View Full Version : Deeper in denial than an Egyptian diver.
He's at it again, like a gambler on a losing streak Bush is continually raising the stakes to try and break even, when we're up to our necks in a swamp Bush has decided to wade in deeper.
He lied to start the war and last night he lied to try and escalate it. He pretended he has the backing of the military, the senior Commander in Iraq advised against, Bush replaced him. He pretended he has the backing of Congress, the Congress he had the backing of were booted out by the American people for incompetence. Once again he linked Iraq to 9/11 when there was no link. He blamed Iran and Syria for destabalising Iraq, it was him who destabalised Iraq not Iran or Syria. Once again he's blaming the imaginary bogey man "Al Qaeda", Al Qaeda is just a name he pins on people he doesn't like as an excuse to kill them and any innocent civillians who just happen to be in the way.
The Brainless Horseman of the Apocalypse rides again.
Boozeburglar
11-Jan-07, 13:51
I think it is a good idea to send a lot more troops at the moment. If you are planning to pull out eventually, you have to establish some form of secure platform before you do. The mistake was in failing to send enough troops in the first place.
Preferably they would be sourced from a variety of nations, but it is better than nothing.
I think it is a good idea to send a lot more troops at the moment. If you are planning to pull out eventually, you have to establish some form of secure platform before you do. The mistake was in failing to send enough troops in the first place.
No, the mistake was sending any troops at all after weapons of mass destruction that just did not exist. Only the Neocon horse the Brainless Horseman rode in on has failed to see that.
America is now bombing yet another poor defenceless country, Somalia, to install a puppet goverment the people do not want.
Boozeburglar
11-Jan-07, 14:58
Troops were sent in though.
There should have been sufficient to secure the region, commited long term to provide some stability.
Whether the original premise used for the action was mistaken or not is besides the point.
No, the mistake was sending any troops at all after weapons of mass destruction that just did not exist. Only the Neocon horse the Brainless Horseman rode in on has failed to see that.
America is now bombing yet another poor defenceless country, Somalia, to install a puppet goverment the people do not want.
The biggest mistake was not going all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. They would have got rid of Saddam then and found poisonous gas and weapons of mass destruction at that time.
The biggest mistake was not going all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. They would have got rid of Saddam then and found poisonous gas and weapons of mass destruction at that time.
Right on Cattach, they should have got him then.
Troops were sent in though.
There should have been sufficient to secure the region, commited long term to provide some stability.
Whether the original premise used for the action was mistaken or not is besides the point.
You are making the mistake of thinking of American troops as the solution when the fact is they are the problem. The more troops the bigger the problem.
Iraq was stable till they got there, any instability is of their making. More troops, more instability.
In 2003 two thirds of Iraqis supported the Americans, now nine tenths are against. Quite an achievement, they've snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
The way to have peace isn't by having more troops, it is by having fewer enemies.
George Brims
11-Jan-07, 19:48
Fred, while I agree with a lot of what you say (the two of us could hold a "who detests George Bu$h more?" contest) , but it's a bit disingenuous to say Iraq was stable before the US troops got there. A person who has fallen down a well is in a stable position, being incapable of falling any further, but not in a good place.
A better solution to the whole thing was for the US to have actually talked constructively to other nations and got a firmer consensus on sanctions. Sanctions don't work unless everyone plays along (look at how long Smith's Rhodesia lasted because the US insisted on its need for chrome). Iraqi regime change should have come from within, under economic pressure. Unfortunately that would almost certainly have taken a long time, but I see that as infinitely preferable to the mess we're in now.
Fred, while I agree with a lot of what you say (the two of us could hold a "who detests George Bu$h more?" contest) , but it's a bit disingenuous to say Iraq was stable before the US troops got there. A person who has fallen down a well is in a stable position, being incapable of falling any further, but not in a good place.
It's all relative of course, I mean they were stable compared to what they are now, not in the middle of a bloody civil war.
