know, you'll be excusing pedophiles or something.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:10 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
To ignore the advices of military leaders, and to act instead on an idealized view...well, that defines childish, Tom.

You're implying that there weren't differing military opinions ? That's always been my point. Can you substantiate this implication ?

What the hell is wrong with you? Next thing you know, you'll be excusing pedophiles or something.

Link to where I've done anything of the sort. But way to go the "cowardly cunt" card so early in this discussion.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:10 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Way to go after the substance of the discussion, Tom. Oh well.
What substance ? Your only contention is that Rumsfeld was derelict. Only you try to be cute and call it "childish" and paint Rumsfeld and Cheney like cartoon characters, I think THAT is childish.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:42 pm

The future is indeed unknowable. Especially if you're doing your best to ignore it.

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... ?pubID=182

In October 2002, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, in coordination with the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff/G-3, initiated a study to analyze how American and coalition forces can best address the requirements that will necessarily follow operational victory in a war with Iraq. The objectives of the project were to determine and analyze probable missions for military forces in a post-Saddam Iraq; examine associated challenges; and formulate strategic recommendations for transferring responsibilities to coalition partners or civilian organizations, mitigating local animosity, and facilitating overall mission accomplishment in the war against terrorism. The study has much to offer planners and executors of operations to occupy and reconstruct Iraq, but also has many insights that will apply to achieving strategic objectives in any conflict after hostilities are concluded. The current war against terrorism has highlighted the danger posed by failed and struggling states. If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over. Otherwise, the success of military operations will be ephemeral, and the problems they were designed to eliminate could return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties.

^ posted February 1, 2003...boy, I guess the future was better known than we thought...

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:50 pm

You're still not doing anything but engaging in "Hindsight 20/20" wallowing.

"The current war against terrorism has highlighted the danger posed by failed and struggling states. If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over. Otherwise, the success of military operations will be ephemeral, and the problems they were designed to eliminate could return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties."

No shit. I wonder if you've read the entire document because there's a part in there that might actually explain why a larger military footprint, woudn't have been strategically sound.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:58 pm

Read what you've quoted again, Tom...or more likely, read it for the first time.

If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over. Otherwise, the success of military operations will be ephemeral, and the problems they were designed to eliminate could return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties.

That "Hindsight 20/20 wallowing" was written prior to the invasion, Tom. Shinseki was "wildly off the mark" prior to the invasion, Tom.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq *, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,"** Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

*wow.
**uh...wow. What a fucking moron.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:20 pm

PSUFAN wrote: ~spin~

You're the one applying an article, that you haven't completely read or understood, to the situation in Iraq .... with HINDSIGHT.

My reading comprehension is fine and your arrogant condecension is duly noted. What's funny, is watching you indulge yourself in it, while you and your argument circle the drain.

Did you get to the point of the article that discusses the different agencies required to ..... "dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over"

Your argument is that not enough military was used to occupy Iraq. You base that on .... what ?

Yet the very same article suggest that

On or about page 37-38 wrote: A mass uprising against occupation forces is unlikely in
the early stages of any U.S. occupation of Iraq, probably up
to at least the first year. Gratitude for the removal of
Saddam Hussein and an uncertainty over the degree to
which U.S. troops can be pushed are virtual guarantees of
the limits to which even a restive population can reasonably
be expected to adhere.

After the first year, the possibility of
a serious uprising may increase should severe disillusionment
set in and Iraqis begin to draw parallels between U.S.
actions and historical examples of Western imperialism.

Perhaps that is one factor leading the decision makers to minimize the footprint of U.S. military in Iraq. I don't know .....

Do you ?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:31 pm

mvscal wrote:
If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over.
Seems to me that this is exactly what we have done, yet some idiot here is trying to hold this up as an example of "ignored advice" by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Quite pathetic really.

Unfortunately, we are also pursing the last sentence:

Otherwise, the success of military operations will be ephemeral, and the problems they were designed to eliminate could return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties.

Right now, they are saying the infrastructure will be worse off than when saddam was in power. Right now, the incident in haditha is serving to renew interest in the insurgency.

Nice cheer though. Do you also know "go team go"?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:53 pm

yes. A press conference with the dudes who are doing the work is so, misleading.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:26 pm

and then there's the whole haditha thing. THAT isn't having a negative effect at all. oh no.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:14 pm

those "new and more virulent difficulties" will jump up and bite you on the ass every time, won't they?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:21 am

Shall we adopt his methods? Is that your suggestion?

Abu ghraib called. They want their idea back.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:08 pm

What you are failing to recognize is regardless of who is right or wrong, WE Are wrong. We are being painted as the bad guys from all sides, we aren't wanted there, we don't belong in the middle of a sectarian civil war (< unofficial), and we will not succeed when the people we are trying to help won't cooperate and turn on us at the drop of a camel.

THAT is the reality. like it or not.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:35 pm

which war are you watching?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:16 pm

mvscal wrote:BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly 1,400 Iraqi civilians died in a wave of targeted killings in Baghdad last month, according to a high-ranking Iraqi Health Ministry official.

If the US wins, they will be known as civilians. If AQ wins, they will be known as colaborators.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:29 pm

mvscal wrote:What you're getting from the media bears absolutely no resemblence to what is actually happening on the ground.

I've personally seen that principle in action.

