The New ' Nam, or We seen this before

Quote:

---

Gawain, you wouldn't know a libertarian from a camel's hump. You've been 100% modern GOP Conservative in your views. That ain't libertarian

---

You couldnt be more wrong. Maybe if the GOP actually did what it stands for I would be. Im for far more liberty and less government. I think were being oppressed no matter which party is in power. I personally have had about enough of seeing our freedoms flushed down the toilet. Once more its only that the GOP at least in its rehtoric is far closer to my views then the democrats. You wouldnt know a libertarian if you stared one in the face. This you have made obvious. I claim to be a conservative first. This is where you fall down. You cant admit your a liberal at heart . At least on social matters.

Even though things looked bad in WWII, we had a plan that made sense and had a possibility of success. In the current situation we have no real correlation between our actions and our goals. I have the will to stick things out, but not to continue when the situation is untenable. That's when I regroup and fix the problems. Simply staying the course is bound for failure.

And that's where you miss the point. You're so quick to ascribe lack of will when the real issue is that objectively, we are failing and show no indications of correcting the problems.

and perhaps you don't mean to insult those who disagree, but when you reply to a post of mine with crazy talk like 'you people don't have the stomach for a fight' you are insulting and just plain wrong.

When you say

Quote:

---

We would loose because we as a people have lost our will to stick things out over any long period of time.

---

I can understand, even agree. But that's not what you said the first go around, and what you said pushed the limits.

ichi:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What a ludicrous anaology.As I said then you send in more men and you never go in with the idea that your not going to loose any.

---

You have noticed that I've supported more men in there from the beginning have you? ~:rolleyes: Admittebly not so vocal about it in the beginning, as I feared that a quick solution would end up in us debating about those 400.000 US soldiers in Iran.

No, but you can go in with the intension to minimize casualities for your own side, and if you're to short with men, then you can chose to use few men to cover much ground, at the cost of safety, or use the safer alternative with larger troops concentrations covering less ground.

Currently the second alternative is used in Iraq (and that's the most common to anyway). And you can't have less casualities than 0 ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Kafir, your einstien quote is incomplete. It goes:

"Only two things are infinite: The Universe, and Human Stupidity, and I am not so sure about the former."

---

Thx, Cube - I know, somehow I musta deleted the ending and never noticed ... 'til now. ~:rolleyes: Thx again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

You couldnt be more wrong. Maybe if the GOP actually did what it stands for I would be. Im for far more liberty and less government. I think were being oppressed no matter which party is in power. I personally have had about enough of seeing our freedoms flushed down the toilet. Once more its only that the GOP at least in its rehtoric is far closer to my views then the democrats. You wouldnt know a libertarian if you stared one in the face. This you have made obvious. I claim to be a conservative first. This is where you fall down. You cant admit your a liberal at heart . At least on social matters.

---

Your alignment has been 100% conservative not libertarian. It also happens to be right there squarely on the GOP extreme right wing. You conveniently ignore any social aspects of libertarianism and endorse the exact opposite. Yet you claim to be libertarian. So it is really funny when you try to claim someone else is not libertarian as if your view represented "real libertarianism." Perhaps you need a consumer warning sticker: "Warning--contents do not match the label." ~:joker: Afterall, the view you seem to support with respect to dissent and desire for single party rule (GOP, not libertarian) is almost fascist. :knight:

It is ironic that I have a more libertarian view than you on social matters. However, overall I don't buy into the libertarian, liberal or conservative dogma. I believe in facets of each but see each ideology as badly flawed. I would prefer to take bits from them: Progressive fits better, and independent is probably the easiest and widest appropriate description. But if given a choice of the only two labels that seem to be allowed ~:rolleyes: , I'll take liberal over conservative at the moment. ~;p However, I would prefer to have a label that actually identified the contents, rather than using the errant ones you are so proficient with. ~D

Quote:

---

You have noticed that I've supported more men in there from the beginning have you?

---

I certainly was and still am. Ive always said if we are going to put our troops in harms way give them more than they need. The first thing they teach you in the Marines is never half step. In other words if your going to do something do it right the first time. You go in and kick ass and take names. You use everything you have.

Quote:

---

Your alignment has been 100% conservative not libertarian

---

Ive always maintained that Im a conservative first.

