View Full Version : What will happen if we leave Iraq?
Little-Acorn
05-02-2007, 05:29 PM
Prager hits the nail on the head. Have the leftists in this country actually thought through what will happen a month after we leave? Three months? Three years? With Al Qaeda and various jihadist fanatics left free to take over one of the largest, most oil-rich countries in the middle East? Backed by Syria, Ira, and the likes of Mahmoud Amahdinejad?
--------------------------------------
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55464
What a jihadist victory would mean
by Dennis Prager
Posted: May 1, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
In arriving at their decision that America should withdraw its forces from Iraq, the Democratic Party and the left around the world regularly make reference to what they regard as America's initial error – invading Iraq.
Perhaps the left is correct in its contentions that bringing freedom to a Muslim Arab country at this time in history is impossible and that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would be better for American and world security.
But even if the war was a major blunder and even if everything the left charges – including "Bush lied" – were true, none of these contentions has any bearing on the question of what should be done now.
The preoccupation of the left with the alleged wrongness of the war and the alleged deceit of President Bush is another example of passion rather than reason determining a leftist position on a major issue.
A responsible, rational opponent of the war in Iraq and of George W. Bush would say, "I am appalled by the disastrous war in Iraq, appalled by the wasted American lives, appalled by the moral wasteland of Iraq, and I loathe this president. But we are in Iraq. And as much as I loathe supporting anything this president does and as much as I oppose this war, I know what is likely to happen if we leave Iraq. So I cannot in good conscience advocate an American withdrawal or fixing a specific date to do so."
In a recent column, I argued that the left rarely asks "What happens next?" when advocating social policy. I offered numerous examples. Withdrawal from Iraq and announcing that America has "lost the war" are the latest and most egregious.
If we leave Iraq:
It will be a great victory for the most dangerous ideology on earth today. The people running North Korea are presumably as evil as the Islamists. But there is no ideology emanating from North Korea that threatens mankind. We are fighting an ideology, supported by millions of people, that wishes to conquer the world and routinely engages in mass murder of the innocent – especially the innocent – to achieve its totalitarian goals.
No one will trust America's commitment for the foreseeable future. Nations and forces aligned with America against freedom-hating enemies will conclude that it is actually quite easy to defeat the United States of America. Just kill relatively few of that country's soldiers, and the USA will soon abandon you.
The very best Iraqis – and members of their families – will be slaughtered like animals.
It will mean the end of the possibility of the rise of a moderate form of Islam for the foreseeable future, perhaps generations. In the Arab/Muslim world, might is revered, and the victorious Islamists will therefore be revered. Moreover, they will have earned the right to claim that they constitute an unstoppable force. If America, the most powerful country in the world, surrenders to them because the Islamists murder fellow Muslims and killed the indescribably tragic but militarily small total of 3,000 soldiers in four years – one-one-hundredth the losses the U.S. experienced in World War II – who in the Muslim world will stand up to them?
Iraq will turn into a far more potent terror base than Afghanistan could ever be. One of the major powers of the Arab world, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, may well be ruled by jihadists.
Moderate Arab regimes will likely be overthrown by a combination of an emboldened Iran and an Islamist Iraq that regards moderate Arabs and Muslims as loathsome as, if not more so than, Americans and Jews. It is almost inconceivable, for example, that the Jordanian monarchy would long survive an American defeat in Iraq.
The American military will suffer a crisis of morale that it will not soon overcome. Though defeated not by the Islamist enemy but by the American left – most particularly the Democratic Party and the mainstream news media – it will be hard to convince many people to join or stay in the U.S. military. Why bother? Even if you do a great job, if you haven't done it all – whatever "all" means in a place like Iraq – you will be told that you lost the war.
And those who have heretofore murdered fellow Muslims will focus their attention on murdering us. The left dismisses the argument that it is far better to fight them in Iraq than in Europe and America. But the dismissal is simply irrational. The people we are fighting, including Osama bin Laden and all the variations on al-Qaida, know that the battle for Iraq is the battle for their future – that if they win in Iraq, they win all over the Middle East and beyond; that if they lose there, America and the West win.
But none of this matters to the left because Democrats and others on the left do not ask what will happen if America leaves Iraq. They are certain that the war was wrong, and that, in addition to handing George W. Bush and the Republicans a defeat, is what they seem to care about.
stephanie
05-02-2007, 05:55 PM
I don't believe they care...
