T1B

Clarification request - would "ground war" include the house-to-house stuff and the road-bombing?

BSmack wrote: As I recall, you would only go in if you could go in as an IT geek, and since your ability to get a proper security clearance had been compromised, you chose to stay in your stateside gig. I guess infantry is below you? Imagine if Pat Tillman had said he would only go in if he could play Free Safety.

Infantry below me ? No fucking way, I'm below Infantry in my opinion.

Anyway, no you had it wrong. It was a Civil Affairs position which required Top Secret clearablility, a waiver from my wife, an assessment of my financial situation meaning they would not let me back out of my financial obligations NOR could they pay me what I needed to meet them.

I"m out of debt now, save for a house - which I can't sell yet because of the market - and the max age is 42. I'm still holding out hope and doing what I need to do keep the possibility open. I do hope, God willing, that there will be some way for me to serve and I'm doing what I can now. Money, health in order - I will still need to get a waiver from my wife and could still be turned down because I now have a kid.

My efforts to get in haven't all been a loss, I've stopped drinking.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:My guess would be terrorist activities. Like 9/11. Like the Cole attack.

So they thought they could kill 3,000 Americans and we would just roll over and go back to sleep?

Seems to me that they miscalulated based on faulty intelligence, went to war without a plan and are now stuck in a quagmire which has bled them white with nothing to show for it.

The Iraq war has bled Al Qaeda white? Linkage? Do you believe that they Iraq war has made us any safer from a terrorist attack?

PSUFAN wrote:Clarification request - would "ground war" include the house-to-house stuff and the road-bombing?

Depends on where the "ground war" was I suppose.

The book "Management of Savagery" outlines much of their strategic approach to Jihad. Prior to that there is the - admittedly overused "Paper Tiger" speech by Osama before 9-11. There were various other articles available where "think tanks" and the like viewed the constant harassment in terms of terror attacks as methods to goad us into a "ground war", I'll have to dig a bit more to rediscover them.

Here's some links for review if you choose.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5516640" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://theforgottenwar.blogspot.com/200 ... agery.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - contains a translated version of the book in PDF format

Tom In VA wrote:My efforts to get in haven't all been a loss, I've stopped drinking.

Based on your recent posts, I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:My efforts to get in haven't all been a loss, I've stopped drinking.

Based on your recent posts, I'm going to have to call bullshit.

Congratulations you can hit a slow - underhanded pitch - arcing nice and high and dropping nice an slow.

RACK The Zinger.


P.S. Check the links I posted to PSUFAN. Interesting stuff.

mvscal wrote:There is no rational objection to made with the decision. He was given 12 years to comply with the terms of the cease fire agreement and he failed to do so.

Let it be known that the United States went to war to uphold U.N. sanctions, and despite facing no imminent threat to it's national security.

Those being the facts, my rational objection is that no Constitutionally legitimate reason for the war existed.

Personally, I believe Scotty's assertion that GWB's motivation for entering the war was based on a child-like Savior of the Mid-East fantasy...or as he puts it, "pure". GWB does not appear to be a deep-thinker, or to be very conversant in foreign affairs. It is easy to imagine that he actually believed that he would rid the World of Evil and deliver it to the Baby Jesoooos.

I also believe Scotty's assertion that some of GWB's advisers had less honorable motives.

mvscal wrote:Not having any idea of Saddam's weapons programs was an imminent threat to national our national security, you fucking idiot.

There was no imminent threat to our national security, mv.

Your spin is sad and pitiful.

Get a nap.

mvscal wrote: Let's hear how YOU would have handled it. 3,000 Americans were killed, two landmark buildings were destroyed and billions of dollars of damage was done to the economy.

Are you talking about Iraq?

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:The Iraq war has bled Al Qaeda white?

Yes. Their senior leadships cadres have been eviscerated and thousands of their footsoldiers have been slaughtered in heaps in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your Reuters article lists about 20 Al Qaeda operatives, and they’re not all exactly the upper echelons of the organization. I’d hardly classify that list as an “evisceration”. Even considering that they managed to snag a “one-time roommate of Mohammed Atta”.

Unfortunately no one has a terribly accurate estimate of the actual size of Al Qaeda, so it’s hard to assess how much of a dent we’ve put in their organization. And our continued presence in Iraq probably helps their recruitment of more foot soldiers.

* Pakistani intelligence agencies and security forces arrested Abu Faraj Farj al-Liby, mastermind of two failed attempts on President Pervez Musharraf's life, in May 2005.