Quote:

---

It also happens to be right there squarely on the GOP extreme right wing

---

Really. They were against invading Iraq? I align myself more with Buchannon than Bush.

Quote:

---

You conveniently ignore any social aspects of libertarianism and endorse the exact opposite.

---

How convenient you ignore many of my posititons. Im in favor of legalising drugs and prostitution. I want the government out of the marriage bussiness. I want to abolish the federal income tax. These qualify me as a libertarian. I could list many more examples of my libertarian leanings. Now show me an example of anything other than liberal postitions you have on these matters. Actually you could call me more of a strict constitutionalist.

Do me a favor ask around. You will find that most here actually consider me a fairly moderate conservative and a libertatrian. I just back our troops 100%. Ive been where they are now and cant stand to see the samething happen to us again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Do me a favor ask around. You will find that most here actually consider me a fairly moderate conservative and a libertatrian. I just back our troops 100%. Ive been where they are now and cant stand to see the samething happen to us again.

---

But the question you need to ask yourself is:

Is the current situation mostly the fault of the goverment or the media and the left? And we're talking realistically.
And if you feel that it's the second alternative, develop it. Got the reasons for the first one quite covered myself.

Quote:

---

Is the current situation mostly the fault of the goverment or the media and the left?

---

Depends on what you call the current situtation. You cant assign blame to just one . Ill let my favorite Democrat address the situtation.

Quote:

---

"I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution, which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national-security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power -- a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face. ... The questions raised about prewar intelligence are not irrelevant, they are not unimportant, but they are nowhere near as important and relevant as how we successfully complete our mission in Iraq and protect the 150,000 men and women in uniform who are fighting for us there."
--Senator (and Gore's 2000 VP candidate) Joseph Lieberman on the Senate floor Tuesday (Kudos to you for taking the high road, Senator Lieberman.)

---

If only more democrats were patriots like he instead of only interested in lies and power. A little common sense can go a long way. Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.

At least Lieberman seems to get it. If more Democrats espoused some common sense like him, Republicans would have something to worry about in the next elections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Depends on what you call the current situtation. You cant assign blame to just one.

---

The current situation is the following: After some war-mongering about Iraq from the Bushies (better covered by me earlier), the USA falls for it and the war begins. Bush decides to make this a war "light" and send in to few men, with the cost of the first step to stability: Security. You're not able to do the second phase, rebulding well if you lack security. The security problem continues to be a big issue, even now. No proper counter-meassures.
The what I suspect was a gamble strikes wrong, no active WMD projects in Iraq, so media is having a field day of it. The media continues to have a fieldday on more suspected activities by the goverment. 2 years later, a large percentage of the US public is fed up with the situation in Iraq and wants to end it.

IMO the media hunt is more a symtom of the problems the goverment have created and still creates and don't forget that the media "always" report bad news. Been that for years. The left have been consistant throughout the conflict and the currently weak democrats can only survive by being not Bush.

Basically you're shooting the messangers, because you complain about the bad news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

If only more democrats were patriots like he instead of only interested in lies and power. A little common sense can go a long way.

---

Yep you're correct about the democrats, but you're forgetting that your current powerholders is ATLEAST as bad. The problem is that thanks to Mr. Bush the Iraqi war is treated as a political game by both sides. Bush will never, ever admit that he's wrong and ask for help, while the opposition will never, ever help Bush, unless he's crawling to the cross (and questionable even then). To solve this you'll need to atleast remove Bush. ~D

And about those "cut-and-run":ers, they are suggesting a solution for this deadlock, while not pretty has some advantages. If US stays in Iraq until 2015 and 150.000 Americans die, who was thinking of the troops? You or they? They're (well some of them) caring of the troops aswell, only not in the way you care about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.

---

He certainly did make this up on his own (well that includes those around him), but by some reason most decided to play along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The current situation is the following: After some war-mongering about Iraq from the Bushies (better covered by me earlier), the USA falls for it and the war begins. Bush decides to make this a war "light" and send in to few men, with the cost of the first step to stability: Security. You're not able to do the second phase, rebulding well if you lack security. The security problem continues to be a big issue, even now. No proper counter-meassures.
The what I suspect was a gamble strikes wrong, no active WMD projects in Iraq, so media is having a field day of it. The media continues to have a fieldday on more suspected activities by the goverment. 2 years later, a large percentage of the US public is fed up with the situation in Iraq and wants to end it.

