RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now?

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

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:26:26 PM)
Well, NO. Once we have the constellation of satellites, WE CAN GIVE OUR STRATEGIC ALLIES ALL THE ELECTRICITY THEY NEED, FOR FREE, FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE OUR STRATEGIC ALLIES. Once we set this 400 Billion dollar, 1980 Vintage technology up, we literally use petrochemicals for feedstocks ( I will mention that is, still, a quite significant market... ) What happens to the Saudis' ability to dictate to their Puppets their terms, when oil is 10 bucks a barrel, and there's a 5 year supply in the tanks in Linden? Please Note: Like Satellite TV, there is still a great exploitable potential for Evil, so it should be salable to TPTB... I'd hate to think they're killing 100,000's of people simply to extend their profit-taking in an obsolete market? What duty do The People have to ensuring the continuation of an obsolete Market, to the detriment of The People?

FirmhandKY -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 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 we`re 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. Owner, For the deepest bottom's of my heart, I ask that you please reserve judgement about a lot of things ... including me ... until you have had the opportunity to discuss issues with me in a more open environment. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. What you say, you extend the same to me, for now? Firm

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:32:15 PM)
I think there's a valid point. That "You're Ignorant Of Petraus' PLAN!!!" crap was hella-annoying... Since BUSH sold us his Surge, the standard to judge is whether what we were sold, meets the specifications agreed upon. Surge is SUPPOSED TO equal a nice, quiet Baghdad, where the different factions can meet in legislature, and divvy up the assets. But they're NOT GOING ALONG WITH BUSH'S PLAN. They're going to argue as long as they want about who-gets-what. And what's Bush going to do? Partition Iraq into Independent Kurdistan, Sunniland, and Shiiaville? Where's the million man occupation force to make THAT stick? Because you're GOING TO NEED a million people on the ground when Turkey invades to suppress Independent Kurdistan. So... Sunni v. Shiia Civil War ++ Kurds v. Turks Civil War...

OrionTheWolf -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:36:32 PM)
Was anybody listening to the time assessments before we went in? Before congress voted on it? I tend to remember 10 years. I tend to remember talking with my ex-marine brother, and being pissed because we knew 1) they would not factor things in such as the culture 2) The actual cost to clean things out and be able to restore infrastructure, and stability, and 3) the will of the American people versus the knee jerk anger over the twin towers. It is not so much I disagree with the action (other than the possible criminal elements that lead to it), but I completely disagree with the management of it. Warlords allowed to police their own? Militia allowed to keep heavy weapons, explosives and such? It was either remove all but small weapons or not. It was work with the locals or stay the fuck out. Exit strategy? Shit, I don't see a decent one from a tactical point. We are going to loose even more lives pulling out. If we are giving up, then American lives need to be number one priority and everything else after that. Orion

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:39:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Was anybody listening to the time assessments before we went in? Before congress voted on it? I tend to remember 10 years. I tend to remember talking with my ex-marine brother, and being pissed because we knew 1) they would not factor things in such as the culture 2) The actual cost to clean things out and be able to restore infrastructure, and stability, and 3) the will of the American people versus the knee jerk anger over the twin towers. It is not so much I disagree with the action (other than the possible criminal elements that lead to it), but I completely disagree with the management of it. Warlords allowed to police their own? Militia allowed to keep heavy weapons, explosives and such? It was either remove all but small weapons or not. It was work with the locals or stay the fuck out. Exit strategy? Shit, I don't see a decent one from a tactical point. We are going to loose even more lives pulling out. If we are giving up, then American lives need to be number one priority and everything else after that. Orion Actually, we can blame Loyal Bushie L. Paul Bremer ( Why is he SCARED to go by the name his Momma gave him??? ) and his retirement of the Republican Guards, wholesale... The smart move would have been to keep them on the payroll, and on the job, and having a truth-and-reconcilliation thingey, where people testify openly in exchange for amnesty. ( Getting rid of the really NASTY ones by retiring them to Halliburton... ) But "SMART" isn't a word to describe these guys.... "Criminally Negligent" springs to mind, but Alleged Felon in violation of 18 USC 371 seems like JUSTICE.