This might have made Al Qaeda a little stronger.

Latest casualty of the War on Terror:

BOSTON -- Dunkin' Donuts has canceled an online advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray after bloggers complained that a scarf she wore in the ad offers symbolic support for terrorism.

Dunkin' Donuts said Wednesday it pulled the ad over the weekend because of what it calls a "misperception" about the scarf that detracted from its original intent to promote its iced coffee.

Critics, including conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, complained that the scarf appeared to be traditional garb worn by Arab men. The ad's critics say such scarves have come to symbolize Muslim extremism and terrorism.

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Donuts says the black-and-white scarf that Ray wore had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot. The chain says no symbolism was intended.

mvscal wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:This might have made Al Qaeda a little stronger.

Failure doesn't bring in recruits.

No, but losing one of your group who has a history of failure might make you better. Sheesh, still wound a little tight, I see.

And the removal of FOUR people is your “evisceration”?

I was just responding to your naming FOUR top level members, JACKASS.

BTW, I tried that jacking off with a cheese grater thing, but the grater was no match McTuber Pink Steel:

Yep, she looks just like Yasser Arafat

:?





:D

Scotty just wants to able to look in the mirror again without shame.

As for the idiotic apologists strapped to the mast and going down (fast) with the ship....really, why even bother to pound your sorry asses?

EVERYTHING concerning the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been disasterous. Unless you are making money through any of the thousands of contrators and defense industry corporations. This of course is the most foul of vocations, the lowest social station, the most vile of world citizens. The real father of this movement, of course, is Prescott Bush, who was making big bucks with Nazis right up until 1942.


The great crime of America's invasion of Iraq is not merely the heinous violence visited upon the people of Iraq, but rather the loosing and spreading to an unprecedented scope of the true Military Corporate Complex. This is what Ike was really warning us about. The sheer criminality of the corporatization of war is off the charts--literally. The shuffling of contracts, the "lost" billions, the untold thousands of shadowy contrators, all shrouded within the vague and unaccoubntable regions of "Deregulation" and "Privatization."

At least Scotty can look in the mirror. Now it's your turn.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: The great crime of America's invasion of Iraq is not merely the heinous violence visited upon the people of Iraq, but rather the loosing and spreading to an unprecedented scope of the true Military Corporate Complex. This is what Ike was really warning us about. The sheer criminality of the corporatization of war is off the charts--literally. The shuffling of contracts, the "lost" billions, the untold thousands of shadowy contrators, all shrouded within the vague and unaccoubntable regions of "Deregulation" and "Privatization."

Do you ever post anything where you don't come across like a raving, tinfoil hat wearing, bat shit crazy lunatic?

Oooo... Military Corporate Complex... sounds really scary and ominous.

cue the sound of black helicopters hovering overhead

War Wagon wrote: Oooo... Military Corporate Complex... sounds really scary and ominous.

Sin,
Ike (R)

That was the "military-industrial complex" you fucking tard.

Goober McTuber wrote:That was the "military-industrial complex" you fucking tard.

Goobs, Ike's initial wording was "Military Congressional Industrial Complex," but at the insistance of his congresional allies, he dropped the "congressional." Such has been the development of this malignant entity that "Military Corporate" is perhaps more accurate, especialy since the congressional rubber-stamping of any defense funding or contracting, or loopholing, or deregulating, is automatic. Semantics aside, it's bigger and more rampant than ever.

Whatcha say, Wagoner? blub..blub..blub..blub...

LTS TRN 2 wrote: Such has been the development of this malignant entity...

The "malignant entity" you speak of is the envy of the world, and the main reason why America is the worlds only true Superpower.

I sleep well at night knowing that and don't mind a bit that my taxes go to fund it.

mvscal wrote:

M Club wrote:false dilemma. it's hardly sipping on kool-aid to mention peace is more desirable than arbitrary war.

There was nothing arbitrary about it, you fucking ignorant douche.

Let's hear how YOU would have handled it. 3,000 Americans were killed, two landmark buildings were destroyed and billions of dollars of damage was done to the economy.

Which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Iraq.

Nice try at sneaking in a Bush Administration talking point, though. How much are they paying you?

paying? you mean for the wool they shear off his back every election?

Heh. Even the press corps thought dude was brain damaged when he was press secretary, let alone the Dittoheads. Now he writes a hack job on his old boss and he's Mensa material? Props, I guess.