IMO the media hunt is more a symtom of the problems the goverment have created and still creates and don't forget that the media "always" report bad news. Been that for years. The left have been consistant throughout the conflict and the currently weak democrats can only survive by being not Bush.

Basically you're shooting the messangers, because you complain about the bad news.

Yep you're correct about the democrats, but you're forgetting that your current powerholders is ATLEAST as bad. The problem is that thanks to Mr. Bush the Iraqi war is treated as a political game by both sides. Bush will never, ever admit that he's wrong and ask for help, while the opposition will never, ever help Bush, unless he's crawling to the cross (and questionable even then). To solve this you'll need to atleast remove Bush. ~D

And about those "cut-and-run":ers, they are suggesting a solution for this deadlock, while not pretty has some advantages. If US stays in Iraq until 2015 and 150.000 Americans die, who was thinking of the troops? You or they? They're (well some of them) caring of the troops aswell, only not in the way you care about them.


He certainly did make this up on his own (well that includes those around him), but by some reason most decided to play along.

---

Thanks Ironside, saved me a lot of typing

ichi:bow:

That Lieberman fellow seems to suffer for curiously picky amnesia; to my knowledge (and what them books tell) that particular "hater of the United States of America" was one of their more earnest cooperators in the region until the Kuwait thing...

Funny how people like to forget little things like that. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

A little common sense can go a long way. Bush didnt make this up on his own no matter how hard some try to make it so.

---

You are completely right about that Gawain. It is funny what short memories some people have. Or maybe some people just didn’t know because they weren’t paying attention to news in the US some 7 years ago.

The President doesn’t do anything that the people don’t want and clearly from all the medias encouraging coverage (20+ articles in the NY Times alone focusing on Iraq’s WMD’s and terrorists and mass torture and murders etc.) and positive polls that were taken all the way back before the time between the start of the Afgan war and the start of the war with Iraq the people wanted to go after Saddam and Iraq. The president initiated the proposal after reading the temperature of the people and Congress approved it, even lame democrats like H. Clinton and J. Kerry approved it because they were doing what the people wanted.

If enough people, voting US citizens, wanted to stop with Afghanistan then the US would have but “WE” wanted Iraq and Saddam’s head too. And we got it along with a whole big mess we had no idea we would have with terrorists and insurgents and whatever but the best course is to finish what we started and admit we acted without thinking the whole thing thru and be sure to plan better in the future. We started it hastily but we need to finish it correctly. And by finishing it correctly I mean stomping out the remaining insurgents and strengthening a pro peace and democracy government that will spread freedom and security and not hate and terrorism. It is happening but slowly. In hindsight there would have been better ways to go about it but we have committed to going in one direction and it would be detrimental to change course.

The situation in Iraq is of major importance to the future of the US and we need to be there, I don’t trust soldiers from other middle east countries to secure Iraq and I don’t trust the new Iraq military to do it yet either. We need to be there until the situation is completely under control. :knight:

In TIME, 29Nov05 - "Getting the Lowdown on Iraq"

This is a brief summary and opinion, so if you want to read it gor to Time and read it.

""If the Republican Chairman (Virginia's John Warner, and a couple Dems - Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan and Mark Dayton of Minnesota) wants to get a second opinion on how the war is going, where does he turn? To the Pentagon, but not to the brassthis time - but to 10 military officers chosen for their experience on the battlefield rather than in the political arena. Warner wanted what the military calls "ground truth" - the unvarnished (political spin) story of what's going on in Iraq."

"We wanted the view from the men who had been the tip of the spear, and we got it"

'The Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer, "there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq"; they said the following:

1) That they not only need more boots on the ground, and have repeatedly asked for them. They have been flatly turned down the men they need to complete their missions. [note: is a quick way to end one's military career by asking for more of what Rummy has said was a plenty - Rummy no likie being wrong. For that matter no one in the administration has to date ever admitted to being wrong about anything. They're batting 1,000 in their minds.]

2) Because there are not enough troops the battalion commanders have to "leap frog" their troops around Iraq to attempt to keep the insurgents out of previously 'secured' areas.

