This is a US Embassy report from Baghdad:

"Snapshots from the Office -- Public Affairs Staff Show Strains of Social Discord."

-- "Personal safety depends on good relations with the 'neighborhood' governments, who barricade streets and ward off outsiders. The central government, our staff says, is not relevant; even local mukhtars have been displaced or coopted by militias. People no longer trust most neighbors."

-- One embassy employee had a brother-in-law kidnapped. Another received a death threat, and then fled the country with her family.

-- Iraqi staff at the embassy, beginning in March and picking up in May, report "pervasive" harassment from Islamist and/or militia groups. Cuts in power and rising fuel prices "have diminished the quality of life." Conditions vary but even upscale neighborhoods "have visibly deteriorated" and one of them is now described as a "ghost town."

-- Two of the three female Iraqis in the public affairs office reported stepped-up harassment since mid-May...."some groups are pushing women to cover even their face, a step not taken in Iran even at its most conservative." One of the women is now wearing a full abaya after receiving direct threats.

-- It has also become "dangerous" for men to wear shorts in public and "they no longer allow their children to play outside in shorts." People who wear jeans in public have also come under attack.

-- Embassy employees are held in such low esteem their work must remain a secret and they live with constant fear that their cover will be blown. Of nine staffers, only four have told their families where they work. They all plan for their possible abductions. No one takes home their cell phones as this gives them away. One employee said criticism of the U.S. had grown so severe that most of her family believes the U.S. "is punishing populations as Saddam did."

-- Since April, the "demeanor" of guards in the Green Zone has changed, becoming more "militia-like," and some are now "taunting" embassy personnel or holding up their credentials and saying loudly that they work in the embassy: "Such information is a death sentence if overheard by the wrong people." For this reason, some have asked for press instead of embassy credentials.

-- "For at least six months, we have not been able to use any local staff members for translation at on-camera press events....We cannot call employees in on weekends or holidays without blowing their 'cover.'"

-- "More recently, we have begun shredding documents printed out that show local staff surnames. In March, a few staff members approached us to ask what provisions would we make for them if we evacuate."

-- The overall environment is one of "frayed social networks," with frequent actual or perceived insults. None of this is helped by lack of electricity. "One colleague told us he feels 'defeated' by circumstances, citing his example of being unable to help his two-year-old son who has asthma and cannot sleep in stifling heat," which is now reaching 115 degrees.

-- "Another employee tell us that life outside the Green Zone has become 'emotionally draining.' He lives in a mostly Shiite area and claims to attend a funeral 'every evening.'"

-- Fuel lines have grown so long that one staffer spent 12 hours in line on his day off. "Employees all confirm that by the last week of May, they were getting one hour of power for every six hours without.....One staff member reported that a friend lives in a building that houses a new minister; within 24 hours of his appointment, her building had city power 24 hours a day."

"personal fears are reinforcing divisive sectarian or ethnic channels, despite talk of reconciliation by officials."

Its so great how the Bush boys think staying the course is good....but then again...never having fought a war or been in the military what else could they say.

Imagine not being smart enough to change direction even if you know its wrong.

Imagine if Patton had not been expereienced enough to make that turn north during the battle of the Bulge, if he had "staid the course" he was on.

I mean look at Market Garden, montgomery staid the course even when his intel told him there was an SS Panzer division basically in the drop zone.

So much for learning from history.

I know its kind of silly, but comments like this almost make me wish there was a law saying you had to server in the military in order to be commander and chief.

Where's the link to the report?

Washington Post displays the cable here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/iraqdocs_061606.pdf).

Its so great how the Bush boys think staying the course is good....but then again...never having fought a war or been in the military what else could they say.Since it seems you're taking your talking points from Murtha...MURTHA: The thing that disturbed me and worries me about this whole thing is we can't get them to change direction. And I said over and over in debate, if you listen to any of it, in Beirut President Reagan changed direction, in Somalia President Clinton changed direction, and yet here, with the troops out there every day, suffering from these explosive devices, and being looked at as occupiers ? 80 percent of the people want us out of there ? and yet they continue to say, "We're fighting this thing." We're not fighting this.Our 'change of direction' was very inspirational...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/miller.html
"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were like the Russians," bin Laden said. "The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda ... about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."Given that Somalia is currently falling into the hands of islamic extremists and OBL's most recent public announcement ignoring Iraq completely for the potential safe haven of Somalia... all due to our 'change of direction' there, I think it is safe to say Murtha has lost all ground to stand on.

And this repeated call that the president must have military experience to be CinC is just confusing. The left in this country wrings its hands daily about the evil military industrial complex and how they've gained too much influence in our government... and yet the left also demands that the president must have had a career in the military to do his/her job effectively.

I think it's a very transparent argument... and foolish. I might start believing the 'mic' conspiracy if our president has to have a military career to the job.

Since it seems you're taking your talking points from Murtha...


http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/strawman.gif

Either you don't know what a strawman argument is or you didn't even bother reading the rest of the post before making yourself out to be an idiot...again.

Just because I compared his talking points to Murtha's doesn't mean it's a strawman. Correct me if I am wrong, but they're strikingly similar to one another.. if not exactly the same.

pbbtt

Its so great how the Bush boys think staying the course is good....but then again...never having fought a war or been in the military what else could they say.




Once again... who has never been in the military? I missed this one. If you mean being in the National Guard as never being in the military, ask the 50% of the troops in Iraq right now what they think....