Rich Fader wrote:Heh. Even the press corps thought dude was brain damaged when he was press secretary, let alone the Dittoheads. Now he writes a hack job on his old boss and he's Mensa material? Props, I guess.

Well now we know why he sounded so brain dead. You could have Daniel Fucking Webster up there answering questions and he would still sound like a world class douche trying to parrot the talking points Rove and Cheney were feeding him.

Goober McTuber wrote:

I love her recipes, especially the succulent breastmeat jizzled in white sauce one.

Tom In VA wrote:

M Club wrote: false dilemma. it's hardly sipping on kool-aid to mention peace is more desirable than arbitrary war. we tell our children there's no bogeymen under the bed so they'll stfu and let us watch the sports report but this douche sees one under his and now we're mired in a quagmire.

I haven't heard the word "quagmire" in quite awhile. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported that violence in Iraq is subsiding. His job was to weight the costs, risks, and benefit of continuing the same old song and dance with Saddam vs. going in an removing the problem. He chose the latter, all I'm saying is I believe he did so with this country's and our allies' best interests in mind. That's it.

great, you haven't heard the word quagmire for quite some time. i suppose this counts as independent thought, then. considering we're paying upwards of 100,000 people not to fight, i wouldn't buy the wsj's rosy prognosis, especially since one of those guys with a turban all us americans are so afraid of can just as easily call of a pretty tenuous cease-fire.

M Club wrote: good point. whose blood?

Soldier, Sailors, Airmen and Marines of the coalition and the blood of Iraqis.

exactly. what sort of consequences does bush face for all this other than the blood on his hands that he'd just as soon wipe off on the back of his trousers. he'll be out on the golf course while the next potus fields asinine questions about what he gave up for lent/war.

M Club wrote: yeah, because his track record suggests otherwise. sanctity of life, yo. i'm sure the backdoor draft keeps him from enjoying his fancy dinners.

Bush is hardly the only president who enjoyed the good life while Americans were slugging it out on the battelfield. Not good enough.

i'm not talking about fancy pastries for breakfast, either. i'm talking about the fact that as governor of texas he told the death penalty to go fuck itself when it begged for a 15-minute smoke break. i'm talking about the indiscriminate waste he lays to whole societies in pursuit of a couple strategerists playing him like a fiddle. i'm talking about the lip service he pays to people who have to die because his inner circle needs a reason to loot the national treasury. i really don't begrudge the man his silver spoon or the big boat he gets to pilot around the lake. i do begrudge him the temerity to insist his aggression was the right choice because he understands the sacrifices others have to make on his behalf. no he doesn't.

M Club wrote: hunch? have you forgotten the sheer volume of world-wide protest? that was hardly a hunch.

People gathered in circle singing John Lennon tunes is nice. But conflicting data from global intelligence sources is a problem. It was a problem enough to where the the global community felt a need to go back in an resume inspections, wasn't it ? The problem with resuming inspections is that Saddam could not be trusted. It was critical in 1998, 1999, 2000, and became even more critical after we were caught with our pants down in 2001.

i guess if you're a lennon fan. funny, all those protesters seemed to think this was a stupid idea. even more humorous was they were right. i think it's well documented how hypocritical the inspections excuse is. yeah, then bomb pakistan too. and india. what was the other rationale, freedom? fucking please. i'm sure you've seen burma in the news recently. zimbabwe? when does rob mug get saddled with a 48-hour countdown? oh yeah, these things are selective, and this one time an iraqi had coffee with a muslim so everyone run b/c saddam's coming.

M Club wrote: it definitely isn't independent thought when the world sighs a collective wtf. the "independent" thought you deride was critical mass in response to the "independent" thought that appeared out of thin air once this administration decided they took seriously the gravitas of war.

Wrong, the notion of invading Iraq to put an end to Saddam's song and dance was no grabbed out of thin air. It was something that was being seriously considered before Bush even took the oath of office.

true. when bill clinton was talking about bombing iraq the republicans were going ape shit about how horrible and reprehensible an idea it was. saddam was just as much in violation of un mandates then as he was when bush was pretending his mind wasn't made up about his military solution.

M Club wrote: please point out one of us who did have to make any sort of risk. these terrorist doomsday scenarios are so ominous that we're only affected if we're in the actual military or know someone who is. all this food rationing, all the credit we need so a couple banks can ask for welfare, all this rosie riveter. if it were an actual war we'd all be making sacrifices.

Not the kind of risk I am talking about. I am talking about the risk of taking the decisions, decisions that hold the lives of countless thousands in the balance, of being the "Decider" (I know it was a corny phrase).

