So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now?

So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 4:43:00 PM)
Bush had his shot. He's asked for the 6 months, and the surge has failed. So, even though Bush would LIKE to just walk away, and leave it to the next guy to clean up his mess ( "Not gonna fail on my watch" strategy ), we as responsible citizens and accountable people won't allow that to happen. What are the available exit strategies? Bush isn't going to be a man, and come before Congress admitting he fucked up, and asking Congress for a real declaration of War, and the subsequent drafting and fielding of 1 million people on the ground in Iraq, so what do we do?

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 4:49:25 PM)
You are certainly quick to call failure there, aren't ja, FB? Tell me ... when did "the surge" finally get all the man requested and required? Got a date? Firm

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 5:07:52 PM)
Who cares? If it was a demonstrable success, there would be CLEAR, UNEQUIVACABLE EVIDENCE of it's success. And do we SEE this Clear, Unequivacable evidence? No. So, it's time to MAKE PLANS, for what is pretty clear, the inevitable conclusion. What do we do, now that Bush has HAD HIS CHANCE ( hell, he invaded in 2003. It's 2007. He HAD 4 YEARS. ), and failed? Look at it this way. Whatever Iraqi lives are supposedly saved in all this by the presence of US troops, is COSTING OUR MOTHERS AND FATHERS 2.29400631 CHILDREN IN SERVICE A DAY. How many more days do you wanna kill 2.294 AMERICAN KIDS to supposedly safeguard the Iraqis ( whose "Congress" took the summer off, didn't they? ) The extra 6 months cost ( using that average ) 396 Dead American Kids. You wanna sacrifice another 400? 800? 4000? 8000? WHEN WILL YOU BE HAPPY WITH THE PRICE IN OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES?

Sinergy -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 5:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You are certainly quick to call failure there, aren't ja, FB? Pot, kettle, black. You are certainly quick to call it success there, FirmhandKY. Of course, Bush has had 6 years to be successful at something, and I am still waiting for some evidence of success. You posted a few months ago that Petreaus had some great ideas and hope, and we should give him time to make it happen. I read recently that he had pointed out that the situation in Iraq is unsolvable by US involvement. Might want to cross him off your US in Iraq cheering squad. Sinergy

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 5:52:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You are certainly quick to call failure there, aren't ja, FB? Tell me ... when did "the surge" finally get all the man requested and required? Got a date? Firm Surge smurge.... Be honest,you bush lickers will never admit to this failure(the war w/ Iraq),now,in six months,not ever. BTW,we`re not going to wait for you neo-cons to say whether the so called surge is a success,or not.We know that you(neo-cons in general) have never been honest about this quagmire.We`re not going to wait for bush to declair victory, what ever that is.He can`t even define what victory is. To the regular folks..... Ever hear bush say that history will exonerate him,when asked about his horrible legacy?He`s says dopey things like"They`re still debating George Washington,200 years later"The implication is that people are still debating whether George Washington was a good president or not,which is untrue. Bush thinks that some time down the line,people won`t think he`s that the worst president in history.See?They`re still debating Washington,so I can do as I like,no accountability,no morality or conscience.Brilliant! Bushes strategy of unilateral invasion on the cheap,with an undersized force,a coalition of the not so willing and the coalition of the payed has, been a disaster.The real fight(which we`re losing ,thank you very much)is in Afghanistan.Iraq has been a personal indulgement of the neo-cons.It`s been a complete waste of men and treasure,and will be for decades to come.This occupation is losing us the war on terror,on every level and w/ every measure. Those who still back this madness,really only want to stave off the shame and responsibility of getting us into this mess.Hell,the Firmnankys of the world are still defending what happened in Vietnam,with the lies,half-truths and fear mongering. I liken the folks pushing to prolong this meat-grinder(the Iraq occupation),to the Japanese soldier who fought on for decades after WWII was over.Poor sap,so dedicated that he just wouldn`t give it up.He never got the memo,lol,just stayed w/ the old talking points,while the rest of the world moved on.