End report.
======================================================

The other day two retired Lt. Generals (one USMC, other Army) had at it on the NewsHour over our pulling out. The USMC kept trying to justify the "Tow the Line, Stay the Path agenda of the administration, but he also kept agreeing with the Army (Odom?) that we were now simply caught in a civil war and that we had done more good for Iran than we had ourselves (USA). Army said, screw it we done our worst and it can only get worse - bring the boys home and let the Iraqis work it out (and Iranians, alQuaeda, Taliban, Shiites, Sunni, etc). We created the mess, we can't do any more and our remaining there is a destabilizing factor. The Marine (of course) took the possition of the administration - to leave now would ... this that and a nother thing. None of which are truely predictable.

The things that are predictable by our remaining:
1) we bolster the stature of Iran, and solidify their posture in the area.
2) we allienate more middle-eastern youth and encourage them to join the radical jihadists of the region in their jihad against us. It is like the radicals in America in the 60's of America - it becomes the thing to do.
3) now that we have created a home for alQuaeda they will expand to other regions faster, smarter and possibly with the support of even more people that were once considered moderates. In other words the more we persecute the innocent the less like we are, the more the innocense report to other they were tortured, the more disliked we become.

Bottom line; it's their country, let them build (re-) their nation. I realize we have this great fear of Ayatollas, but maybe it is time for us to re-learn diplomacy and rehone our negotiation skills. After all we are being led by the C.E.O. Administration, they should know how to get the cooperation of others. Unless, of course, they gained their prior business possitions thru being bullying (or their Daddys).

So:

- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
- 60% of the American people want us to leave
- The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
- Most Democrats want use to leave
- The rest of the world seems to want us to leave

The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans.

Quote:

---

So:

- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
- 60% of the American people want us to leave
- The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
- Most Democrats want use to leave
- The rest of the world seems to want us to leave

The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans

---

What a load of hogwash. Did you check the vote on us withdrawing? You know as well as I do that the last thing the Iraqis want either is to have us pullout now. Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you. Heck even I want us to leave and so does Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

The President doesn’t do anything that the people don’t want and clearly from all the medias encouraging coverage (20+ articles in the NY Times alone focusing on Iraq’s WMD’s and terrorists and mass torture and murders etc.)

---

You probably aren't aware of this, but Judtih Miller was behind some of that reporting in the NYT. She got canned because of the problems with her reports on WMD's prior to and during the war that were discredited (the former fed to her by the Admin) and her Scooter related actions. The NYT called it a retirement, but they wanted her gone.

That's why Scooter used her...he though she was enough of a schmuck to play along.

What is really amusing is that several members of the Administration pointed to her articles back in the run up as further indications of WMD's...despite her being fed the info from their staff. Stinks to high heaven. ~:rolleyes:

Yes, we were fooled as a nation, but the ones orchestrating the deceit were in the Whitehouse. I accept my share of the blame, but the Whitehouse won't accept theirs, which is far more substantial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

What a load of hogwash. Did you check the vote on us withdrawing? You know as well as I do that the last thing the Iraqis want either is to have us pullout now. Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you. Heck even I want us to leave and so does Bush.

---

Gawain's World! :thrasher: :elephant: :cheerleader: Gawain's World! :thrasher: :elephant: :cheerleader:

The vote was a stunt. The polls do show that Americans want to get out. It is the Republicans who don't want to. There is a growing division between republicans and the rest: moderates, independents, and democrats.

Gawain's world ~:joker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Christ. Gawain, you sound just like those German right-wingers after WW1 who blamed the defeat on "dagger in the back", moral failure on the home front and God knows what else except bad strategy, leadership, sheer overwhelming odds or about any of the *actual* reasons.

Don't you even notice ?

---

I don't think he does... It also reminded me of those French militaries that won the war in Algeria but were betrayed by the people and politicians...

You shall have read a debate a long time ago about whether the US had won or lost the Vietnam war. It was... ~:eek:

Louis,

Quote:

---

The vote was a stunt

---

Murth and the dems are the ones pulling the stunt. When they were call on it the chickened out.

Quote:

---

The polls do show that Americans want to get out.

---

Of course they do. Who in their right mind doesnt want us out?

Quote:

---

It is the Republicans who don't want to.

---

No they feel the same as most others. Again the dems just voted to stay. Spin it all you like.
http://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gifhttp://www.sitevip.net/gifs/donkey/2258_animado.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

You probably aren't aware of this, but Judtih Miller was behind some of that reporting in the NYT. She got canned because of the problems with her reports on WMD's prior to and during the war that were discredited (the former fed to her by the Admin) and her Scooter related actions. The NYT called it a retirement, but they wanted her gone.