The biggest mistake was not going all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War. They would have got rid of Saddam then and found poisonous gas and weapons of mass destruction at that time.
We'd never have heard about it if they had found them then, they were only ever an excuse, in GWI they already had an excuse.
They'd have spirited them away before anyone saw the "Made in the USA" label.
Boozeburglar
11-Jan-07, 20:35
You are making the mistake of thinking of American troops as the solution when the fact is they are the problem.
I have a good idea Fred, why don't I tell you what I am thinking?
You don’t have a clue what I am thinking.
If there is a point in debating the issue at all here on a community website far removed from the sharp end of the problem, then surely it is to share our opinions on the matter at hand, as well as how it came to be.
You seem to have some idealistic notion that a continued anti-Bush/US diatribe will remove them from the arena post haste.
Naïve in the extreme.
The proposed increase in troop presence demonstrates the willingness of the current US administration to throw real manpower at the problem, something they have been recently been hesitant to do when it seems against the odds.
Despite what political gain they seek to make now, the Democrats will fear upsetting the status quo once they assume the reigns, and any step down from the whole ‘War Against Terror’ will be very long winded and stretch over many administrations to come.
I think we are looking at a huge US military presence in the region spanning decades.
Whether or not they can really afford it.
So, my opinions and reflections mirror this aspect of my thinking.
I have little interest in debating how things would be had the US done things differently. I am interested in a discussion of possible future developments.
To use the whole sorry episode as an excuse for never ending ranting about Zionists and US anti Muslim subplots is a waste of an opportunity for intelligent debate.
In my honest opinion, of course.
Right on Cattach, they should have got him then.
Why get him at all? He was only a tinpot dictator, there's plenty of them in the world that we don't feel the need to spend five hundred billion dollars killing a million people to get rid of. That works out at half a million dollars per dead Iraqi by the way.
Couldn't we just have let Saddam live in luxury at a top London Hotel and declare him unfit to stand trial for his human rights abuses...like we did with Pinochet?
The proposed increase in troop presence demonstrates the willingness of the current US administration to throw real manpower at the problem, something they have been recently been hesitant to do when it seems against the odds.
It's throwing manpower at things that creates the problems.
Bush blames the Syrians for the problems, he blames Iran for the problems and he blames Al Qaeda for the problems but the real problem is a Muslem country occupied by American troops.
The Iraqi people don't want more American troops in Iraq, the Iraqi government don't want more American troops in Iraq, the top military commander in Iraq said it was a bad idea, the Baker Report advised reducing troop levels, 78% of American troops think they should be out of there within the year, the majority of the American public want the troops withdrawn as soon as possible as do Congress.
There is only one way to sort out the mess in Iraq and that is to sit down with all the interested parties, including the parties Bush outlawed, including Iran and Syria and talk terms. That was the findings of the Baker Report and I don't know why it took all those people all that time and money to say what has been blatantly obvious all along.
Instead Bush is sending in more troops along with another aircraft carrier and doing his best to antagonise Iran and Syria. He's not working for peace, he's pushing for a long and bloody war, a war America won't be able to walk away from as how much they want to.
George Brims
12-Jan-07, 02:26
The proposed increase in troop presence demonstrates the willingness of the current US administration to throw real manpower at the problem, something they have been recently been hesitant to do when it seems against the odds.
On the contrary, as was pointed out on the radio last night as I drove home, this is the FIFTH "surge" in troop numbers, and the other four didn't work. Bush seems to think the solution to being in a big hole is simply to keep digging.
Somebody kick the Junk Box, the record's stuck again. :roll:
Boozeburglar
12-Jan-07, 03:35
On the contrary, as was pointed out on the radio last night as I drove home, this is the FIFTH "surge" in troop numbers, and the other four didn't work. Bush seems to think the solution to being in a big hole is simply to keep digging.
Sorry for not being clear, I was referring to other actions.