As long as it will be shown as a defeat against President Bush and Republicans, that's their only care about it..
How sad is that..
Gaffer
05-02-2007, 06:20 PM
You see it in the posters here. The Bush hatred takes presidence over everything else. There are long term strategic goals that need to be accomplished in iraq and all the libs can think about is defeat Bush and win the white house.
typomaniac
05-02-2007, 07:07 PM
And if we DON'T leave Iraq...
...exactly the same things will happen.
The only differences will be that the process will take longer and claim the lives of many more of our troops.
And the whole situation was Bush's doing. So find a real solution: put up or shut up.
stephanie
05-02-2007, 07:22 PM
Yes President Bush started this war, with the help from a lot of Democrats..
So, the the Dems. and the liberals have a chance right now, to stand behind the United States, and the Iraqis...
To do the right thing...
But it doesn't look like they will....Sad.
:salute:
typomaniac
05-02-2007, 07:27 PM
Yes President Bush started this war, with the help from a lot of Democrats..
So, the the Dems. and the liberals have a chance right now, to stand behind the United States, and the Iraqis...
To do the right thing...
But it doesn't look like they will....Sad.
:salute:You want the GOP to come up with a better solution than the Democrats have? I'd like to see it happen, too.
I'm waiting......................
diuretic
05-02-2007, 08:42 PM
Okay you've won me over. The US should stay in Iraq, keep pouring in more personnel and more materiel.
Mr. P
05-02-2007, 09:18 PM
And if we DON'T leave Iraq...
...exactly the same things will happen.
The only differences will be that the process will take longer and claim the lives of many more of our troops.
And the whole situation was Bush's doing. So find a real solution: put up or shut up.
:laugh2: What a joke! Nothing will be good enough for the Bush haters. Even coming home won't be good enough. It a no win with you guys.
And if we DON'T leave Iraq...
...exactly the same things will happen.
The only differences will be that the process will take longer and claim the lives of many more of our troops.
And the whole situation was Bush's doing. So find a real solution: put up or shut up.
Proof?
loosecannon
05-02-2007, 10:14 PM
And if we DON'T leave Iraq...
...exactly the same things will happen.
The only differences will be that the process will take longer and claim the lives of many more of our troops.
And the whole situation was Bush's doing. So find a real solution: put up or shut up.
Well said.
But there isn't a solution that would satisfy everone.
Bush entered Iraq to establish a PERMANENT US presence. It is about oil and petro currency mortality.
Bush fucked up a reasonably stable ME to end up with no reasonable compromise left.
What should we do now? admit the error, find a real president, and do the best we can to salvage our reputation.
Anything Bush does, will make the world a worse place. Send Bush back to the ranch to clear brush. Nobody wants him screwing up the balance of power.
He will never be qualified to be president.
loosecannon
05-02-2007, 10:16 PM
:laugh2: What a joke! Nothing will be good enough for the Bush haters. Even coming home won't be good enough. It a no win with you guys.
It is no win anyway Mr P.
NOTHING we do now can restore Iraq and the ME to the same relative stability and peace enjoyed pre-invasion.
Nothing.
Pale Rider
05-02-2007, 10:24 PM
It is no win anyway Mr P.
NOTHING we do now can restore Iraq and the ME to the same relative stability and peace enjoyed pre-invasion.
Nothing.
I think it's pretty clear what will happen if we leave, just like the article said.
Does the left really want more terrorist attacks here in America? Because that's what will happen.
loosecannon
05-02-2007, 10:30 PM
I think it's pretty clear what will happen if we leave, just like the article said.
Does the left really want more terrorist attacks here in America? Because that's what will happen.
PR, no way. Bin Laden was an island of anti american resentment.
Iraq has almost nothing to do with terrorism against the US.
Iraq is the distraction that prevents us from confronting terrorism. It sucks our resources, breaks our military, divides us and accomplishes nothing.
82Marine89
05-02-2007, 10:35 PM
You see it in the posters here. The Bush hatred takes presidence over everything else. There are long term strategic goals that need to be accomplished in iraq and all the libs can think about is defeat Bush and win the white house.