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:22:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy You are certainly quick to call it success there, FirmhandKY. Of course, Bush has had 6 years to be successful at something, and I am still waiting for some evidence of success. You posted a few months ago that Petreaus had some great ideas and hope, and we should give him time to make it happen. I read recently that he had pointed out that the situation in Iraq is unsolvable by US involvement. Might want to cross him off your US in Iraq cheering squad. What was Petraeus's plan, and what were the predicates on which it was based? Not a clue, huh? [:D] I read recently that he had pointed out that the situation in Iraq is unsolvable by US involvement. (cite? or STFU [:D]) Firm

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:23:46 PM)
quote: .The real fight(which we`re losing ,thank you very much)is in Afghanistan.Iraq has been a personal indulgement of the neo-cons. I think the REAL fight is 100% Energy Independence, based on a Zero-Emissions, Plug-in Electric transportation infrastructure. It's 1970's technology, and would cost LESS than we've spent in Iraq to-date.

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:24:43 PM)
You have any thing to say based on anything except BS? Firm

kittinSol -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:26:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: .The real fight(which we`re losing ,thank you very much)is in Afghanistan.Iraq has been a personal indulgement of the neo-cons. I think the REAL fight is 100% Energy Independence, based on a Zero-Emissions, Plug-in Electric transportation infrastructure. It's 1970's technology, and would cost LESS than we've spent in Iraq to-date. Haaaaaaaa but you know as well as I do that this hasn't been in the interest on the petrodollar-dependent Bush family. To cut a long story short [8\|] .

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:29:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What was Petraeus's plan, and what were the predicates on which it was based? I think it can be summarized as: "The added troops will provide sufficient civil stability ( Around Baghdad ) permitting the ( laughable ) Iraqi leaders to reach agreement on key political measures ( to achieve reconciliation among the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- THATS LOL-FUNNY! ) So, once the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are smoking the Peace Hookah, and singing Kumbaya, George Bush will be hailed as a fucking genius. What's YOUR estimation of passing around bowls of Afghan Black, and Singing Kumbaya in the halls of the Iraqi Parliment? Yeah. It's like the fucking idiots who planned this were smoking the hash, themselves.

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What was Petraeus's plan, and what were the predicates on which it was based? I think it can be summarized as: "The added troops will provide sufficient civil stability ( Around Baghdad ) permitting the ( laughable ) Iraqi leaders to reach agreement on key political measures ( to achieve reconciliation among the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds -- THATS LOL-FUNNY! ) So, once the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are smoking the Peace Hookah, and singing Kumbaya, George Bush will be hailed as a fucking genius. What's YOUR estimation of passing around bowls of Afghan Black, and Singing Kumbaya in the halls of the Iraqi Parliment? Yeah. It's like the fucking idiots who planned this were smoking the hash, themselves. You expose your ignorance. Talk to me when you've read and understand the theories behind P's plan. I suspect I'll be dead and buried before that happens. Firm

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:36:11 PM)
Oh, did Petraeus have a DIFFERENT plan than Bush's orders as Commander in Chief in "Surging" Baghdad? Why should we give a shit for a loose cannon disobeying Bush's orders? Or are you looking for excuses to stretch it out MORE ( I would suggest to shield Bush from liability for his failure ).

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Bush had his shot. He's asked for the 6 months, and the surge has failed. So, even though Bush would LIKE to just walk away, and leave it to the next guy to clean up his mess ( "Not gonna fail on my watch" strategy ), we as responsible citizens and accountable people won't allow that to happen. What are the available exit strategies? Bush isn't going to be a man, and come before Congress admitting he fucked up, and asking Congress for a real declaration of War, and the subsequent drafting and fielding of 1 million people on the ground in Iraq, so what do we do? we invade Disneyland...LOL