severin37 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:41:57 PM)
all i know is that ron paul is going to be the one who saves america from tyranny

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Was anybody listening to the time assessments before we went in? Before congress voted on it? I tend to remember 10 years. I tend to remember talking with my ex-marine brother, and being pissed because we knew 1) they would not factor things in such as the culture 2) The actual cost to clean things out and be able to restore infrastructure, and stability, and 3) the will of the American people versus the knee jerk anger over the twin towers. It is not so much I disagree with the action (other than the possible criminal elements that lead to it), but I completely disagree with the management of it. Warlords allowed to police their own? Militia allowed to keep heavy weapons, explosives and such? It was either remove all but small weapons or not. It was work with the locals or stay the fuck out. Exit strategy? Shit, I don't see a decent one from a tactical point. We are going to loose even more lives pulling out. If we are giving up, then American lives need to be number one priority and everything else after that. Orion I heard Ronold Dumbsfeld say,"six days,six weeks,I doubt six months"............That was six fucking years ago! Bush and the neo-cons have moved that shell(the time-lines) all over the table,like hucksters and con men. They gave a different answer, depending on what day it was. Who can really say what the time-lines were?Need an answer?Take your pick

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 7:48:02 PM)
Who knows? But if Bush can get away with all his shit, and not be held accountable in a court of law, isn't it likely a REAL HITLER-WANNABE could do the EXACT SAME MOVE, and this time, really get down the extermination of the "Lesser Races" ( I think "Children of Men" style detention zones for the proles is a good hypothetical case... With the exclusion of entire Classes of People from the 14th Amendment injunction for "ANY PERSON", we open the door to "Final Solutions" to our supposed problems. Hell, it ain't like it didn't happen before.

Lordandmaster -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 8:00:05 PM)
What's next? That's easy. First he failed to secure Afghanistan. Then he failed to secure Iraq. Now he's failing to secure our borders. Next he'll fail to secure the White House for the Republican Party. Of course, I'm sure Firmhand will explain why I'm wrong.

TheHeretic -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 8:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Next he'll fail to secure the White House for the Republican Party. No worries. The Dem are quite capable of solving this one [:D]

OrionTheWolf -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 10:03:25 PM)
I cannot remember which one, but the think tank predicted as long as 10-15 years. If you were listening to politicians, regardless of which party, then that was where you and many people made a mistake. Reforming a country is not a speedy process, especially when you cannot secure it. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Was anybody listening to the time assessments before we went in? Before congress voted on it? I tend to remember 10 years. I tend to remember talking with my ex-marine brother, and being pissed because we knew 1) they would not factor things in such as the culture 2) The actual cost to clean things out and be able to restore infrastructure, and stability, and 3) the will of the American people versus the knee jerk anger over the twin towers. It is not so much I disagree with the action (other than the possible criminal elements that lead to it), but I completely disagree with the management of it. Warlords allowed to police their own? Militia allowed to keep heavy weapons, explosives and such? It was either remove all but small weapons or not. It was work with the locals or stay the fuck out. Exit strategy? Shit, I don't see a decent one from a tactical point. We are going to loose even more lives pulling out. If we are giving up, then American lives need to be number one priority and everything else after that. Orion I heard Ronold Dumbsfeld say,"six days,six weeks,I doubt six months"............That was six fucking years ago! Bush and the neo-cons have moved that shell(the time-lines) all over the table,like hucksters and con men. They gave a different answer, depending on what day it was. Who can really say what the time-lines were?Need an answer?Take your pick