That is because their opinions are emotion based. When you force them to argue facts, they can't. Instead, depending on the topic, they try to use words like baby killer, racist, xenophobe, and homophobe in a lame attempt to shame us into being quiet.
stephanie
05-02-2007, 10:43 PM
Something I find amusing...Is how the left refers to this as.....Bush's war...
I guess that makes them forget about all them Democrats who voted for it, also...
Hell....Two of their top Presidential candidates voted for it..
But, oh that's right.....THEY WERE MISLED...:poke:
:coffee:
typomaniac
05-02-2007, 10:56 PM
Proof?Dennis Prager can't "prove" what's going to happen, nor can anyone else.
Your solution?
stephanie
05-02-2007, 11:13 PM
The solution is to listen to the Commanders who are over there...
What's so hard about that???
Until they say something different, I'll take their word for things, and support our troops 1000%.
:salute:
diuretic
05-02-2007, 11:26 PM
The solution is to listen to the Commanders who are over there...
What's so hard about that???
Until they say something different, I'll take their word for things, and support our troops 1000%.
:salute:
The commanders are taking their orders from Bush and Gates. They will tell Bush and Gates what they want to hear. Then Bush and Gates will tell everyone else that this is what the commanders told them.
stephanie
05-02-2007, 11:31 PM
The commanders are taking their orders from Bush and Gates. They will tell Bush and Gates what they want to hear. Then Bush and Gates will tell everyone else that this is what the commanders told them.
Pfeesh
You make it sound as if our military....are idiots..:slap:
The solution is to listen to the Commanders who are over there...
What's so hard about that???
Until they say something different, I'll take their word for things, and support our troops 1000%.
:salute:
Care to tell me what happened to the last 2 commanders that told Bush a surge was not what was needed?
Dennis Prager can't "prove" what's going to happen, nor can anyone else.
Your solution?
Good luck with that, typo. 2 pages and still no answer.
stephanie
05-02-2007, 11:34 PM
Care to tell me what happened to the last 2 commanders that told Bush a surge was not what was needed?
Nope..
diuretic
05-02-2007, 11:41 PM
Pfeesh
You make it sound as if our military....are idiots..:slap:
One thing I wouldn't do is that. No. I will say that it appears as if the very senior officers are compliant. But then how do I know? For all I know the brass is standing up to Gates and Bush and telling them that they're idiots who wouldn't have a clue how to prosecute a war...but the last brass that did that to Rumsfeld are now ex-brass.
Maybe the brass are looking after their careers then.
diuretic
05-02-2007, 11:42 PM
Care to tell me what happened to the last 2 commanders that told Bush a surge was not what was needed?
Thanks lily that's much more concise that my blather :laugh2:
stephanie
05-02-2007, 11:49 PM
Didn't think so.
Well....do tell..??
For starters....who are you talking about?
Well......I'll mkae it easy on you. Let's start with Casey.
stephanie
05-03-2007, 12:05 AM
Well......I'll mkae it easy on you. Let's start with Casey.
So?
They work for the CIC..
So?
They work for the CIC..
Did you forget the question? Here, let me help you.
Originally Posted by lily
Care to tell me what happened to the last 2 commanders that told Bush a surge was not what was needed?
stephanie
05-03-2007, 12:08 AM
Did you forget the question? Here, let me help you.
SO????
manu1959
05-03-2007, 12:11 AM
i call bullshit...the dems know exactly what happens....
vietnam
somalia
rawanda
they pulled out all three times........bill knows what happens when you pull out too quick.....huh bill.....can you say blue dress.....
SO????
Good answer!:lame2:
i call bullshit...the dems know exactly what happens....
vietnam
somalia
rawanda
they pulled out all three times........bill knows what happens when you pull out too quick.....huh bill.....can you say blue dress.....
Oh, for the love of Mike.........this bill is not calling for an immediate pullout.
manu1959
05-03-2007, 12:17 AM
Oh, for the love of Mike.........this bill is not calling for an immediate pullout.
they should leave it in.....they really haven't met her needs.....liberals....it is all about themselves
stephanie
05-03-2007, 12:22 AM
Good answer!:lame2:
What more is there to say..
President Bush, is still the CIC...
He can replace anybody he wants..You all sure didn't have a problem when he let Donald Rumsfield go...
So....my answer is still.............SO!