Bush had two choices. Continue with the status quo, inspections and Saddam's shell game OR overthrow and make absolutely sure. He chose the latter, like I said, I believe he did so with the nation's best interests in mind. Subsequent to the overthrow we all found out that maturity of whatever WMD's Saddam possessed or programs he had designs for - was overstated.

i'll simply state i hardly believe a word that man says, and those who do are in the vast minority.

We can use that information to say "We were right, Saddam didn't have WMD's". But that information came from the decision Bush made to invade and conclusively find out the true nature of things. U.N. Inspections did not work in the past.

i don't even know how to address this logic. now honey, i know i gambled away our home and the children's education fund, but if i hadn't we wouldn't know you shouldn't hit on 19. yeah, that guy did a great job of balancing risk against common sense.

Cuda wrote:

Q, West Coast Style wrote:3. Isn't there a pattern of ex-Bush confidants writting scathing accounts of their experiences with the Bush Admin? Are they ALL liars looking to get paid? If so, why do you believe this?

A "pattern" requires more than one or two, dumbass.

Lessee, off the top of my head to date there's been:

• John DiIulio;
• Richard Clarke;
• Paul O'Neill;
• Colin Powell; and
• Scott McClellan.

Granted, maybe not all of them wrote books. But all of them made scathing, very public criticisms of the Bush Administration.

Take off your partisan blinders and you'll start to see a pattern there.

m club,

1. I see so you're one of the "The surge didn't work, the only success we've seen from it is because the Iranians stepped in and stopped the violence". Duly noted.

2. History will revile his name. If he is as egotistical and arrogant as he seems, he risked the recorded log of his life here on planet earth. Private Joe Snuffy will be remembered on a "wall", by his family and by the people interested in remembering the sacrifice of soldiers. History's book will mention George Bush - and if the current trend and analysis of his decision stands the test of time - revile him. Look at Bill Clinton, these men are obsessed with their "legacy" - most great leaders are aware of "legacy" and the impact their decisions have on those to follow behind him. I view Bush no differently.

3. Do any of us, unless we're faced with combat, truly understand the sacrifices these men make ? The fears the must face, the horrors they must witness that revisit them indiscriminantly throughout the night, the guilt, the pain ? No. Even the logistical support teams face things us folks back at home will never truly understand. You would have to provide a quote where George Bush says "I feel your pain" to these people, I don't recall hearing him be that condescending and patronizing. He honors them and respects them and that's really all anyone can do who hasn't made the same sacrifice.


4. So is a broke clock, twice a day. Were the protesters of WWII right ? In light of what was found after the conquest of Germany? You decide. I'm not drawing a parallel between campaigns in this exercise but people will protest - oft times just to protest. As for why Iraq and not Pakistan, India to thwart proliferation of WMDs and why not Burma, Zimbabwe for human rights - I don't know. Do you ? What would be the strategic benefit vs. cost in invading those countries.

5. Okay

6. I hardly believe a word he says too, I"m that way about most executives. I didn't believe a word Saddam said. First he's saying he nuke capable and planting information to have the world's intelligence communities draw the same conclusion, next he's saying he didn't - he kicks out the U.N., abuses the "Oil for Food" program, and continue playing games. I believe Bush was in a position to decide whether or not the U.S. could risk playing any more games. He decided we weren't.

7. It's a fact. The only way anyone can sit here and say "I was right, see ... no WMD's" is because of the invasion. There is no way you can escape that. You use the information - evidence - and yet condemn the way in which that evidence was gathered. Sounds hypocritical to me.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Take off your partisan blinders and you'll start to see a pattern there.

Disgruntled employees?


For me, there's no question. The Bush Administration is replete with arrogance and hubrus - and an agenda. The question is - was that agenda set with the best interests of the country in mind ?

I do believe it was motivated by just that. Whether or not it worked, remains to be seen.

Tom In VA wrote:The only way anyone can sit here and say "I was right, see ... no WMD's" is because of the invasion. There is no way you can escape that. You use the information - evidence - and yet condemn the way in which that evidence was gathered. Sounds hypocritical to me.

the problem with this whole line of reasoning is the way the Bush Administration sold it to the American people....if you want I'd be more than happy to dredge up the "we KNOW where his weapons are" statements (and there are plenty of them)

Felix wrote: the problem with this whole line of reasoning is the way the Bush Administration sold it to the American people....if you want I'd be more than happy to dredge up the "we KNOW where his weapons are" statements (and there are plenty of them)

Administrations "sell" their agendas. Let's get that out of the way. Administrations sending Americans off to get killed and maimed - SELL it to the American public. The Bush Administration did this too. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it is Standard Operating Procedure.