Here's hoping that the extra troops provide a breathing space in which the other means of dealing with this situation can be implemented. I am sure Bush is not going to be allowed to totally disregard the report findings.
He is not a one man band.
;)
the nomad
12-Jan-07, 11:50
We and I mean to coalition forces had a chance to end the Gulf problem in conflict number 1 but good old US of A backed down as they were afraid of bad public PR over possible deaths. So where now? Irrespective of whether Iraq is right or wrong, my support always goes to our troops, they are only doing their job and bloody good at it too. I think now our boys should come home they can't win the situation they are in, a faceless enemy, a corupt police force, an undisciplined local armed force, a barabaric government. It is no longer our problem and we can't change it, bring them home, NOW!!!!!!
Fred wrote
America is now bombing yet another poor defenceless country, Somalia, to install a puppet goverment the people do not want.
I am not sure that the above is striclty correct Fred, whilst I agree that the USA is involved in action there, I disagree that its aims are to install a puppet government that the peopel do not want. I think the people of Somalia would be grateful for any form of peace and stability, as they have not had government for some considerable time.
Boozeburglar
12-Jan-07, 13:22
Very true Scotsboy.
It is easy to forget that Iraq was, relatively speaking, a very stable country and thus other options might have prevailed. There are plenty countries out there who would benefit from some attention, and could do with help removing the rogue elements they can't.
Fred wrote
I am not sure that the above is striclty correct Fred, whilst I agree that the USA is involved in action there, I disagree that its aims are to install a puppet government that the peopel do not want. I think the people of Somalia would be grateful for any form of peace and stability, as they have not had government for some considerable time.
I think the people of any country prefer peace and stability to war and famine but unfortunately it isn't them that get to decide.
Rule from Washington you might just sell to the Somalians but rule by Ethiopia they just will not take and Ethiopia is America's ally, Ethiopian troops are supporting the puppet government.
I just learned today that GWB started Texas' wind energy industry. He also has one of the most eco-friendly houses in terms of water useage and solar energy useage etc. Wadda guy!
Somebody kick the Junk Box, the record's stuck again. :roll:
And it's spewing out posts like this one. How the Master of Diatribe has fallen!!!!!!:~(
I actually thought Fred had added a touch of humour to his posts but then realised that
The Brainless Horseman of the Apocalypse rides again.was actually not a signature.
George Brims
12-Jan-07, 19:15
We and I mean to coalition forces had a chance to end the Gulf problem in conflict number 1 but good old US of A backed down as they were afraid of bad public PR over possible deaths.
To be fair to bush 41, the reason the USA backed off was that the agreement with a lot of the Arab nations that joined the coalition was that they would free Kuwait, a sovereign nation under occupation, but not invade Iraq, another sovereign nation, albeit an ill-run and ill-behaved one. Those governments were well aware public opinion in their countries, which was generally favourable to the effort to liberate Kuwait, would swing hard the other way in that event - just as it has now due to the current occupation. I really wonder what Bush 41 thinks about what Bush 43 has done. I guarantee we'll never know!
northener
12-Jan-07, 23:27
"To be fair to bush 41, the reason the USA backed off was that the agreement with a lot of the Arab nations that joined the coalition was that they would free Kuwait, a sovereign nation under occupation, but not invade Iraq, another sovereign nation, albeit an ill-run and ill-behaved one. Those governments were well aware public opinion in their countries, which was generally favourable to the effort to liberate Kuwait, would swing hard the other way in that event "
Good asessment George.
Something else to consider - inflicting a Western 'democracy' on a state that has no notion of what that actually means is quite laughable. Most Middle Eastern states were carved out by Western powers and did not take into account tribal and religious divides.
The occupants of these countries value a 'strong' leader well above any Western idea of democracy and they will put up with a lot of grief if they believe they are 'strong'. As soon as you give them a chance to play fairly they will all try to get the upper hand over their neighbours and before you know it - you're back to square one again.