:laugh2:
they should leave it in.....they really haven't met her needs.....liberals....it is all about themselves
Manu, you let me down. I expected better than a pat answer, those I can get from anybody.
manu1959
05-03-2007, 12:25 AM
Manu, you let me down. I expected better than a pat answer, those I can get from anybody.
yes......i am like that....four plays is way beyond me...one maybe two plays is all i have in me
What more is there to say..
President Bush, is still the CIC...
He can replace anybody he wants..You all sure didn't have a problem when he let Donald Rumsfield go...
So....my answer is still.............SO!
:laugh2:
Well then Stephanie....you should be choking on your words, want a drink of water?:
The solution is to listen to the Commanders who are over there...
What's so hard about that???
Until they say something different, I'll take their word for things, and support our troops 1000%.
You all sure didn't have a problem when he let Donald Rumsfield go...
Why would I have a problem with him letting Rumsfailed go? Days before the election he said Rumsfailed was going nowhere. Day after the election.....bye-bye.
Honestly you're not making any sense.
yes......i am like that....four plays is way beyond me...one maybe two plays is all i have in me
LMAO..:laugh2:
stephanie
05-03-2007, 12:31 AM
Well then Stephanie....you should be choking on your words, want a drink of water?:
Why would I have a problem with him letting Rumsfeld go? Days before the election he said Rumsfeld was going nowhere. Day after the election.....bye-bye.
Honestly you're not making any sense.
According to you.......I never do.......so whats new??:laugh2:
Shoot....I'm a poet, and didn't know it..
According to you.......I never do.......so whats new??:laugh2:
Shoot....I'm a poet, and didn't know it..
Well you're not right very often, but in this case, I'd have to say you were right.
stephanie
05-03-2007, 12:34 AM
Well you're not right very often, but in this case, I'd have to say you were right.
Aaaaaaaaaa. that warms me wittle hart...
I guess, I could say the same about you.....But.......I wont stoop that low..:cheers2:
manu1959
05-03-2007, 12:49 AM
more wine.......you two?
stephanie
05-03-2007, 01:00 AM
more wine.......you two?
No wine for me......another cape cod will do..:laugh2:
Pale Rider
05-03-2007, 01:23 AM
No wine for me......another cape cod will do..:laugh2:
OK... I'll drink your wine... :cheers2: :laugh2:
stephanie
05-03-2007, 01:34 AM
OK... I'll drink your wine... :cheers2: :laugh2:
You can have it......yuk..:laugh2:
Pale Rider
05-03-2007, 01:37 AM
You can have it......yuk..:laugh2:
Try this stuff Steph... "Sparkling White Zinfendel." Champaign.... GOOD STUFF! (Berringer)
Baron Von Esslingen
05-03-2007, 02:13 AM
What more is there to say..
President Bush, is still the CIC...
He can replace anybody he wants..You all sure didn't have a problem when he let Donald Rumsfield go...
So....my answer is still.............SO!
:laugh2:
And the point that Lily is making that you SO conveniently avoided (or were clueless about), the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field." Nothing changes with the Chimp. One lie after another.
As for Prager's attempts at clairvoyance he forgot about the 800 pound gorilla in the area: Saudi Arabia. Not a word about what they would do if we left Iraq. Discussing the future of the Middle East and not mentioning the House of Saud is like telling me about rock and roll and not mentioning the Beatles. Makes old Mr Prager out to be nothing more than a rightwing ideologue with the same neocon blather that we have been force fed for four years. In other words, he's full of shit.
Here's my favorite part:
The people running North Korea are presumably as evil as the Islamists. But there is no ideology emanating from North Korea that threatens mankind. We are fighting an ideology, supported by millions of people, that wishes to conquer the world and routinely engages in mass murder of the innocent – especially the innocent – to achieve its totalitarian goals.
I can rip this stupid wad of crap apart in.....hmmmmm.....one word:
Communism.
Like I said, Prager is full of shit and if you believe him, you are as bad off as he is. Maybe even worse.
Pale Rider
05-03-2007, 02:17 AM
the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field."
PROVE IT... assbag. :link:
stephanie
05-03-2007, 02:18 AM
And the point that Lily is making that you SO conveniently avoided (or were clueless about), the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field." Nothing changes with the Chimp. One lie after another.