That's why Scooter used her...he though she was enough of a schmuck to play along.

What is really amusing is that several members of the Administration pointed to her articles back in the run up as further indications of WMD's...despite her being fed the info from their staff. Stinks to high heaven. ~:rolleyes:

Yes, we were fooled as a nation, but the ones orchestrating the deceit were in the Whitehouse. I accept my share of the blame, but the Whitehouse won't accept theirs, which is far more substantial.

---

Excellent point Red Harvest.:bow: I do know a little about Judith Miller and the controversy that makes several of her stories questionable but there are many other stories from the Times and other major papers and newscasters (some, no-doubt inspired by what the Times was doing) that fueled the public to want war with Iraq.

It does have a stink to it but I am not so sure it was the Whitehouse “orchestrating” it, it just naturally oozes from there~D . Seriously though they don’t seem to be too good at orchestrating much and the fact that war sells and everyone likes ratings (and hates Saddam) makes Iraq coverage a no-brainer. I don’t think the media needed the Whitehouse to encourage them, although I am sure they didn’t mind. But don’t get me wrong, I am not blaming the media, it was a combination of things including a long history of us wanting to kick Saddam’s arse that brought about the war.~:)

What a load of hogwash.
that has to be a Gawainian classic~D ~D ~D
- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
60% of the American people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
true , surprise surprise since it was a major policy of all the major parties in the election and at last weeks conference it was the only thing they could unanimously agree on
Most Democrats want use to leave
true
The rest of the world seems to want us to leave
possibly true , though I bet Uncle Osama is very happy with the current situation , he is probably sitting somewhere laughing his arse off .
The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans untrue , see above .
So from Hogwash it goes to Who in their right mind doesnt want us out?

Hmmmmm , so your point was ????

Murth and the dems are the ones pulling the stunt. When they were call on it the chickened out.
~D ~D ~D
Oh dear oh dear , have you been at Rush's medication ~:rolleyes:

Have you seen these polls?

Quote:

---

Polls Show Mixed Views on Politics









Recent polling data by the Cook Political Report from the National Journal shows that Americans are not enamored with calls by Democrats for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Iraq.

Further, a separate Harris Poll shows Americans are less supportive of congressional Democrats than they are of President Bush or congressional Republicans.


68 percent of respondents in the Cook poll said Democratic criticisms of Bush’s policies in Iraq hurt troop morale. Only 14 percent said it helps.

52 percent said Democratic criticism was an attempt to gain political advantage rather than to help US efforts in Iraq. 30 percent thought the criticism would help.




50 percent thought the US should withdraw troops as Iraq meets its goals. 29 percent said they should be withdrawn according to a publicly available timetable for withdrawal. Only 15 percent advocated an immediate withdrawal regardless of impact.
The poll numbers suggest that the Bush administration’s effort to re-engage the debate over pre-war intelligence and the general direction of the war in Iraq is working to the president’s advantage.

The most recent Harris poll shows that, while Americans still give negative ratings to the president and congressional Republicans, they give even worse ratings to congressional Democrats.

In the poll conducted from November 8 to November 13, 34 percent of respondents gave the president a positive job approval rating. 65 percent gave a negative rating.


27 percent gave a positive rating to Republicans in Congress. 69 percent gave a negative rating.

25 percent gave a positive rating to Democrats in Congress. 70 percent gave a negative rating.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was the only political figure to enjoy positive polling numbers. 52 percent gave Rice a positive job approval rating, while 41 percent gave a negative rating.

---

The dems just cant seem to win no matter what they do. The democrats certainly are not helping the war effort and thats what most people think.

Gawains world Gawains world :thrasher: :thrasher:
Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you.
Followed by
Have you seen these polls?

~D ~D ~D
Keep 'em coming Gawain , you really are a timeless classic~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Have you seen these polls?

The dems just cant seem to win no matter what they do. The democrats certainly are not helping the war effort and thats what most people think.

---

Too bad they think the same about the GOP and the President too...or did you happen to miss that obvious clue in the poll results? Seems to me you've identified the wrong enemy.

