Thoughts on the new Bush "plan" for Iraq

[International Machine Consortium]

Every planner, every military thinker, every politician worth his or her salt opposes screwing this thing up even further, but our great leader again challenges the conventional wisdom, or any wisdom at all for that matter and decides to waste even MORE lives and money on Iraq.
I hope the Democrats fight him tooth and nail on this thing. The American people spoke up last November, and the message was not "send more troops and money to Iraq!"
This is what happens when a lousy, stupid frat boy connives, steals and cheats his way into the Whitehouse.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Damn, almost a month to "meet with strategists and come up with the best plan" and throwing more bodies at Iraq is the best they can come up with? This is utterly pathetic.

 

[lozina]

he's a fool.

his military advisors at the time told him not to do this. so he fires them and replaces them with yes-men. what a joke.

 

[catnap1972]

It's getting to the point where he's just itching to be impeached. Does he think somehow public opinion is going to turn back his way if that happens?

 

[tomywishbone]

Regardless of our thoughts, bush is going to do whatever he pleases, and you, me and the rest of the sheeple will sit here and take it.

Happy birthday Elvis.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

the American people voted against corruption, not specifically Iraq.

now, what the hell difference there is between Republicans and Democrats is I am not sure

 

[Jaskalas]

Even I don?t think more troops should be sent in. They?ll be under the same failed policy.

 

[techs]

Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

What? I thought we just hanged Saddam for flying those jets into the WTC. Cuz he was head of Al Qaida remember? DUH!

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
... This is what happens when a lousy, stupid frat boy connives, steals and cheats his way into the Whitehouse.

Evidence of such bolded words? Or just wishful thinking?

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

Where does your statement tie Iraq into 9-11. People are trying to make a=b=c when nothing has been satated that Iraq was behind 9/11.

Statements like those generate momentum for the tin-foil people that have trouble seperating facts from fiction.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

Only way you can say that is by failing to connect the dots.

Islamic extremism is a global threat, the cause of 9-11, and found abundantly in Iraq post Saddam. I?m 100% for fighting them down to the last man/woman, I just don?t think what we?re doing in Iraq is effective.

Where as you absolutely refuse to believe there is a global war or threat from them and prefer us to never fight.

 

[Lemon law]

To int machine&co.

Who writes with some glee---Sweeeeeeet! Watching these idiots flail around like possessed rag dolls makes the last several years positively worth it!!!

I feel your glee---and the commander and theif is blowing it---but its our country that will have to bail the frat boy out this time---its our country he is running into the dirt.

While we sit idly by and watch---in Vietnam we took to the streets--demanded a change---where is that now?

But if the general public does not weigh in soon and clearly ---I fully expect the frat boy to double his bet and start a war with Iran.

Our elected represenatives need to have our support as they impeach GWB ASAP.---it will come to that choice and soon is my best guess.

 

[Genx87]

This is pretty silly imo. I think at this point we stick it out through the end of the year and let the Iraqi's start figuring out their mess. I think 4-5 years in Iraq made our cause at least noble enough to walk away from. At least to the point where we arent doing combat patrols and have a small reactionary force sitting in a base away from possible action waiting for some big wig terrorist to show up to get his house bombed.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

Only way you can say that is by failing to connect the dots.

Islamic extremism is a global threat, the cause of 9-11, and found abundantly in Iraq post Saddam. I?m 100% for fighting them down to the last man/woman, I just don?t think what we?re doing in Iraq is effective.

Where as you absolutely refuse to believe there is a global war or threat from them and prefer us to never fight.

I think "Global War on Terror" is a buzz-phrase used by the PNAC to spark fear in the public and to be given a free ticket to invade any country they feel like to line the pockets of their corporate butt-buddies. It just shows how much that we, as a society, have learned in the last 100 years.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

Only way you can say that is by failing to connect the dots.

Islamic extremism is a global threat, the cause of 9-11, and found abundantly in Iraq post Saddam. I?m 100% for fighting them down to the last man/woman, I just don?t think what we?re doing in Iraq is effective.

Where as you absolutely refuse to believe there is a global war or threat from them and prefer us to never fight.

I think "Global War on Terror" is a buzz-phrase used by the PNAC to spark fear in the public and to be given a free ticket to invade any country they feel like to line the pockets of their corporate butt-buddies. It just shows how much that we, as a society, have learned in the last 100 years.

I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

Only way you can say that is by failing to connect the dots.

Islamic extremism is a global threat, the cause of 9-11, and found abundantly in Iraq post Saddam. I?m 100% for fighting them down to the last man/woman, I just don?t think what we?re doing in Iraq is effective.

Where as you absolutely refuse to believe there is a global war or threat from them and prefer us to never fight.

I think "Global War on Terror" is a buzz-phrase used by the PNAC to spark fear in the public and to be given a free ticket to invade any country they feel like to line the pockets of their corporate butt-buddies. It just shows how much that we, as a society, have learned in the last 100 years.

I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

Same as there was a legitimate threat from the Germans, the Japanese, and the Communists right? Point is anyone can potentially turn into our enemy, so do you advocate attacking everyone in hopes that somehow not a single political entity will disagree with us?

Furthermore you can't declare a Global War on Terror and I wish someone would fricking call Bush on that. That's just about as retarded as a war on poverty, war on AIDS, war on drugs, etc. There are "terrorist" factions in every country on the planet-- some good, some bad. The word "terrorist" itself isn't really clearly defined. In Saddam's eyes, we were terrorists invading their sovereign nation... in Britain's eyes, we were terrorists during the revolutionary war. So by declaring a global war on terror, you'd essentially need to kill everything and everyone on this planet that hasn't specifically expressed neutrality and isolationism.