As for Prager's attempts at clairvoyance he forgot about the 800 pound gorilla in the area: Saudi Arabia. Not a word about what they would do if we left Iraq. Discussing the future of the Middle East and not mentioning the House of Saud is like telling me about rock and roll and not mentioning the Beatles. Makes old Mr Prager out to be nothing more than a rightwing ideologue with the same neocon blather that we have been force fed for four years. In other words, he's full of shit.
Here's my favorite part:
I can rip this stupid wad of crap apart in.....hmmmmm.....one word:
Communism.
Like I said, Prager is full of shit and if you believe him, you are as bad off as he is. Maybe even worse.
And, as I said.....The President can replace anyone he feels like..
You all wanted a change, he did...Then ya all bitch about that...Nothing new here, move along..
Or..... maybe it's you all.......who is CLUELESS...:cheers2:
Gaffer
05-03-2007, 09:34 AM
And the point that Lily is making that you SO conveniently avoided (or were clueless about), the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field." Nothing changes with the Chimp. One lie after another.
As for Prager's attempts at clairvoyance he forgot about the 800 pound gorilla in the area: Saudi Arabia. Not a word about what they would do if we left Iraq. Discussing the future of the Middle East and not mentioning the House of Saud is like telling me about rock and roll and not mentioning the Beatles. Makes old Mr Prager out to be nothing more than a rightwing ideologue with the same neocon blather that we have been force fed for four years. In other words, he's full of shit.
Here's my favorite part:
I can rip this stupid wad of crap apart in.....hmmmmm.....one word:
Communism.
Like I said, Prager is full of shit and if you believe him, you are as bad off as he is. Maybe even worse.
It must be great to have such insight as to the workings of the CIC and his interaction with his military commanders. Do you use a crystal ball to see the goings on and secret meetings? Or did you see it in a dream?
loosecannon
05-03-2007, 09:48 AM
Something I find amusing...Is how the left refers to this as.....Bush's war...
I guess that makes them forget about all them Democrats who voted for it, also...
Hell....Two of their top Presidential candidates voted for it..
But, oh that's right.....THEY WERE MISLED...:poke:
:coffee:
It is Bush's war, exclusively. And he called himself the war president.
Bush is all alone trying to keep the war going until he leaves office.
typomaniac
05-03-2007, 11:23 AM
The solution is to listen to the Commanders who are over there...
What's so hard about that???
Until they say something different, I'll take their word for things, and support our troops 1000%.
:salute:I thought we had been listening to the commanders over there. And the results have been craptacularly bad.
You want to keep doing the same thing and expect different results? That's the classic definition of insanity. :uhoh:
more wine.......you two?
Gives me a headace, bourbon please.
And the point that Lily is making that you SO conveniently avoided (or were clueless about), the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field." Nothing changes with the Chimp. One lie after another.
Baron, I just use Stephanie to get my post count up. I never exect an intelligent answer, so I'm never disappointed.
And, as I said.....The President can replace anyone he feels like..
You all wanted a change, he did...Then ya all bitch about that...Nothing new here, move along..
Or..... maybe it's you all.......who is CLUELESS...:cheers2:
Right again.........you're on a streak!:clap:
stephanie
05-03-2007, 11:13 PM
I think someone has a crush on me..:dance:
PROVE IT... assbag. :link:
I'm not an assbag, but I will give you your links. When you want to discuss another General let go because he said something Bush didn't want to hear about this war, let me know.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/05/politics/main2332894.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2332894
The president on Friday nominated Adm. William Fallon, described by people
who have worked for him as "caustic," "arrogant" and an "SOB," to take over
central command from Gen. John Abizaid. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, perhaps the
most controversial officer in the Army because of his "Type A" personality
and what many view as his too-cozy relationship with the media, will replace
Gen. George Casey as top American general in Iraq. Both men must be approved
by the Senate.
Both Abizaid and Casey have expressed qualms in recent weeks about boosting
U.S. forces in Iraq. Abizaid said an increase of 20,000 could not be
sustained for long by the overburdened American military, and Casey said
such a boost should be used only to advance U.S. strategic goals.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070122/klare
Ominous Signs of a Wider War
Michael T. Klare
On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was
replacing Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command
(Centcom)--the body responsible for oversight of all US forces in Iraq,
Afghanistan and the greater Middle East--with Adm. William Fallon, currently
the commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several
senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for
Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.