Plus one could point out that "50 percent thought the US should withdraw troops as Iraq meets its goals" is very vague. What are the goals? The response does not really exclude the other two possibilities. One could select it and still believe the bulk of our forces should be out in a year. It all depends on what the goal is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What a load of hogwash.
that has to be a Gawainian classic~D ~D ~D
- 80% of the Iraqi people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
60% of the American people want us to leave
true as far as it goes but the figure is too low
The Iraqi leadership wants a timetable for withdrawl
true , surprise surprise since it was a major policy of all the major parties in the election and at last weeks conference it was the only thing they could unanimously agree on
Most Democrats want use to leave
true
The rest of the world seems to want us to leave
possibly true , though I bet Uncle Osama is very happy with the current situation , he is probably sitting somewhere laughing his arse off .
The only people who seem to want us to stay are the Republicans untrue , see above .
So from Hogwash it goes to Who in their right mind doesnt want us out?

Hmmmmm , so your point was ????

Murth and the dems are the ones pulling the stunt. When they were call on it the chickened out.
~D ~D ~D
Oh dear oh dear , have you been at Rush's medication ~:rolleyes:

---

ROFLMAO

Sorry, you nailed it.

Fact is, as I have been saying, those that do not want to look at the reality of the situation today as associated to those of the past are intent on trying to make this into a different deal. In other words, there is no historical situation similar to the one we are living today. This is an all new scenario - but, those argueing that idea can not explain away the exacting comparissons to our 'nam, Frances Algiers, USSR's Afghanistan, Britains suppression of the Americas (1776), etc. It is the old adage, "Those without a knowledge of history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past" - as I recall one former President (Reagan) actually bragged about his knowledge of the past and said it was "irrellevant" to the present. Unless of course the past is within a decade that one lives in - or that one wants to prove something to his Daddy (which I fear is all this war was ever about).

Be that what it may. One would believe that after two years we would have something to show for our efforts (2300 dead, 18,000+ maimed). Aside from a constitution that will be toilet paper whether we leave tomorrow or in 10 years. Using the same arguements used 35 years ago, though? That just demonstrates the unoriginality of the minds that be in charge. IMHO ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Gawains world Gawains world
Again polls tell you what the pollsters want them to tell you.
Followed by
Have you seen these polls?


Keep 'em coming Gawain , you really are a timeless classic

---

The only thing classic heres is Tribesmans Tripe that he keeps handing out, The polls say what he likes their fine otherwise their full of crap. Again I do this for a living. Im just illustrating that polls say what the pollsters are looking for.

Quote:

---

Be that what it may. One would believe that after two years we would have something to show for our efforts (2300 dead, 18,000+ maimed). Aside from a constitution that will be toilet paper whether we leave tomorrow or in 10 years

---

You think thats all thats been accomplished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

For many the arguements for supporting the Vietnam war; and then blaming the press, Liberals, and anyone that disagreed with it when it was lost - are the same ones they use today to support their misguided arguements for the occupation of Iraq (the war ended - remember the big banner "Mission Accomplished"?).

Some gibberish just never gets old, for some. Blaming the opposition for the failure of those in charge of a situation seems to be the best "plan" for the failures in Iraq that they can come up with.

Having the fortitude to "stay the Path", sounds great. Until one realizes there is no path. Until one realizes that the evidence given for the war was one sided (even fabricated), and that much of the actual intelligent information that countered those supporting arguements for the premise of war were concealed from those making the decision to go forth with it. (possibly even Bush himselg - though I doubt it)

Then we go to the "blame game" senario, or the politicization of the issue by the opposing party - while your own truebluehonestamericanconservatives are simply being fair minded and non-political in supporting their political ideals to support a bankrupt war policy. The opposition is using "politics" - ooooh is there no shame? Don't they realize how they are undermining the moral of our troops (not that 3 or 4 tours in Afghanistan or Iraq isn't doing that). Oh, those dasderdly liberal minded, politicizing, war hating, unpatriotic, traitors of democracy are ruining our perfect little war. If only they'ld be quiet about having to have a plan we could make this thing last 10 or 20 years. By walking in circles, just like we did in Vietnam.

Understand one thing - everything is political. EVERYTHING! There is no such animal as an apolitical politician. Once one understands this, then they can grasp the fact that when one side accuses the other of "playing politics", you can realize that they are infact doing the same thing. Only they believe you aren't smart enough to realize it.