I will be frank and say I feel all should serve in the military to be qualified as President. But that is my belief, and reality says it will never happen. But to use this arguement that since Bush never fought in a war or served in the military so he is not qualifed to run this war bullshit is getting old. Lets look at the few past presidents who did NOT serve in the military or war. William J Clinton (Somalia), LBJ (ramped up Vietnam), FDR (nothing needs to be said). Each of these individuals while not being in the military lead military missions that resulted in the death of US soldiers. While Clinton was inept, I did not see FDR changing course in WWII when it appeared we had no chance of getting a foothold in Europe... so what is the point of your argument? Pick and choose what you want to make your argument sound good, but in the end it is all bullshit anti-bush crap.

Either you don't know what a strawman argument is or you didn't even bother reading the rest of the post before making yourself out to be an idiot...again.

Just because I compared his talking points to Murtha's doesn't mean it's a strawman. Correct me if I am wrong, but they're strikingly similar to one another.. if not exactly the same.

pbbtt

Comparing what he was saying to Murtha? Fine,.. but to compare him to Murtha as a pretext to attack an entirely different statement by Murtha? Sorry.. classic strawman. What Murtha was right or wrong about is not related to what Rover has said. Murthas statement was about how Presidents have in the past changed direction
"change in direction" =! "Cut and Run"
Somalia =! Iraq.
Iraq =! Vietnam

Once again... who has never been in the military? I missed this one. If you mean being in the National Guard as never being in the military, ask the 50% of the troops in Iraq right now what they think....

I will be frank and say I feel all should serve in the military to be qualified as President. But that is my belief, and reality says it will never happen. But to use this arguement that since Bush never fought in a war or served in the military so he is not qualifed to run this war bullshit is getting old. Lets look at the few past presidents who did NOT serve in the military or war. William J Clinton (Somalia), LBJ (ramped up Vietnam), FDR (nothing needs to be said). Each of these individuals while not being in the military lead military missions that resulted in the death of US soldiers. While Clinton was inept, I did not see FDR changing course in WWII when it appeared we had no chance of getting a foothold in Europe... so what is the point of your argument? Pick and choose what you want to make your argument sound good, but in the end it is all bullshit anti-bush crap.

Who has never been in the military?

Cheney
Rove
Wolfowitz
Libby
Rice
Delay
Hastert
Blunt
Lott
and many more.
Each one of the above has been very supportive and outspoken on the case for pre-emptive war.

I've said it many times before on this board that historically EVERY nation that has used pre-emptive strikes as its policy has failed, with the start of their downfall beginning with a pre-emptive strike policy. This goes back to the Romans and beyond. The scary part is that Wolfowitz and others have used the Roman empire as their blueprint for our policy, but hey, Hitler used it as his blueprint also.

Concerning Clinton and Somolia, this was a situation that his presidency inherited from Bush senior and yes it is absolutely true that he changed direction there and withdrew our troops.

Clinton also sent US forces into the Balkans thereby saving countless civilian lives and was able to bring some stability to that region.

LBJ did serve in the military, US Navy in WWII.

I don't think I've seen anyone say that LBJ ramping up Vietnam was the right thing to do, in fact, I've said numerous times here that Vietnam was a major foul up and was not the right thing to do or the right place to be. We never should have been there and time has proven that every soldier who died there died for nothing.

I did not see FDR changing course in WWII when it appeared we had no chance of getting a foothold in Europe

Are you referring to those hours on Omaha beach when it was thought that perhaps our best move would be to evacuate the troops? Other than that there wasn't any indication we wouldn't get a foothold on Europe, it was just a question of where and when.

so what is the point of your argument? Pick and choose what you want to make your argument sound good, but in the end it is all bullshit anti-bush crap.

If you read my posts here and from the past my points are very clear.

We had no reason to go into Iraq.

Every reason given has proven to be false and misleading.

Our presence their has strengthened the resolve of Islamic militants as shown in the Embassy communication.

We have de-stabilized the whole region much more so than it was before.

Those are a few of the points I've made before.

You can call my posts Bush bashing, anti-bush or whatever you want. It will never change the facts of what was done with respect to Iraq or what is currently going on with Iraq.

I assure you my posts are not based on being anti-bush, they are based on anti-fucking retarded moves by a bunch of obviously inept and arrogant officials.

Given that Somalia is currently falling into the hands of islamic extremists and OBL's most recent public announcement ignoring Iraq completely for the potential safe haven of Somalia... all due to our 'change of direction' there, I think it is safe to say Murtha has lost all ground to stand on.
And this repeated call that the president must have military experience to be CinC is just confusing. The left in this country wrings its hands daily about the evil military industrial complex and how they've gained too much influence in our government... and yet the left also demands that the president must have had a career in the military to do his/her job effectively.
I think it's a very transparent argument... and foolish. I might start believing the 'mic' conspiracy if our president has to have a military career to the job.

Yes because Somolia was doing so well under the warlords right? OBL seems to see that we are totally mired in Iraq and that this administration has an inane ability to deny the facts of the situation, and true to form OBL is exploiting the situation. I bet he learned that from his days fighting the Russians. Heres a clue, he's exploiting our obvious weakness.

The dangers of the Military Industrial Complex to come from the soldiers they come from the officials in government that are bought by the industries that supply the military, that is what scares people.

Take an honest look at Halliburton, they feed the troops, build their housing, move their supplies even sell the toilet paper they use to wipe their asses with. Do you really think that KBR moves supplies more efficiently and with less cost than the military? If you do I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

I see very few people demanding that the President must have military experience to be CinC. Wait, that not true, I remember distinctly throughout the 90's a party in Washington being very adament about that. But I don't see many on the "left" demanding that. I do see many stating that perhaps having military and/or combat experience would have made it that the decision to go to war in Iraq would not have been used so liberaly.