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/23/2007 10:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I cannot remember which one, but the think tank predicted as long as 10-15 years. If you were listening to politicians, regardless of which party, then that was where you and many people made a mistake. Reforming a country is not a speedy process, especially when you cannot secure it. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Was anybody listening to the time assessments before we went in? Before congress voted on it? I tend to remember 10 years. I tend to remember talking with my ex-marine brother, and being pissed because we knew 1) they would not factor things in such as the culture 2) The actual cost to clean things out and be able to restore infrastructure, and stability, and 3) the will of the American people versus the knee jerk anger over the twin towers. It is not so much I disagree with the action (other than the possible criminal elements that lead to it), but I completely disagree with the management of it. Warlords allowed to police their own? Militia allowed to keep heavy weapons, explosives and such? It was either remove all but small weapons or not. It was work with the locals or stay the fuck out. Exit strategy? Shit, I don't see a decent one from a tactical point. We are going to loose even more lives pulling out. If we are giving up, then American lives need to be number one priority and everything else after that. Orion I heard Ronold Dumbsfeld say,"six days,six weeks,I doubt six months"............That was six fucking years ago! Bush and the neo-cons have moved that shell(the time-lines) all over the table,like hucksters and con men. They gave a different answer, depending on what day it was. Who can really say what the time-lines were?Need an answer?Take your pick Being a think tank doesn`t make you smart or correct.It was a think tank that got us involved in Iraq in the 1st place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century As for a time line.... Before the invasion,I heard conservative republican, Scott Ritter say that we would never be able to secure that country,ever.How`s that for a time line? Iraq hasn`t had democracy for 6000 years.What`s so brilliant and scary-talented about us,that we can impose our version of democracy on them?Dropping democracy in 500 lbs. bomb loads ,will never work.

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 5:35:23 AM)
quote: I cannot remember which one, but the think tank predicted as long as 10-15 years. If you were listening to politicians, regardless of which party, then that was where you and many people made a mistake. Reforming a country is not a speedy process, especially when you cannot secure it. Then Bush should have secured troops and funding for that time frame. ACTUALLY, he should have pushed for an Amendment to the Constitution to make his expedition in Nation Building CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL. As it stands, he appears to have committed felony fraud to justify it.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 6:16:23 AM)
I don't disagree with you. It was FUBAR from the beginning. My brother was in Beirut in the late 60's, early 70's and his comment when the war talk started was "They have no clue what this is going to be like." Orion quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I cannot remember which one, but the think tank predicted as long as 10-15 years. If you were listening to politicians, regardless of which party, then that was where you and many people made a mistake. Reforming a country is not a speedy process, especially when you cannot secure it. Then Bush should have secured troops and funding for that time frame. ACTUALLY, he should have pushed for an Amendment to the Constitution to make his expedition in Nation Building CONSTITUTIONAL AND LAWFUL. As it stands, he appears to have committed felony fraud to justify it.

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 6:58:14 AM)
I think the people for this need to think really good and hard about the following points. 1) IF you are of service age and support the idea that this is the most important fight in the history of our nation, there is no other way to express that support than service. I would suggest those who want others to die in their place are worthless cowards, and we should not waste our time in discussion with them. 2) It costs the lives of 2.25 American Kids EACH AND EVER DAY. How many more kids are you willing to kill while you dither? So, if you're qualified under (1), I'd like to hear your answer to (2)? What is the price in AMERICAN KIDS LIVES that you're willing to pay while you keep giving Bush at-bats? Again, WAR SUPPORTERS OF SERVICE AGE WHO ARE COWARDLY NOT SERVING DO NOT COUNT.

spankmepink11 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 7:49:05 AM)
I think we need to pull our troops out of the "policing" business, rebuild the infrastructure and leave. If our attempts to rebuild are thwarted too enthusiastically.....then we pull out of that as well. I can count on one hand the number of politicians i believe actually serve "we the people" and have no faith in either party. They all pander to what they think we want to hear, then once elected, follow their own agenda. People honestly think that a Democratic president/administration is going to magically make things better?...Not going to happen. We're allowing a large chunk of our future generations blood to be spilled and another generation of children who will have never known one of their parents. In my opinion...one more mothers son or daughter killed is too many.

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 7:52:20 AM)
" People honestly think that a Democratic president/administration is going to magically make things better?...Not going to happen. " Which is why it's so important to take care of this now. 2.25 DEAD AMERICAN KIDS EVERY DAY. Today, Tomorrow, Thursday....