Furthermore, are you open to the idea that something WAS FOUND - and those facts were obfuscated as well - and for good reason. Do you see any strategic value to making sure the world KNEW Saddam had NOTHING LEFT ? Are you open to the possibility things were moved ? I don't think it's unreasonable to consider those variables.

Tom In VA wrote: Furthermore, are you open to the idea that something WAS FOUND - and those facts were obfuscated as well - and for good reason.

trust me, if they had found anything of significance, they'd be trumpting it from the rafters

Do you see any strategic value to making sure the world KNEW Saddam had NOTHING LEFT ?

at the cost of over 4,000 american and unknown number of Iraqis lives....no, I don't think it is worth it

Are you open to the possibility things were moved ? I don't think it's unreasonable to consider those variables.

if they KNEW where some of the deadliest weapons on the face of this planet were, they should have been monitoring the location of those weapons 24 hrs. a day, 365 days of the year-especially if you're invading a country on that basis

mvscal wrote:
We don't have the capability to do that. This isn't Star Trek. We do know that something was moved. You don't think all those truck convoys heading into to Syria were empty do you?

so you're telling me that we had no intelligence personell in Iraq prior to our invasion?

We had no intelligence personell in Syria prior to our invasion?

If that's the case, then the Bush Administration fucked up even worse than I'd originally thought

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:so you're telling me that we had no intelligence personell in Iraq prior to our invasion? We had no intelligence personell in Syria prior to our invasion?

Nope. The Kay and Duelfer reports are pretty clear on the piss poor quality of out intelligence. The CIA was and remains a national embarrassment, but those intelligence problems long antedate the Bush Administration. That put him in an all or nothing bind. 9/11 provided a pretty vivid example of the consequences of the do nothing approach. If 19 freaks with box cutters could cause that kind of mayhem, what could Saddam do with all the assets at his disposal? Could we afford to ignore that possibility?

His conclusion was that we could no longer afford to ignore Saddam and that is was time to call his book due. There is no honest or rational argument to be made against that reasoning.

So then he did knowingly deceive the American public. IF the CIA was known to be a joke long before he took office, everyone knew it, and thus they also knew the intelligence was not reliable.

So the only way to go to war was to lie.

Mister Bushice wrote: So then he did knowingly deceive the American public. IF the CIA was known to be a joke long before he took office, everyone knew it, and thus they also knew the intelligence was not reliable.

So the only way to go to war was to lie.

I think you've finally convinced me. FUCK, I've been hoodwinked.


Say all this talk has gotten me thirsty, can I have a sip of your Kool-Aid ?

Felix wrote:
trust me

Why ? Your job isn't to secure this country's interests. You and I can afford to be wrong, our opinions on the matter really don't affect anyone. A L-E-A-D-E-R sometimes has to take decisions, decisions that are unpopular with people. He or she does so, not with approval ratings in mind, popularity contests, and whether or not people will remember him fondly.

If remaining in Iraq for a time is in this country's best interest, our next President -if he is a leader - will do so, be it McCain or Obama.

Mister Bushice wrote:

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:so you're telling me that we had no intelligence personell in Iraq prior to our invasion? We had no intelligence personell in Syria prior to our invasion?

Nope. The Kay and Duelfer reports are pretty clear on the piss poor quality of out intelligence. The CIA was and remains a national embarrassment, but those intelligence problems long antedate the Bush Administration. That put him in an all or nothing bind. 9/11 provided a pretty vivid example of the consequences of the do nothing approach. If 19 freaks with box cutters could cause that kind of mayhem, what could Saddam do with all the assets at his disposal? Could we afford to ignore that possibility?

His conclusion was that we could no longer afford to ignore Saddam and that is was time to call his book due. There is no honest or rational argument to be made against that reasoning.

So then he did knowingly deceive the American public. IF the CIA was known to be a joke long before he took office, everyone knew it, and thus they also knew the intelligence was not reliable.

So the only way to go to war was to lie.

Well then wouldn't it stand to reason that the Demotards in The House and Senate knew the CIA sucked but voted to go to war based on the same intelligence??

I hope Obama (Clinton) wins. If he doesn't, Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country. I'm not sure how we'll survive as a nation without Susan Sarandon.