I do see many stating that perhaps having military and/or combat experience would have made it that the decision to go to war in Iraq would not have been used so liberaly. Perhaps all members of Congress should have boots-on-the-ground experience, else they wouldn't be passing Iraq War Resolutions... What's the word for a bill passing with over 70% majority in both houses? "Liberaly" ?

Ever notice that it is primarly those who have never been in wars that start them?
Khrushchev's notable letter to Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis comes to mind.

We must not succumb to intoxication and petty passions, regardless of whether elections are impending in this or that country, or not impending. These are all transient things, but if indeed war should break out, then it would not be in our power to stop it, for such is the logic of war. I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction.
If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

This was a man who was at Stalingrad.

Or.. closer to home.. Eisenhower
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children....

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense.

Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from an iron cross

Iraq was a war of choice. Keep that in mind.

What's the word for a bill passing with over 70% majority in both houses?

What resolution are you referring to Akipt? The origional resolution to go to war or the more recent GOP sponsored bills on the war?

The scary part is that Wolfowitz and others have used the Roman empire as their blueprint for our policy, but hey, Hitler used it as his blueprint also.




wondered how long it would take for the token Hitler comparison.. When do we start exterminating the Jews?

Concerning Clinton and Somolia, this was a situation that his presidency inherited from Bush senior and yes it is absolutely true that he changed direction there and withdrew our troops.


He inherited a UN mission that Bush initiated.. But I did not see any UN troops in that assult... And as for Kosovo, what exactly did we fight that war for? To oust a dictator? interesting. By the way.. What did our great leader Clinton do about Rwanda?

LBJ.. you are correct. My mistake, I missed it in his bio. But regarding my including him, I am not referring to wether or not it was the right choice, but just the fact that he made decisions that effected US forces.

OBL seems to see that we are totally mired in Iraq and that this administration has an inane ability to deny the facts of the situation, and true to form OBL is exploiting the situation. I bet he learned that from his days fighting the Russians. Heres a clue, he's exploiting our obvious weakness.


Ya.. people like you that undermine the effort and give strength to what OBL said about us losing our resolve and running like dogs with our tail between our legs. These people will sacrifice everything just to show the world they have more resolve then us. Isn't kinda of ironic that the main simularity I see between Vietnam and Iraq is the stance of the media and anti-war actions of the American people. If the enemy thinks they can just hold out and wait for the bleeding hearts to win.. then that is exactly what they will do.. Congrats.

Well, there's a list of Democrat Senators that approved action in Iraq:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Maybe we should ask them if they were in the military too....

What did our great leader Clinton do about Rwanda?
Unfortunately, about the same thing Dear Leader Bush is doing in Sudan.

Why is the novel Starship Troopers coming to mind?

If the enemy thinks they can just hold out and wait for the bleeding hearts to win.. then that is exactly what they will do.. Congrats.

What exactly do you hope to win in Iraq Shanno? Though I agree we need to make our best effort to establish a stable government, I have to see any kind of timetable in place to do that. We are letting the insurgents and OBL decide our timetable, or lack thereof. Great, they had free elections, the government is in place (as little as we respect it...i.e. Bush's 5 minute notice visit), train a sufficient security force and get the fuck out. Put a timetable in place to get that done, if it slips a bit , fine....but at least we know there will be a god damn end to this fiasco.

Personally, I believe no matter what we do there, our "brand" of "non-religious" democracy will not take hold in a country whose people only value religious law. The moment we leave, the country will become some form of theocracy or dictatorship....maybe even degrade into a civil war prior (hopefully not). The question is how long do we wait...how many more lives do we waste before this happens? How many more must die so that we can say we won...oh, wait a sec, Bush already said that..hmmm. Okay how many more must die before we can feel like we won..and can scof at OBL's claim that we cut and run? How many more hundreds of billions of dollars thrown away?

...or is your plan to remain there forever calling it "The War on Terror"...like our pres.

If you ask me it's more like "The War Against Looking Like Complete Fuckups".

Maybe we should ask them if they were in the military too....

Who iniated the war Sixee? Was it those Senators? umm..no. The point is, the imputus for going to war was put forth by an administration almost complete void of military experience and/or know how. Hence.. Messopotamia. :(

Unfortunately, about the same thing Dear Leader Bush is doing in Sudan

What about Sudan... unlike Clinton, if Bush moved US forces there, he would get crucified as a warmonger, and overstretching our limits, and putting money in Haliburton's pocket, not as a leader trying to prevent unethical treatment of the populace of another country.

Clinton was attacked for his actions in Kosovo. Bush himself criticized Clinton for not setting a timetable for withdrawal, for not providing an exit strategy. Apparently back then such matters didn't constitute giving in to the enemy.

Anyway, given your previous attempts at mind reading, and international concern for events in Sudan, there's no reason to believe anything you've written above.

Well, there's a list of Democrat Senators that approved action in Iraq:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

Maybe we should ask them if they were in the military too....


Why don't you remove the republicans from the above list to create a more accurate picture of who bought the bullshit on the democratic side of the aisle.

What exactly do you hope to win in Iraq Shanno?

I would start by not fucking giving up. This is not a traditional war where we line our tanks up against the other and see who wins. This is a war of ideals, and more importantly a war of resolve. We need to show we have it and will not back down to intimidation. These terrorists cannot line up toe to toe, so they have to use other metholds.. like demoralizing the troops. Since they themselves cannot do it, use the people who the soldiers believe they are defending. If you have Senators, Americans, and Allies calling you murders, saying you are cracking, etc.. you have done the job the Terrorists want. If they cannot get to the troops.. lets try humanitarian. Kill civilians, and blame it on the war against the US troops. It sickens me how the marines were basically hung before there was a trial in the last few weeks. Our military does not get the benefit of the doubt, but if you have video of a Congressman taking 100k, that is not good enough to search his office.