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 8:36:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I think the people for this need to think really good and hard about the following points. 1) IF you are of service age and support the idea that this is the most important fight in the history of our nation, there is no other way to express that support than service. I would suggest those who want others to die in their place are worthless cowards, and we should not waste our time in discussion with them. 2) It costs the lives of 2.25 American Kids EACH AND EVER DAY. How many more kids are you willing to kill while you dither? So, if you're qualified under (1), I'd like to hear your answer to (2)? What is the price in AMERICAN KIDS LIVES that you're willing to pay while you keep giving Bush at-bats? Again, WAR SUPPORTERS OF SERVICE AGE WHO ARE COWARDLY NOT SERVING DO NOT COUNT. "Again, WAR SUPPORTERS OF SERVICE AGE WHO ARE COWARDLY NOT SERVING DO NOT COUNT." True that brother. I also think most of the other war supporters should not be listened to either.It`s all a repetition of white house talking points anyway.Why listen to them 2nd and 3rd hand,when we can get them from the white house directly. Most of the proponents of this "Vietnam style" folly(Iraq),were against any type of foreign intervention, nation building,or becoming the"world`s policemen",before bush.They didn`t want anything to do with liberal things like foreign aid,the UN,or helping the 3rd world.No intervention in Darfur,Somalia,etc. Now,lol, they`re the fucking experts on nation building and foreign intervention.You can` tell them anything,they know it all.And if you question them,you`re painted as helping our enemies.What a bunch of bozos. There was a huge,veteran force of experts and personal, in the State Department(mostly there w/ others through out the gov.),with years of hard earned experience in nation building.Bosnia,Kosovo,Serbia,Croatia,etc.Bush over looked them,and hired Haliberton to do it all.Haliberton in turn,hired 18-28 year old kids,who`s only credential was being a member of the Heritage Foundation,another think tank,that helped bush sell this lie called the Iraq war .These kids,with no real experience other than being young republicans,were sent to Iraq to rebuild Iraq into a neo-cons dream-state.Got rid of every institution in Iraq(accept the Ministry of Oil)and replaced them with western style ones,like a NYC style Wall Street exchange,which btw, was a multi billion dollar failure. In the UN,we had good friends,who were willing to help,if only asked.There is an army of men and women w/ real life experience in nation building with our allies.Instead,we thumbed our noses at them,if they didn`t want to help us attack Iraq.Called them cowards and wimps.Does anybody remember "freedom fries" and the knuckle headed congressmen, who wanted to make a law to rename frenchfries,"freedom fries"? That`s the level of intelligence and sophistication we`re dealing with here,folks. Now,getting back to the thread....What now? The answer will probably involve other nations helping us,when we`re rid of bush.It will most likely involve partitioning Iraq into 3 states or separate countries.How that shakes out is yet to be known.We may not be able to contain the civil war,and we`d only be targets for both sides anyway.Trying to keep this all together is to much to ask of an army.Armys are not the best nation builders.Our`s is the best army in the world,(for now anyway),but they weren`t trained for this. The answer will involve getting the experts and honest people in,and getting the amateurs and bad faith players out. Peace

farglebargle -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 8:45:33 AM)
"The answer will probably involve other nations helping us,when we`re rid of bush" I'm not willing to wait. Bush BROKE IT, Bush is responsible for the cleanup.

Owner59 -> RE: So, BUSH failed to secure Iraq, what now? (7/24/2007 9:07:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "The answer will probably involve other nations helping us,when we`re rid of bush" I'm not willing to wait. Bush BROKE IT, Bush is responsible for the cleanup. Look brother,we gotta be bigger then the republicans and neo-conservatives,and move forward as much as possible with out them.America can`t wait.Something tells me that the republican candidates are soon going flee bush in droves,and the Iraq debacle as well. If bush doesn`t manage a coup datat,and cancel the elections,he`ll be under investigation in '09'and unable to pardon himself.God forbid a neo-con get in the white house,it`d be more of the same shit,for 4 more years. If and when a Democrat takes the white house,then there will finally be an effort towards a solution.They won`t "magically make things better",but at least they`ll start work on a solution and stem the damage the neo-cons have done. Making bush and the neo-cons clean up their mess is a nice idea,but won`t happen.That`s not how they operate.When bush is out,they`ll take credit for anything good that might happen(ie,"we laid the foundation for the success,yada,yada,yada,or some other bullshit like that),and blame the new administration for any failures.The neo-cons will shamelessly game the situation,spin and obfuscate,and otherwise run away from their responsibilities. That`s all anyone can expect from the neo-conservitives and the sheep that follow them.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.203125