The only plan the Bushys have is to continue as they have. It is that big circle scenario I mentioned a few pages back. It is the same rhetoric from 'nam, the same plan from 'nam, the same excuses for our continuing in 'nam. Only the names have changed. The ideas seem to remain the same.

---

Gwain, I sincerely appologize for your loss - what ever it was; 30 odd years ago. Your persistance in defending unjust wars and the loss of American lives leads me to believe you lost someone that was near and dear to you, And, that you have a great deal of difficuly in accepting that they died in vain. For this, I am very sad for you. I do, however, understand. Been there, done that. Accepting that one you loved died for nothing other than the ego's of others is a hard fact to contemplate, let alone accept.

Accepting such a thing lessens ones control of a past situation - it promotes self doubt. It almost makes the loss meaningless. Unless, one accepts that the person died for their sins - well, sins of their nation. Maybe, the bs of a nation - and that in the manner they gave their all was the purest of the pure (Oh sure - tell, that to Tommy .. who is probably still laughing in the devil's face).

Gwain, you're a good guy. But, life did not begin and end in 'nam. Political thought did not as well. Take a rest friend, honor the comrades you may have on "the wall" as I do ... fight for their sons not to have a wall beside them.

Just an idea of course. Ask Rush and Rummy first, if you wish, before you respond. Still, mate, you know in your heart ... I'm right. Don't you?

Bush gave his new "Plan for Victory" speech yesterday, at Annapolis (always before a military oriented crowds - has anyone else noticed? I'm beginning to believe he even fears his own loyalists, or maybe they can't find a crowd large enough to sign his loyalty oath). What a farce, eh?

What a fiascal. Thirty-five pages of the same rhetoric he and his have been spouting for .... ever (since the "Mission Accomplished" fiascal).

Is it me? Or, are we truely being led by men with out a clue of what reality is?
Were Bush to fire, or get the resignation of Rummy - personally it would show that he has a vague understanding that things are not going as they should. Instead, it is "Well, it didn't work last time .... but, if we do it again this time it will." So, same plan - same rhetoric - just a different day and presentation.

Seems some never tire of repeating themselves when they have nothing to say that is truely a plan about how to extradite ourselves from a bad situation. I keep hearing this, "If we leave now, it would mean civil war!." HELLO!!!! It is a civil war, our staying only supports one side of it - it resolves nothing. Once we leave, regardless of it being tomorrow or in 20 years (500 more lives or 58,000) there will be an adjustment resolved by military means by the residence of Iraq. Even if we keep a .... close to area eye and reaction force in the vicinity (on aircraft carriers? that is what the 35 page thing suggests - poor f'n jarheads, seasick mofo's), it means nothing.

Bush has lost track of the goals he purported in late September of 2001 to keep us safe from future attacks (like 9/11 - his watch, they were more concerned about turning the cameras away from Bill and onto George, than listening to any of Bill's advisors on terrorism. Or, for that matter, anyone with knowledge that an attack was emminent. Who'ld a guessed? Well, maybe anyone paying attention to the daily memos from the CIA, FBI or local authorities asking for additional information about Arab type individuals doing flight training to take off, but not land). Dubya is so caught up with himself and his "legacy" he has forgotten reality and placed it in the hands of his Chenney's speach writers. I have no doubt he believes the gibberish he spouts, just can't believe anyone else can. Then again, it is more believable he doesn't either - just trying to cover up that he might have made a small error (never a mistake mind you, just maybe a little teinsy weiny oops).

I like Dubya, honest, as a person. As a leader? He is without a doubt one of the weakest I have ever seen - at any level (he might make a good dock forman were I in one of my past lives to hire him). It depresses me to think we have 3 longggggggggggggggggggggggg insufferable years of him (of course the alternative is Cheney, so for that I am eternally thankful - knowing that only Dick could be worse for US). Less than a year and he has fallen from grace (what little he had). What a disgrace. To recover, all he has to say is "I was misled, had I known all the true facts .... etc. But, now that we have been led into this problem we must do everything in our powers to eradicted ourselves with a means that secures a future for the peoples (all the people, all the factions, everyone) and a balance for the region". LOL

Instead? Now he has a plan! Oh, wait - same plan ... just a different day ... and manner to say it - except still befor a military crowd that must applaud. Who knows, maybe no one will notice. After all, it is a whole 35 pages long, maybe no one will read it - or notice that it is till the "walking in circles plan" of Vietnam.