Also, this "timeline" shit is too funny. What happens when Bush misses the first deadline? HOLY FUCK.. the media and the Left will drive it through our heads and use it for elections. Timelines also give a "target date" to the terrorists.. telling them to just hold out...

Until you can show me you understand the enemy, then please do not ask me how I would handle things, since it would probably be a wasted effort.

Well, regarding military service I have stated before in this forum that I am a staunch believer in the Israeli practice of ALL young men and women serving in the military for 2-3 years following high school. The benefits are too many to list right now, but the primary one in my view is it gives a sense of ownership of the country....this is mine!

As far as the comment that Somalia is now falling into the hands of the Islamist extremists, there is a strong argument being made that it would not have happened if the Bush administration had listened to the representatives of Somalia that were advising to stop funding the warlords; the arms the Islamist extremists are fighting with are the ones surrendered by the Warlords which were purchased with U.S. monies funneled to them via the CIA (as reported in the St Paul Pioneer Press). The Bush administration was not willing to heed the advice of those who actually lived in the region who said the extremists would get no footing as long as the U.S. stayed out of things; by keeping our nose in the affairs of the Somali people and government, we succeeded in fueling the fires of anti-U.S. hate which the extremists were able to use to their advantage.

Bush has some exceptionally brilliant minds at his disposal regarding middle eastern issues, but he seems unable to make use of them, and instead keeps stepping on his dick, costing us on the world stage as well as in lives lost or forever altered.

What about Sudan... unlike Clinton, if Bush moved US forces there, he would get crucified as a warmonger, and overstretching our limits, and putting money in Haliburton's pocket, not as a leader trying to prevent unethical treatment of the populace of another country.

Ya.. people like you that undermine the effort and give strength to what OBL said about us losing our resolve and running like dogs with our tail between our legs. These people will sacrifice everything just to show the world they have more resolve then us. Isn't kinda of ironic that the main simularity I see between Vietnam and Iraq is the stance of the media and anti-war actions of the American people. If the enemy thinks they can just hold out and wait for the bleeding hearts to win.. then that is exactly what they will do.. Congrats.

The first part of the quote above shows me that your support of the current administration is a blind support.

The second paragraph quoted above from an earlier post simply shows your total ignorance. If you for one second think that because I said Bin Laden is simply exploiting our weakness will make it impossible for us to succeed in battle is just simply astounding. So much so that I am at a loss for words in response as I find it truly amazing that someone who has been in the military and should have a basic understanding of simple tactical concepts can't comprehend the fact that our enemy is simply exploiting what is an OBVIOUS tactical weakness, but its not so obvious to the blind I see.

Your comment about the token hitler reference shows that you pay absolutely zero attention to what is said in opposition to the Bush administration. Go back, re-read it and notice my reference was based on the stupidity and poor tactical planning that hitler was noted for. It was not a reference to war crimes.

Until you can show me you understand the enemy, then please do not ask me how I would handle things, since it would probably be a wasted effort.

LOL...you seem to have the least understanding of the "enemy" that I have seen with the exception of Bush.

I would start by not fucking giving up.

#1 in all you said, you still didn't answer my question.

#2 I said nothing about "giving up"

the media and the Left will drive it through our heads and use it for elections.

Fair game when you FUCK UP on a monumental scale.

Until you can show me you understand the enemy, then please do not ask me how I would handle things, since it would probably be a wasted effort.

What, so your ability to answer how you would handle things depends on how much I understand the enemy....do you realize that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Now, quit muddying the water with the "search the offafice" BS and answer my questions.

What do you hope to gain....is it simply that we don't back down to intimidtation? Do you really think we will be able to establish a "western" democracy in this country? Do you want to know what the conditions are that will let us leave? If it's no violence, we might as well declare Iraq the 51st state because that ain't slowing down. Do we need to kill every Moslim that hates the US to win? Every Sunni? What will win the war in Iraq? Under what conditions do we withdraw?

I think Dick can answer at least twice in a year or so...

Cheney 5/30/05: The Insurgency Is "In The Last Throes??

and again he restates his position...

Cheney 6/19/06: ?I Do? Believe The Insurgency Is In The Last Throws...

Of course with guys like me saying they are exploiting our weaknesses they don't realize they are in their last throws...just like they didn't last year.

I would start by not fucking giving up. This is not a traditional war where we line our tanks up against the other and see who wins. This is a war of ideals, and more importantly a war of resolve. We need to show we have it and will not back down to intimidation

So we "win" by never leaving? Nice...
I guess after we allow a certain amount of pain to be inflicted on us, the "terrists" will be so impressed that they will throw down their weapons, join rotary club and give up these silly ideas of eternal struggle.

Why don't you remove the republicans from the above list to create a more accurate picture of who bought the bullshit on the democratic side of the aisle.

I missed 5 of them, my mistake.

Regardless, why do people claim that these people "Bought the bullshit" while the Republicans were devious and planned the whole thing to line their pockets, ect.?

The first part of the quote above shows me that your support of the current administration is a blind support.