So none of those bombs went off, and none of those 1,400 people actually died?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:29 pm

you're evading the point. You're hopping up and down trying to spin this war as successful. That is about as far from the truth as you can get no matter how many bodies are piled up. Whether or not haditha occurred, the court of public opinion has tried them already. It might well be this wars My Lai. Just a smaller scale.

That country is one US troop withdrawal away from utter chaos.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:09 pm

actually I'm not the one with the problem recognizing reality. every poll, every news story from every source casts a negative light on what's going on over there. The government can't even agree on cabinet posts for christs sake.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:15 pm

mvscal wrote:
No doubt the surest way to "recognize reality" is to rely on polls and news stories.

relate what the "reality" of the situation is and cite your sources........

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:53 pm

That is such bullshit. You can't hide the body count, and images don't lie. Like I said, the court of public opinion, the news stories and the polls can't be dismissed. Vietnam should have taught you that.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:23 pm

mvscal wrote:The "reality" of the situation is that the picture presented by the media is distorted out of any recognizable context or perspective.

The "It's All Cronkite's Fault" defense isn't going to work this time.

The shit-stew you've cooked up is piping hot, so slide your bowl on over, and help yourself to a steaming ladel full. You've earned it. Mmmmm...mmmmm....

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:12 pm

mvscal wrote: We'll see what these motherfuckers can do. The ultimate success or failure of our mission will depend on men like this not media hand wringing.

They are going to hand over all the weapons you give them to their brothers in the Resistance. And you know it.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:59 pm

You can't discount the impression of the war, no matter what the reality of it is.

IF the iraqi people are watching the same news we are - and they probably get even more of a stilted view - that becomes the reality upon which they base their opinion.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:53 am

Mister Bushice wrote:
IF the iraqi people are watching the same news we are - and they probably get even more of a stilted view -

Watching the news?

Dude, they're living it. Try and ground yourself in reality for once.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 2:04 pm

mvscal wrote:But if you are really interested in experiencing the "true reality" of Iraq, get your ass on over there. It's the only way you'll ever know.

and how much time have you spent in Iraq....

of course, we're talking this time and not the ancient history of Desert Storm.......

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:22 pm

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:But if you are really interested in experiencing the "true reality" of Iraq, get your ass on over there. It's the only way you'll ever know.
and how much time have you spent in Iraq....

of course, we're talking this time and not the ancient history of Desert Storm.......

Well he's spent more time than me, no matter the historic "period". You ?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:00 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Well he's spent more time than me, no matter the historic "period". You ?

none.....but mvs claiming he knows what's going on simply because he was in the Middle East over a decade ago is ludicrous .....

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:01 pm

Martyred wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
IF the iraqi people are watching the same news we are - and they probably get even more of a stilted view -
Watching the news?

Dude, they're living it. Try and ground yourself in reality for once.

They don't all live in Haditha now, do they?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:20 pm

Felix wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
Well he's spent more time than me, no matter the historic "period". You ?
none.....but mvs claiming he knows what's going on simply because he was in the Middle East over a decade ago is ludicrous .....

That's not for me to say, reason being, I've never been there much less a "decade ago". What I would find ludicrous is challenging mvscal's experience .... whenever it was .... without any of my own to back it up.

The prevailing attitudes, tensions, and strategy of terrorists have not really changed all that much. They've matured and involve different tactics in some instances, but for the most part and within context of this discussion a few years outside a decade really isn't that long ago.

I'd suggest neither is going all the way back to circa 1918 and the break up of the Ottoman Empire, but I digress.

Point is, on this board, mvscal's claims of experience get the nod. At least for me.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
That's not for me to say, reason being, I've never been there much less a "decade ago". What I would find ludicrous is challenging mvscal's experience .... whenever it was .... without any of my own to back it up.

I know three people that have come back from Iraq within the last 12 months.....they've told me a lot about what's going on over there......

The prevailing attitudes, tensions, and strategy of terrorists have not really changed all that much. They've matured and involve different tactics in some instances, but for the most part and within context of this discussion a few years outside a decade really isn't that long ago.

Were you out of town during Desert Storm.......it was Hussein wreaking havoc in the name of Iraq...which differs from the current crop of terrorists the troops are dealing with in Iraq

Point is, on this board, mvscal's claims of experience get the nod. At least for me.

Hey, I was once in Virginia, but that was about 15 years ago...I'm betting things have changed significantly in that time frame

I sure as hell wouldn't claim to know the intimate details of what goes on in the Virgina legislature even though I was "there" once......

I'll stick with the guys I've talked to that have spent time over there within the last 12 months and have faced the daily grind that Iraq has now become........but you can choose to believe whoever you want to....

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:34 pm

mvscal wrote:
Having problems with reading comprehension, I see. You might want to take some remedial classes in English.

well step up to the plate asshat and point out to me where I've "misread" what you posted.......

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:37 pm

Hey, I was once in Virginia, but that was about 15 years ago...I'm betting things have changed significantly in that time frame

I sure as hell wouldn't claim to know the intimate details of what goes on in the Virgina legislature even though I was "there" once......

exactly

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:00 pm

Felix wrote: I'll stick with the guys I've talked to that have spent time over there within the last 12 months and have faced the daily grind that Iraq has now become........but you can choose to believe whoever you want to....

You make a few valid points. But as I said, I cannot use my friends experience either. In fact, I'd reckon that most soldiers serving now, would agree with mvscal's personal anecdote and experience about how the media ... and propaganda ... can and does shape events.

Tell your friends I am extremely grateful for their sacrifice.