The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several
respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As
head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will oversee at
Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all
combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave
Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as
commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon
is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of
Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against
insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the
White House to sweep away bitter ground-force commanders like Abizaid and
Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for
shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby
permitting a gradual American withdrawal. "The Baghdad situation requires
more Iraqi troops," not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview
with the New York Times. For this alone, Abizaid had to go.
I think someone has a crush on me..:dance:
You think?
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 03:04 AM
...the last two commanders that told Bush the surge was not needed got fired. He then promoted someone who had the same views as himself so he could disingenuously claim that "he listens to his commanders in the field."
PROVE IT... assbag. :link:
Here ya go, fucktard. Sorry there aren't any pictures. Maybe someone can read it to you, as if that will help you comprehend what's going on. Shithead.
In devising his new strategy, Bush again turned to the neoconservatives. The so-called surge strategy is the brainchild of Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute who has never been to Iraq. And once again, President Bush dismissed the views of his military advisers. General George Casey and General John Abizaid, the commanders in the field, doubted that additional troops would make any difference in Iraq. They were replaced by surge advocates, including Lieutenant General David Petraeus, now the top commander in Iraq.
Here's your link, bitch. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19950)
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 03:12 AM
And, as I said.....The President can replace anyone he feels like..
You all wanted a change, he did...Then ya all bitch about that...Nothing new here, move along..
Or..... maybe it's you all.......who is CLUELESS...:cheers2:
Yep. The president CAN replace anyone he wants as far as military commanders go. That's what he's been doing fo the last four years and that's why we are still there and will continue to be there for the next two years. He ignores his commanders when they tell him a "truth" he does not want to hear, fires them, says we are making progress and little rightwing toadies swallow the whole thing like eating flies off a pile of horseshit. Another 18 months of this and Hillary will be our new president.
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 03:18 AM
It must be great to have such insight as to the workings of the CIC and his interaction with his military commanders. Do you use a crystal ball to see the goings on and secret meetings? Or did you see it in a dream?
It's called reading the newspaper, boyo. Reading comprehension is required and avoid the funnies; they add little to what we do here. Also avoid websites like the RNC because while you get talking points, you don't get the gray matter to understand what they are asking you to parrot when you post here. Crystal balls, tarot cards, astrology, and dream interpretations are matters best left to professionals. Reagan used them for his policy decisions and military matters and we all see how that turned out.
stephanie
05-04-2007, 03:20 AM
Yep. The president CAN replace anyone he wants as far as military commanders go. That's what he's been doing fo the last four years and that's why we are still there and will continue to be there for the next two years. He ignores his commanders when they tell him a "truth" he does not want to hear, fires them, says we are making progress and little rightwing toadies swallow the whole thing like eating flies off a pile of horseshit. Another 18 months of this and Hillary will be our new president.
And what do you think Hill will do if Iraq is still going on??
Don't forget now...she also voted for the war.
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 03:21 AM
Baron, I just use Stephanie to get my post count up. I never exect an intelligent answer, so I'm never disappointed.
I know, sweetie, I do, too. She does come up with some cute emoticons but they are a poor substitute for ACTUAL discussion. :beer: Have a beer on me. I'm all out of scotch.
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 03:27 AM
And what do you think Hill will do if Iraq is still going on??
Don't forget now...she also voted for the war.
After being misled on the intel by the Bushies she did but she is now against continuing our involvement in what has become a civil war in Iraq. She'll get us the hell out of there and let the UN and the Arab League deal with it. That's their job. It's not ours. We are NOT the policeman of the world, despite your Boy George's attempts to make us so.
stephanie
05-04-2007, 03:29 AM
I know, sweetie, I do, too. She does come up with some cute emoticons but they are a poor substitute for ACTUAL discussion. :beer: Have a beer on me. I'm all out of scotch.
I had no idea... how LOVED I am..
Warms the ole heart..
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thcheer.gif
stephanie
05-04-2007, 04:17 AM
After being misled on the Intel by the Bushies she did but she is now against continuing our involvement in what has become a civil war in Iraq. She'll get us the hell out of there and let the UN and the Arab League deal with it. That's their job. It's not ours. We are NOT the policeman of the world, despite your Boy George's attempts to make us so.