How is this blind support? Hell, just go back and read some of the shit spewed forth on this board. Bush has already been accused of invading Iraq just for profit. I am glad to see that this "oil" has helped our gas prices. Show me proof that we invaded for Oil.. please. I will not even get into Haliburton, heaven forbid we get the B.I.C. topic going again. But wait.. Bush lied about the intelligence. Depending on what side you look at it, it was Bush lied or he was misled just like every other congressman by faulty intel. It is amazing how Kerry, and others like Clinton can say Saddam is a threat and needs to be removed before the war, but after they can change there tune and deny it, and they get a free pass. So do not talk to me about Blind support, it is the liberals who are blind.. Blind to the fact that most Americans still do not believe in their bullshit. Once again.. look at elections


The second paragraph quoted above from an earlier post simply shows your total ignorance. If you for one second think that because I said Bin Laden is simply exploiting our weakness will make it impossible for us to succeed in battle is just simply astounding. So much so that I am at a loss for words in response as I find it truly amazing that someone who has been in the military and should have a basic understanding of simple tactical concepts can't comprehend the fact that our enemy is simply exploiting what is an OBVIOUS tactical weakness, but its not so obvious to the blind I see.



I did not say we could not win in battle did I? What I said is people like you make it harder to win a war.. Huge difference. Please.. what is our "tactical" weakness? I know one.. How about letting the media tag along? Or how about troops getting hung before a trial? As I mentioned before, those marines in Haditha have already been found guilty by people like Murtha and his ilk. They spent 23 hours a day in confinement and were not even charged. Guilty until Proven innocent. Is that why you went into the military, to fight for those rights? Or how about Innocent until proven guilty?

Your comment about the token hitler reference shows that you pay absolutely zero attention to what is said in opposition to the Bush administration. Go back, re-read it and notice my reference was based on the stupidity and poor tactical planning that hitler was noted for. It was not a reference to war crimes.


Interesting piece here. Hitler was also noted for many brilliant tactical plannings also. True.. a second front, and failing to cross the English Channel were poor, but he had many good ones also. That is part of war. Hell, look at the mistakes the Allies made and you could argue the Germans had far less, and they just less resources handle a drawnout war. But that is for another discussion.


LOL...you seem to have the least understanding of the "enemy" that I have seen with the exception of Bush.


Please.. inform me on you extensive understanding. Have you been in the country? On wait.. let me cut you off.. Beirut. Different time, different place.


Now on to Aliwon.

What I want out of this war does not really matter other to say not to give up and run and further give the terrorist belief they can win. We are in this war whether you like it or not, and to quit and run is the wrong thing to do.

Fair game when you FUCK UP on a monumental scale.


See, that is the problem if you set a time table. That is just added fuel to the insurgency. Lets hold out and we will let the opposition politcal party and the media bring down the current adminstration for us. They too know it would be "fair Game"


What do you hope to gain....is it simply that we don't back down to intimidtation? Do you really think we will be able to establish a "western" democracy in this country? Do you want to know what the conditions are that will let us leave? If it's no violence, we might as well declare Iraq the 51st state because that ain't slowing down. Do we need to kill every Moslim that hates the US to win? Every Sunni? What will win the war in Iraq? Under what conditions do we withdraw?


Let me ask you one question. Did we leave Japan after we occupied it in WWII? I am sure many of these questions were asked then. Oh wait.. probably not, because attitudes were different then. The answer to my question is who the fuck knows.. but leaving now once again allows the terrorists to win and they can pin another recruiting poster on the wall.


So we "win" by never leaving? Nice...
I guess after we allow a certain amount of pain to be inflicted on us, the "terrists" will be so impressed that they will throw down their weapons, join rotary club and give up these silly ideas of eternal struggle.


Did I say "never" leaving? What I find funny is this belief that if we leave, the terrorist will leave us alone and forget. To coin Cheney.,, Better over there then here. YES>> I would rather fight over there then see another skyscraper go down. Call me callous.. but the protection of AMERICAN civilians is more important then any other.


Clinton was attacked for his actions in Kosovo. Bush himself criticized Clinton for not setting a timetable for withdrawal, for not providing an exit strategy. Apparently back then such matters didn't constitute giving in to the enemy.

Anyway, given your previous attempts at mind reading, and international concern for events in Sudan, there's no reason to believe anything you've written above.


Thor.. I love how you like to use the "mind reading" slam. It is good to know you never make educated guesses based on past information. I keep forgetting you are omnipotent and know all.. or at least you like to think you do. It is unfortunate that I cannot sit and surf the internet all day while my mom makes me PB&J sandwiches.

So, are you saying you want the US to send in troops? You seem so concerned about the international concern, that I am not surprised you are not soliciting donations. It is typical that people whine and cry about something like the Sudan, but what are you doing to help? Not a damn thing. So if you want to throw slams.. I am can lower myself to that level.

As for Kosovo, yes Clinton was critized, but NO where near the level Bush has been. Ever war has its critics, and yes, Bill had his. But my mind reading ability tells me that if Bush had blown Mogandishu like Clinton did, the media would have had his head...

Blind to the fact that most Americans still do not believe in their bullshit. Once again.. look at electionsThe elections where Bush barely edged out a sub-par Democratic candidate? Not terribly convincing, especially given the state of every poll in the nation regarding Bush's performance. The 2006 elections may turn the above statement on its head.
Or how about troops getting hung before a trial? As I mentioned before, those marines in Haditha have already been found guilty by people like Murtha and his ilk. They spent 23 hours a day in confinement and were not even charged.Coming from a pro-torture advocate, this is a joke. Also, Murtha isn't keeping them imprisoned, nor is the media. It's a military affair. Complain to the general in charge.
See, that is the problem if you set a time table. That is just added fuel to the insurgency. The insurgency is fueled by our occupation. Terrorism is fueled by our occupation. Besides, when our own leadership says, again, that the insurgency is in its last throes, that things are going well, praises -- again -- the newest new government, and declared "Mission Accomplished" 3 years ago, why aren't we ready to leave? Ah yes, bases.