Middle Eastern people think differently to Westerners. Westerners think differently to Far Eastern people etc etc. Anyone who has travelled extensively (not just on holiday - actually mixing with the natives) will tell you that.
To assume that these countries will happily toe the touchy feely we're all equal western line is arrogance in the extreme and shows a complete lack of understanding of different cultures.
Lawrence of Arabia must be spinning in his grave!
No doubt someone will say that I'm politically incorrect.....
No doubt someone will say that I'm politically incorrect.....
I'd say you were correct.
Democracy is an ideal the same as any other, an ideal I personally believe in but I also believe it is wrong to impose your ideals on others at the point of a gun, even if they are right.
I have no problem with people saying we are different to Muslems, only people saying we are better than Muslems.
I hope one day we will make a real attempt help Iraq become a democracy, a propper democracy without someone halfway round the world dictating which parties won't be allowed to take part because that just isn't democracy and the people of Iraq know it.
George Brims
13-Jan-07, 01:49
Make no mistake people. Introducing democracy to Iraq was not the objective of the invasion. The neocon bampots behind this had no more interest in seeing Iraq a western-style democracy than I have in Morris dancing. They wanted the oil. When the first Viceroy or whatever they called him at the time proposed having swift elections, he was recalled to Washington and replaced. They couldn't have Iraq governing itself before the oil grab was complete.
And it's spewing out posts like this one. How the Master of Diatribe has fallen!!!!!!:~(Thank you for your contribution, I wouldn't have managed without it.
Don't worry, the tune has been the same for the last 50 years, week in, week out, only the names ever change. It's about as interesting as watching the Test Card to see if the Little Girl in the centre ever blinks.
All together now, one, two, three, "What do we want?" "(Blank)?", "When do we want it?" "Now!" Repeat the chant "ad nauseam".
Fill in your own "Blank", the sheep will still Bleat it whatever it is.
Anybody know who has vetoed the UN from attempting to stop the murderous Military Regime in Burma continuing to abuse the Human Rights of it's population and continuing to slaughter the minorities there? I'll bet that barely rates a mention by the usual suspects because it doesn't fit party line! I've little doubt they will carefully just happen not to notice what has happened.
I am always wary of people who wish to keep everybody's attention focused on one thing. It usually means they are busily distracting you so you don't see the things they are trying to hide.
It's the method used by every Con-man in the World. They keep your eyes focused on one thing so you don't see what is happening elsewhere. Don't complain when you are bitten by what's happening in the rest of the World whilst you are having your attention focused on one area only.
Anybody noticed which Country has recently taken to using gas and oil supplies as method of putting political pressure on other Countries if they "displease" it?
BTW what ever happened to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? Wasn't that the reason everyone is the region waving a big stick? Or is that me being naive and believing what I was told at the start? :eek:
BTW what ever happened to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda? Wasn't that the reason everyone is the region waving a big stick? Or is that me being naive and believing what I was told at the start? :eek:
Don't know what happened to Bin Laden but his number two has been killed 148 times.
Bin Laden and Saddam were enemies there was never any connection between him and Iraq, George Bush has since denied ever saying that their was. There was very little connection between Bin Laden and 9/11.
Al Qaeda wasn't a terrorist organisation, if it is now it is because America made it one. Al Qaeda was a file on a computer, a list of the names of international mujahideen who could be called on to go where they were needed and do what was required. It was set up by Bin Laden during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan on behalf of the Saudi and American governments on a computer at the Council of Arab States headquarters and could be accessed by anyone in the world who knew the telephone number and password.
It was just a list of names, no leader, no organisation, no goals, just a list of names. The database was used to recruit the 9/11 pilots just as it had been used by the CIA when they needed trouble starting in a particular part of the world to give America an excuse to send in the Marines but to call it a terrorist organisation was simply untrue and to say Bin Laden was its leader because he set it up was equally untrue.
But America needed an enemy, something concrete for the American people to fear, so they turned a file on a computer into a terrorist organisation.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.