 

[Genx87]

Wasnt there a legitmate threat from the Germans, Japanese, and Communists?

I think there is a difference between a WoT and a war on poverty, aids, drugs.
The WoT still has tangible goals with a real enemy although manytimes a stateless and borderless enemy. Sometimes AIDs, Drugs, and in many cases poverty is a behavioral choice people make.

The WoT can still be waged but in a much less heated battle we are today. I think denying them Afghanistan has really hurt their ability to move. Unfortunately I think Pakistans unwillingness to drive them to us in Afghanistan will make our mission there more futile over the coming years.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

To me a massive attack would be if a significant portion of the buildings in NY were destroyed with major loss of life, like what we did to Tokyo with the fire bombing during WW2.

It's kind of like how to tell if that buck is really big. If you reach for your gun instead of your binoculars, you know he's a big one. We haven't had a terrorist attack like that..... yet.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

The 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi, operating out of Afghanistan/Pakistan. How does invading and destabilizing Iraq help? While we ignore Al Qauda operatives in the Sudan, and give a loose hand on the beloved patriot Madrassas? Only a fool believes that Iraq has any purpose other than to perpetrate the largest larceny in the history of civilization. Not the oil from the Iraqis, or any currency thereof, but theft from the govt/taxpayers paid directly to cronies at all levels of supply (Halliburton, et al)

Bah

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

The 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi, operating out of Afghanistan/Pakistan. How does invading and destabilizing Iraq help? While we ignore Al Qauda operatives in the Sudan, and give a loose hand on the beloved patriot Madrassas? Only a fool believes that Iraq has any purpose other than to perpetrate the largest larceny in the history of civilization. Not the oil from the Iraqis, or any currency thereof, but theft from the govt/taxpayers paid directly to cronies at all levels of supply (Halliburton, et al)

Bah

I am not making any claims regarding Iraq, however pointing out that claiming the WoT is a buzzword or phony is hogwash.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

To me a massive attack would be if a significant portion of the buildings in NY were destroyed with major loss of life, like what we did to Tokyo with the fire bombing during WW2.

It's kind of like how to tell if that buck is really big. If you reach for your gun instead of your binoculars, you know he's a big one. We haven't had a terrorist attack like that..... yet.

I guess to me, the biggest loss of life in a single attack on American soil counts as "massive".
Especially since it was a lot of luck those figures werent 30,000 instead of 3000.

 

[OSX]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: techs
Here comes the 9-11 warning:

White House press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that Bush "understands there is a lot of public anxiety" about the war. On the other hand, he said that Americans "don't want another Sept. 11" type of terrorist attack and that it is wiser to confront terrorists overseas in Iraq and other battlegrounds rather than in the United States.

As I recall Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. And as I recall Iraq has created more terrorists than we have killed.

What? I thought we just hanged Saddam for flying those jets into the WTC. Cuz he was head of Al Qaida remember? DUH!

He was hung for war crimes when he used gas against the Kurds in the eighties.

Bush can't admit he's wrong, his ego is too large.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87


I disagree and here is why. There is a legitimate threat from terrorists and they did conduct a massive assault on our homeland on 9-11. We sat around with our thumbs up our collective ass for the last 30 years. Hoping this crap would stay contained to the ME and maybe parts of Europe. The world got a lot smaller on 9-11 for us, we need to respond.

Like I have said to other wingbats who think this war is all about money. Why go through the mess to fund your buddies? I am sure there is plenty of opportunity to create projects in our ridiculously big budget to fund their friends and with much less political baggage.

I wouldn't call 9-11 a "massive attack". Tragic, yes, massive, no. If you want to see a massive attack look at what we have done in Iraq. We only lost 3000 people on 9-11. It basically hurt our pride and confidence more then anything else.

Now we've lost another 3000 American lives, an untold number of innocent Iraqi's, and who knows how much money and I don't feel any safer, as a matter of fact I feel less safe. We had just cause to invade Afghanistan and would have just left it at that.

More people died on 9-11 than Pearl Harbor. Do you consider Pearl Harbor a massive attack?

I think coordinating several hijackings, ramming them into two of the worlds biggest buildings is "massive" in my book.

The 9/11 terrorists were primarily Saudi, operating out of Afghanistan/Pakistan. How does invading and destabilizing Iraq help? While we ignore Al Qauda operatives in the Sudan, and give a loose hand on the beloved patriot Madrassas? Only a fool believes that Iraq has any purpose other than to perpetrate the largest larceny in the history of civilization. Not the oil from the Iraqis, or any currency thereof, but theft from the govt/taxpayers paid directly to cronies at all levels of supply (Halliburton, et al)

Bah

I am not making any claims regarding Iraq, however pointing out that claiming the WoT is a buzzword or phony is hogwash.

Well Bush or the US Gov't sure hasn't shown that we've really taken steps to reduce terrorism in the world, if what you're saying regarding WoT not being a buzzword is true. In fact, we've done exactly the opposite. It's like saying you're for the war on drugs while injecting yourself with heroin.

The problem is, you have grown into accepting the double standard as all-encompassing. Hell, we all know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush knows, Cheney knows, the PNAC know. 9/11 was just an easy out to sell the Iraq war and to sell any subsequent operations in the name of national security.

Unfortunately for Bush, and for everyone involved in the war, his use of the "War on Terror" sh*t to sell the war back-fired on him because through the US's actions, he made a safe haven in Iraq for the very muslim extremists we are set on eliminating. However unfortunately for us, Bush doesn't live in our reality-- as evidenced by "throwing more fuel on the fire" being his solution to win the war.