Fast forward thru more dreck...
Thor.. I love how you like to use the "mind reading" slam. It is good to know you never make educated guesses based on past information. I keep forgetting you are omnipotent and know all.. or at least you like to think you do. It is unfortunate that I cannot sit and surf the internet all day while my mom makes me PB&J sandwiches. When your guesses become educated I'll applaud your performance. For now, I'm still laughing over your "Why are there still apes?" non-starter. Were I omnipotent (and where did that come from?), I promise you'd understand it all better.
So, are you saying you want the US to send in troops? You seem so concerned about the international concern, that I am not surprised you are not soliciting donations. It is typical that people whine and cry about something like the Sudan, but what are you doing to help? Not a damn thing. So if you want to throw slams.. I am can lower myself to that level.
Oh nos, you am can lower yourself! Further! Solicit donations? For troops to go to Sudan? You're utterly daft.
As for Kosovo, yes Clinton was critized, but NO where near the level Bush has been.Maybe because he didn't fuck it up?
Ever war has its critics, and yes, Bill had his. But my mind reading ability tells me that if Bush had blown Mogandishu like Clinton did, the media would have had his head...Given your record, he'd probably be sainted. And as I recall, the media was none too kind to Clinton over Somalia, though it wasn't as interesting as Lewinsky, of course.

Mom's calling, PBJs otw!

I love how partisan things become. Just because a former (senator, president, candidate, whatever) didn't receive X amount of criticism for an action doesn't make it right then, or now. With the war in Iraq dragging on the way it is what Clinton did is irrelevant. It doesn't apply. It's gone and done. Seems like half the threads around here end up trying to justify or defend Bush's actions based on what a former president did.

Sort of like, well sure Bush is making mistakes, but look at all these Democrats who made mistakes too! I've got a list! See, it's not fair to get upset at Bush for making mistakes!

Suddenly feeling very reassured in my decision to stay independent and avoid this party crap. I'm honestly worried about how the next election will come out. Will we elect some Democratic hack just to get rid of the Republicans? Or while soldiers are dying on foreign soil we'll make the election about those damn gays holding hands again?

I love how partisan things become. Just because a former (senator, president, candidate, whatever) didn't receive X amount of criticism for an action doesn't make it right then, or now.I'm wondering how such things are measured in the first place. It's not like Clinton was praised for the Somalia mess.
Suddenly feeling very reassured in my decision to stay independent and avoid this party crap. I'm honestly worried about how the next election will come out. Will we elect some Democratic hack just to get rid of the Republicans? Or while soldiers are dying on foreign soil we'll make the election about those damn gays holding hands again?Look at the most recent agenda: gay marriage amendment, flag burning, and meaningless congressional proclamations set up for political use.

Recently I read a comment from Tony Fabrizio: ""The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one." So yes, there may be Democratic hacks elected to eject Republican hacks -- in many cases the same hacks elected in the early 90s to eject the Democratic hacks. Round round it goes.

That's just the point - look how quickly any discussion becomes aimed at party nonsense. Every time the news wants to talk about the Republican party supporting Bush, or distancing themselves from Bush, or whatever idiot dance they're doing now I want to scream.

Shouldn't a person, um, support someone based on real values, instead of, um, ya know, party lines?

Throwing out that a member of the opposite party once did something really bad and didn't get in trouble as an excuse for someone from the current party is just stupid. And common.

Iraq is a mess, I fail to see how any sane person can argue otherwise. What to do about it is up for debate, but dragging party issues in does not help.

What we have at present are two very powerful entities in this country who are not aimed at the best interests of the people. Because of their power base we continually end up with presidential candidates who are less than idea, with people who will elect them strictly based on party lines. I suspect we will still be very much in Iraq at the next election, if not some other country as well if Bush uses some fading light power to start another conflict on his way out the door, and if the Democrats field a weak candidate who doesn't know how to run a war, all the party jumpers will elect them anyway.

This is serious stuff. Breaking it down into party squabbles is idiotic. Leaving behind another country that we started a fight that we couldn't finish is sadly pathetic, if not becoming our standard MO.

Blymet made this comment a page or so back: "Bush has some exceptionally brilliant minds at his disposal regarding middle eastern issues, but he seems unable to make use of them, and instead keeps stepping on his dick, costing us on the world stage as well as in lives lost or forever altered."

Close, but I would say the greater issues is that regardless of how brilliant those western minds are, they fail to understand at all the cultures we are at war with, or what that war will be like in advance (Haditha, anyone?). Back when ARo was an ezboard we had a pre-war discussion where I pointed out that one of my fears going into this was that the US would expect a quick resolution without fully appreciating the environment we were entering into. Many of these groups in the Middle East have been fighting quite happily with each other for hundreds of years, and it's laughable to think that a short military operation would stop anything. To change the Middle East is something that requires a lengthy time and money investment from the world, not one country. Had that been stated up front, and understood, I think we'd be in a very different position now. Instead we had people driving a war who either didn't understand what they were getting into, or simply weren't honest about it to the nation.

But it's better to squabble and point out the mistakes that Hitler and Eisenhower made, no?

I think the main issue here is intellectual honesty. You shouldn't justify bad behavior by pointing out bad behavior. But it doesn't mean that just because a Democrat came up with the idea, that you should automatically hate it because 'Dubya said you should.
The same goes for the other way around. Has Bush made mistakes? Last time I checked the man was human.
But to think he is diabolically planning the end of the world is irresponsible in the least. What ever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?
Since I came out as a voice of reason, I'm sure the thalidomide comments will be forthcoming.
Regardless, just because a decision doesn't sit well with your plan on how you would run things, doesn't mean it's designed with evil intent.

The elections where Bush barely edged out a sub-par Democratic candidate? Not terribly convincing, especially given the state of every poll in the nation regarding Bush's performance. The 2006 elections may turn the above statement on its head.