Sinergy -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:46:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What was Petraeus's plan, and what were the predicates on which it was based? Dont remember what his plan was, but it seemed like it was a "house of cards waiting to be pushed down" like so much of the great ideas that come out of this administration. Sinergy p.s. This might answer your question. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html I look forward to your dissertation (using computer modelling difficulties, no doubt) showing that CNN is part of the twisted Liberal media hell-bent on smearing our administration. Another one which might interest you. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/09/petraeus-says-iraq-will-be-decades-long-likens-struggle-to-northern-ireland/ Considering your much-worshipped Commander In Chief had the temerity to stand in from of a poster that said "Mission Accomplished," I suppose I am a bit shocked you still believe in him. p.p.s. "STFU?" 1) Do I look like your submissive? 2) I thought I was typing (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/typing) on a web site's (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/web_site.html) message board (http://www.free-webhosts.com/definition/message-board.php). Hope this helps clarify things for you.

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What was Petraeus's plan, and what were the predicates on which it was based? Dont remember what his plan was, but it seemed like it was a "house of cards waiting to be pushed down" like so much of the great ideas that come out of this administration. Sinergy p.s. This might answer your question. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html Your ignorance is exposed. Firm

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:53:29 PM)
hmmmm...am i here?

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia hmmmm...am i here? "We invaded Disneyland." deserves a serious answer? nah uh. Firm

michaelOfGeorgia -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 6:57:56 PM)
no, it didn't require a serious responce, but hey, i was trying to lighten things up here...LOL

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:10:16 PM)
Why are you trying to derail Bush's Failed Surge Hypothesis by pointing to some song-and-dance Petraeus is doing? I recall Bush being given through the summer for his "Surge"? I don't remember Bush asking permission to change strategy to whatever handwaving argument you care to blame Petraeus for. As hard as you might try, you simply cannot wave away Bush's failure, since 2003, to plan and execute ANY effective strategy. Bush asked for, and was given, this Surge to prove his Policy, Strategy, and Tactics. Failed, Failed, and Failed. So, how many "At-Bats" do you give the handi-capable kids? And remember, while you're dicking around bitching about "Give Failure ONE MORE CHANCE! They're in their LAST THROES, and it's ONLY SIX MORE MONTHS"... You're killing 400 kids every 6 months you waste. How many soldiers are you willing to kill giving Bush "One More Chance To Hit The T-Ball"? 400 more? 800? 4000? 8000? It's your call? How many more dead American Soldiers do you want? The price is 2.2 Dead American Kids for every day you waste... Do people really hold our troops in that little regard, to pointlessly waste them?

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:17:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: .The real fight(which we`re losing ,thank you very much)is in Afghanistan.Iraq has been a personal indulgement of the neo-cons. I think the REAL fight is 100% Energy Independence, based on a Zero-Emissions, Plug-in Electric transportation infrastructure. It's 1970's technology, and would cost LESS than we've spent in Iraq to-date. Haaaaaaaa but you know as well as I do that this hasn't been in the interest on the petrodollar-dependent Bush family. To cut a long story short [8\|] . That is so true.Thank a liberal to consider the big picture. I was speaking to bush`s short term failures,not his failure to address energy independence. Truth is,that even if we were energy independent,the neo-cons would still be using the US military to control middle east oil,because whoever controls it,is the world`s majordomo.Of course,the neo-cons would get rich,but that`s just a coincidence.Right? Yeah right....<said sarcastically> As for Firmhandky`s accusation of ignorance....the kettle calls the pot black.But in FHky`s case,it`s willful ignorance,ie, choosing not to know and learn.To be incurious and uninterested. Which is worse,not to have learned some info or fact, or to chose to be ignorant of information or facts?Which is more dishonest,lack of knowledge or choosing to not know or acknowledge facts? Which is more dangerous,someone in power that doesn`t know something,but is willing to learn,or someone who won`t admit that he`s clueless and won`t be curious and open-minded? For some, ignorance is bliss.I would just ask those folks to get out of the way and let the realistic people do something about our energy independence. It won`t be as sexy as an invasion,but it is possible.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875