You can continue on saying the Shrill was misled into voting for this war..And I guess you just might make yourself believe it..
But, it's been proven over and over, the she and all the other Democrats who voted for the war...Had the same information the President had, hell she had the same information that her husband had, when he was President..
Remember that guy......George Tenet...He worked for both, President Bush and the BJ...
But hey..If it makes ya feel better about trying to absolve her of her vote for the war, so you can rail at President Bush...Have at it...Still won't make it come true....
And if we're not the policemen of the world...What did you call it when Bj used our military in other countries........Babysitters..:poke:
Baron Von Esslingen
05-04-2007, 11:28 AM
You can continue on saying the Shrill was misled into voting for this war..And I guess you just might make yourself believe it..But, it's been proven over and over, the she and all the other Democrats who voted for the war...Had the same information the President had, hell she had the same information that her husband had, when he was President...Remember that guy......George Tenet...He worked for both, President Bush and the BJ...But hey..If it makes ya feel better about trying to absolve her of her vote for the war, so you can rail at President Bush...Have at it...Still won't make it come true....
Well, the fact of the matter is that it IS true. The intel that insiders knew about is different, and much less compelling, than the "truth" that the neocon advisors of the president handed out to the Senate before the war.
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat says he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee.
"The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said Wednesday when talking on the Senate floor about the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002.
"I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."
Mr. Durbin's comments come after years of inquiries and debate about prewar intelligence, and as congressional leaders clash over Democrats' calls to pull out of Iraq.link for your pleasure (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070427-124842-1706r.htm)
And if we're not the policemen of the world...What did you call it when Bj used our military in other countries........Babysitters..:poke:
Peacekeepers. A concept so foreign to this WH and his neocon cronies I'm not surprised you couldn't come up with the correct word. Say it with me now: peacekeepers. Imagine a war without US forces being killed. Can you say Bosnia? How about Kosovo? I didn't think so.
Dilloduck
05-04-2007, 12:07 PM
Well, the fact of the matter is that it IS true. The intel that insiders knew about is different, and much less compelling, than the "truth" that the neocon advisors of the president handed out to the Senate before the war.
link for your pleasure (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070427-124842-1706r.htm)
Peacekeepers. A concept so foreign to this WH and his neocon cronies I'm not surprised you couldn't come up with the correct word. Say it with me now: peacekeepers. Imagine a war without US forces being killed. Can you say Bosnia? How about Kosovo? I didn't think so.
There is no peace to keep. If there were, the United States could leave in a heartbeat. As long as the factions contributing to continued violence are only interested in a victory there never will be peace.
I had no idea... how LOVED I am..
Warms the ole heart..
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/thcheer.gif
Makes sense to you I guess.
Gaffer
05-04-2007, 07:02 PM
It's called reading the newspaper, boyo. Reading comprehension is required and avoid the funnies; they add little to what we do here. Also avoid websites like the RNC because while you get talking points, you don't get the gray matter to understand what they are asking you to parrot when you post here. Crystal balls, tarot cards, astrology, and dream interpretations are matters best left to professionals. Reagan used them for his policy decisions and military matters and we all see how that turned out.
So you get your insight from newspapers. Like the times and wapo I bet. That will sure tell you all about what's going on in private meetings I'm sure. Very creative bunch there with NO agenda of their own at all. :rolleyes:
I really don't know of any reporters from the newspapers that take part in high level meetings so they know what is discussed in them. And whether a general agreed or disagreed with the president. So all you have is either your or a reporters opinion on how the war is being run and nothing more.
The generals come up with plans. The president either approves them or not. If the plan works the general is a hero. If it doesn't work he gets fired.(retired)
I suggest you try reading some milblogs and embedded bloggers instead of newspapers. RNC and DNC and the leftwing sites don't give you anything but talking points and hate speech. But that's obviously all you can bother reading.
So you get your insight from newspapers. Like the times and wapo I bet. That will sure tell you all about what's going on in private meetings I'm sure. Very creative bunch there with NO agenda of their own at all. :rolleyes:
I really don't know of any reporters from the newspapers that take part in high level meetings so they know what is discussed in them. And whether a general agreed or disagreed with the president. So all you have is either your or a reporters opinion on how the war is being run and nothing more.