When was the last time there was not a sub-par Democrat? I also love Polls... have you ever been polled? I have not. And yes.. lets see if we can call Polesi House Leader...


Coming from a pro-torture advocate, this is a joke. Also, Murtha isn't keeping them imprisoned, nor is the media. It's a military affair. Complain to the general in charge.



What does my being "pro-torture" have to do with this? I am talking about justice for people PROTECTED under our constitution. Whether you like torture or not.. those enemy combatants or terrorists are not protected. And to show your ignorance, the military is controlled by politics and public opinion. The pressure that the media and Murtha and Crew puts on the Generals causes crap like this. When the media watching EVERY single move looking for headline fodder.. they unfortunately have to make sacrifices for the greater good sometimes.


When your guesses become educated I'll applaud your performance. For now, I'm still laughing over your "Why are there still apes?" non-starter. Were I omnipotent (and where did that come from?), I promise you'd understand it all better.



What I find funny is you have yet to answer that question.. where is the missing link. I mean come on.. you must have read about it somewhere...


Solicit donations? For troops to go to Sudan? You're utterly daft


Not for troops.. but support the UN and help buy supplies.. adopt a family over there.. I am sure there is something you can do. If you feel so strong about it then do something to help. At least I joined the military to support something I believe in. What have you ever done for public service? At least when I debate with Bly or Rover over military matters, I respect the fact they have wore the uniform, even if we disagree on most things.

Maybe because he didn't fuck it up?


Really? Then why are we still there? It is fucking funny that you can preach about how the leadership can brag about being done in Iraq, but yet we still are in Kosovo..


Given your record, he'd probably be sainted. And as I recall, the media was none too kind to Clinton over Somalia, though it wasn't as interesting as Lewinsky, of course.

Mom's calling, PBJs otw!


DO you like White or Wheat bread?

When was the last time there was not a sub-par Democrat? I also love Polls... have you ever been polled? I have not. And yes.. lets see if we can call Polesi House Leader...
I've been polled. What does it matter if you have not?
What does my being "pro-torture" have to do with this? I am talking about justice for people PROTECTED under our constitution. Whether you like torture or not.. those enemy combatants or terrorists are not protected
I believe in the principles set forth in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, things like "all men are created equal" and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. These statements and rules weren't drafted because our Founding Fathers believed in USA! USA! They were drafted because the Founders believed in certain universal principles, certain inalienable rights that apply to all men, even those who disagree. Also, persons tortured and later deemed innocent make your pro-torture stance very applicable. Guilty before proven innocent, indeed.
And to show your ignorance, the military is controlled by politics and public opinion. The pressure that the media and Murtha and Crew puts on the Generals causes crap like this. When the media watching EVERY single move looking for headline fodder.. they unfortunately have to make sacrifices for the greater good sometimes.
You've presented no evidence, none, that some nebulous pressure by Murtha or the media has resulted in their imprisonment (which, of course, is not at all unusual for pretrial murder suspects). Also, Murtha is not a member of the current ruling party. If politics controls the military, then why hasn't the CIC intervened on their behalf?

This entire issue is a blame the Left, blame Murtha, blame the media fabrication on your part. Men at the scene of an alleged mass murder have been locked up. This is normal in civil jurisprudence and, I suspect, normal in military jurisprudence.
What I find funny is you have yet to answer that question.. where is the missing link. I mean come on.. you must have read about it somewhere...
You didn't ask where the "missing link" was. You asked, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" This is one of those questions only people completely ignorant of basic evolutionary principles asks, a long step below even the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And I did answer the question. If you're descended from your parents, why do you still have cousins? Another poster answered even more plainly, yet since you continue not to understand now you've changed the question. If you want to know more about evolution, start a new thread. Or better yet, go to a library. Or failing that, read Talk Origins. But here's a hint: "missing link" is a misnomer, an unfortunate term easily misused.
Not for troops.. but support the UN and help buy supplies.. adopt a family over there.. I am sure there is something you can do.
I see. So, tell us about the families you adopted in Rwanda. That's what started this train of conversation, right? Clinton was terrible for not doing anything about Rwanda. But never fear! Shanno was there!

Well, probably not. Because to Shanno and his ilk, Rwanda isn't a humanitarian disaster and an opportunity ignored; it's just a way to sputter "But..but Clinton!" anytime Sudan is mentioned.
If you feel so strong about it then do something to help. At least I joined the military to support something I believe in. What have you ever done for public service?
I donate blood every two months and am on the bone marrow donor registry. If circumstances are favorable, when I die my organs and tissue will go to help others. I've also engaged in charity work and donated funds to various causes I support. But of course, all this is a strawman. The validity of my arguments doesn't rest on what I do with my life. There are greater principles involved, principles of humanity and our Founders. Shanno's awareness of these principles seems on par with his awareness of evolution.
Really? Then why are we still there? It is fucking funny that you can preach about how the leadership can brag about being done in Iraq, but yet we still are in Kosovo..
And in Germany, Korea and a few other places besides. Of course, comparing Kosovo to Iraq is laughable. Or maybe the media is hiding the car bombings, IEDs and insurgency there. Tell me, if this is an issue, why the current CIC hasn't pulled our troops out of there? Or is Murtha and the media pressuring them to stay? :rolleyes:

I prefer white, but mostly eat wheat. And make that extra crunchy JIF.

When was the last time there was not a sub-par Democrat?


When one puts aside all the party-line venom, and looks specifically at what was accomplished during two terms of office, I cannot see how President Clinton can be described as sub-par.

From the day after the elections, when it was clear that President Bush (senior) was not going to get a second term and the White House was going to a Democrat, the republican party began an open and vicious campaign to smear the man in any manner they could, and yet despite this animosity he was able to change the economic direction of the country from a downslide into ever-deepening debt to a balanced budget. He presented a statesman-like quality to the rest of the world, and was able to get deals brokered and negotiations done due to his willingness to listen and compromise.

If the Republican attack dogs had not stooped so low as to expose his infidelity to the world (and in so doing opened up themselves to have their own exposed) there would not have been any taint on his two terms. The circus that was led by Ken Starr and supported by Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich is why I no longer will identify myself with that party, but only as an Independent.

But sub-par? No, I think Clinton is on a par with Reagan in terms of statesmanship and getting things done.

I agree, Clinton was a good President, if you subtract the whole Lewinski thing...oh, and not getting OBL 3 times, and then there was Somolia, and the USS Cole....
But Reagan had Iran-Contra, so I guess that makes things even.....

I agree, Clinton was a good President, if you subtract the whole Lewinski thing...oh, and not getting OBL 3 times, and then there was Somolia, and the USS Cole....
But Reagan had Iran-Contra, so I guess that makes things even.....

If I remember correctly the lewinski thing was basically the final outcome of the Whitewater thing...from a SL scandal to a blowjob in the Oval Office...money well spent...in some peoples minds.

Basically done by a group of individuals who have shown disdain for womens rights and equality.

the republican party began an open and vicious campaign to smear the man in any manner they could, and yet despite this animosity he was able to change the economic direction of the country from a downslide into ever-deepening debt to a balanced budget. He presented a statesman-like quality to the rest of the world, and was able to get deals brokered and negotiations done due to his willingness to listen and compromise.

If the Republican attack dogs had not stooped so low as to expose his infidelity to the world (and in so doing opened up themselves to have their own exposed)

The above quote is dead on accurate, what is most amazing is that the majority of those doing the accusing were themselves guilty of the same or similiar indiscretions. Some call that good political maneuvering, as the end result was near to what the goal was, I like to call it a retarded move as in running over their target they ran over themselves to.

I know that on these boards I'm known as a left wing Al Qaeda supporting Bin Laden loving unpatriotic hippy freak liberal but really in my 45 years of experience with the human race I have not one time seen anything resembling the current administrations methods succeed in this world.

I don't think that it takes military experience to be a good president, in fact I think it has very little bearing on the office. I do however think that if people like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove etc... had spent time in either the military and combat they would not be so quick to think that the solution to the issues is a massive military response.

and not getting OBL 3 times

This is quite possibly my favorite spin. When he launched missiles into Afghanistan, the same people that Sixee is aping were all up in arms about how he was trying to drag us into a war to pull the spotlight off Lewinski.

Of course, these days they take absolutely no responsibility for distracting the American public from our enemies. If the Republicans of the late 90's had displayed even a hint of respect for the office of President, we may not of had 9/11.

Fil

I don't think that it takes military experience to be a good president, in fact I think it has very little bearing on the office. I do however think that if people like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove etc... had spent time in either the military and combat they would not be so quick to think that the solution to the issues is a massive military response.

I dont think so, in fact all the people I know, relatives and friends who served in war...Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm...all are first to say...make the middle east a glass factory.

I dont think so, in fact all the people I know, relatives and friends who served in war...Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm...all are first to say...make the middle east a glass factory.

Yep, they do. I've said it here also. What is meant by that is simply wipe out the whole place, kill everybody, show no mercy. Hell it can be done with a few submarines and missiles.

But its not realistic and won't happen that way. Theres a little thing called politics along with a few other things called China, Russia, Iran along with about 1 billion or so muslims.

So all in all, as someone whose boots have been in a few places I agree turn the whole freaking place into a giant shiny glass sculpture...it will sure solve alot of our current problems in Iraq, with Iran, the palestinian issue, the resurgence of the Taliban and we'll probably be able to corner the production market on flat bread and hummus along with allowing our military to concentrate on the up and coming threat from our friends in China.

But again, realistically, it aint gonna happen, we live in a real world and in this real world those idiots in washington have got our tit in a ringer...and its getting tighter every day, its time to change direction and approach this thing from a different more thought out point of view.

You don't fight this kind of war with a massive response, it has never worked and will never work.

You don't fight this kind of war with a massive response, it has never worked and will never work.

We have the Taliban in Afghanistan, the insurgency in Iraq, AQ/terrorists roaming the globe, Iran which supports terrorists developing a nuclear program, and now North Korea preparing to launch a long range missile that could hit the U.S. and we have no proof that it is not armed.......

North Korea has literally nothing to offer the world as far as trade or medical/scientific technology, so if a response is required anywhere to show that we are not going to take all the crap from these folks laying down, it would seem North Korea is the best location for some boom-boom. If they are not smart enough to recognize that fact themselves, they deserve to be taken to the woodshed. Unfortunately, as Kim has shown, the people of the country are of little concern to the leadership of NK in relation to the prestige he seeks on the world stage. And, any response to NK would have to include a massive assault on the troops amassed along the border because they would surely start pouring into SK at the first sign of an aggressive act by the U.S.

We do know NK has acquired nuclear arms, but whether those are currently mounted as warheads on missiles or not I do not think the intelligence services have discovered (or at least they are smart enough not to be leaking). If the threat posed by NK is not neutralized in the coming year, I would wager they will be the ones to start the next major conflict and not the folks in Iran as much as some want to believe.

But regardless of what happens with all of these parties, if we do not have a comprehensive plan developed beforehand we will have the same problems as evidenced by the embassy workers in Baghdad, and the ongoing insurgency.

Nice segue, huh? Wasn't this thread about embassy workers and the insurgency, at some point?

BAH!!!