Well......er.......um.......they interview the people who were at those meeting and then write about what they were told. I know it sounds weird, but that's the way it's been done for ages.
I suggest you try reading some milblogs and embedded bloggers instead of newspapers. RNC and DNC and the leftwing sites don't give you anything but talking points and hate speech. But that's obviously all you can bother reading.
I can come right here and get that.
Gaffer
05-04-2007, 08:07 PM
Well......er.......um.......they interview the people who were at those meeting and then write about what they were told. I know it sounds weird, but that's the way it's been done for ages.
So they interview a general who can only talk in a limited way because of security reasons and they make assumptions based on what he says, which is pratically nothing.
baron is saying that he KNOWS what is being discussed and I want to know how. A newspaper account doesn't qualify. Closed meetings and hearings are done that way because of security reasons. What goes on in there is not for common knowledge.
I can come right here and get that.
Yes you can, I pass on a lot of what I read here. But I have yet to find anyone privy to private meetings between Bush and the generals.
Kathianne
05-04-2007, 08:26 PM
Yes you can, I pass on a lot of what I read here. But I have yet to find anyone privy to private meetings between Bush and the generals.
Better yet, they speak to a general that is retired, but highly regarded in a previous administration. :rolleyes:
loosecannon
05-04-2007, 09:13 PM
The generals come up with plans. The president either approves them or not. If the plan works the general is a hero. If it doesn't work he gets fired.(retired)
You have no idea whether this is true or just your fantasy of oval office methodology.
Word is that Bush's WH pretty much tells everybody in uncertain terms what plans they want to consider.
Generals have been fired just for making public statements about what they would "plan" for Iraq that deviated from what Bush wanted to hear.
Gaffe, you don't have a grasp on reality outside of your home. YOU as much as anybody on the board subscribes to partisan talking points as info and news.
What about that log in your eye?
loosecannon
05-04-2007, 09:15 PM
Better yet, they speak to a general that is retired, but highly regarded in a previous administration. :rolleyes:
So what if the general was highly regarded in another admin 6 years ago.
The military only promotes the very highest ranks thru the sec def. The rest are handled thru ordinary military command which is republican leaning generally, and detached from the administration.
but nice try
[QUOTE]So they interview a general who can only talk in a limited way because of security reasons and they make assumptions based on what he says, which is pratically nothing.
baron is saying that he KNOWS what is being discussed and I want to know how. A newspaper account doesn't qualify. Closed meetings and hearings are done that way because of security reasons. What goes on in there is not for common knowledge.
If you would have clicked on the link in Baron's post, you would have read that the senator was talking about. Trust me, it all makes sense, if you read the article.
Yes you can, I pass on a lot of what I read here.
The only problem with that is it's not verifiable.
But I have yet to find anyone privy to private meetings between Bush and the generals.
Petraeus, Bush, Cheney, Gates and Condi talk about what happend in meeting all the time.
jimnyc
08-31-2016, 05:36 AM
Well said.
But there isn't a solution that would satisfy everone.
Bush entered Iraq to establish a PERMANENT US presence. It is about oil and petro currency mortality.
Bush fucked up a reasonably stable ME to end up with no reasonable compromise left.
What should we do now? admit the error, find a real president, and do the best we can to salvage our reputation.
Anything Bush does, will make the world a worse place. Send Bush back to the ranch to clear brush. Nobody wants him screwing up the balance of power.
He will never be qualified to be president.
And how did the next "qualified" president do in Iraq? Did he admit errors and handle everything as a (D) would dream about? And with the way the ever great Obama handled things for 8 years, things are SO much better over there now, right? We won't expect answers as we know the whole lot of you crawled under the closest rocks as soon as the "most transparent administration" wasn't so transparent. You know, about 2 weeks after he took office.
Yep. The president CAN replace anyone he wants as far as military commanders go. That's what he's been doing fo the last four years and that's why we are still there and will continue to be there for the next two years. He ignores his commanders when they tell him a "truth" he does not want to hear, fires them, says we are making progress and little rightwing toadies swallow the whole thing like eating flies off a pile of horseshit.
I wonder if Obama was so much better, and how he took the advice of those on the ground? Everyone has learned to call his working with such commanders as a "purge". But I'm guess it doesn't matter, that you didn't mention a single thing about commanders being ignored or let go.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.