or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Squeaky Wheel...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Squeaky Wheel...

post #1 of 83
Thread Starter 
I am at the point that I believe that the situation in Iraq is not winnable or at least at the edge of being so. Hand in hand with that also goes the WOT.

I am sad that America, where I was born and have come to love, has shown the world that though being the most powerful military force on earth, it is morally lacking and without true vision or focus. Our collective moral compass is so dar off, it never stops spinning. Every rogue nation and terrorist group gains strength and boldness from that very lack of direction.

The situation with this Al-Sadr guy in Iraq is case in point. I am sitting here wandering why this guy was not arrested or put down when he first ordered his army kill US soldiers and innocent civilians. Oh yeah, it is because 30-50% of the US population, and half of their representatives felt uneasy about doing that and let the administration know. Then the President lost some resolve and gave in to the notion that "negotiations" would work, rather than a preemptive strike.

Now again we are at a crossroads and the future once again hangs in the balance, and we hear that "negotiations" are being relied on. Of course, they broke down, DUH. and now more people are going to die. The only thing that stands between some chance for peace and months or years of fighting the "Mahdi Army" (spelling, I know) is a military base disguised as a mosque.

Where is the squeaking coming from? Well, those of you here and your counterparts across this and other countries, that have questioned and cast doubt on everything that this administration does/has done, are the the proverbial wheel. Are you right? Hell, I hope so. Al-Sadr has a larger following as each and every day that passes. I predict that he becomes yet another Anti-US figurehead like UBL, if he is not already there.

I am at a loss as to why this thug, Al-Sadr, is worth any legitimacy. I would be glad to hear where I am going wrong. But, as it sits now, I just cant see it. How many here argued against taking this guy out last time?

As far as squeaking goes, many of you have adopted the practice of protest just because you can, along with adopting the notion that this is somehow patriotic, in and of itself. I am not trying to finger anyone here in particular. How could I, when our national and political leaders are setting the precedent? If we are going to squeak, it should be be about things that are bigger than politics. Sadly that's not how it is now.

I know that I'm talking about more than just the Al-Sadr problem in iraq, but it seems to me that a lot of things relate to this problem. It is a fact that political pressures effect major decisions.

I know that a lot of you will point fingers at GWB and his "people". However, the problem lies with each citizen, US and world, it is up to us to get along and fight for what we all agree is right and stand up to what is wrong.

Is this even possible anymore?
post #2 of 83
You might be interested to know that I saw this starting to be predicted in some liberal journals about 6 months ago.

That is, once Bush's Iraqi adventure had clearly degenerated into a no win quagmire (the inevitability of which was obvious to a lot of us "leftists" at the time), the right would start to shift the blame to that portion of the American people who failed to get behind the program.

In Vietnam they called it "tying our hands", which meant all those filthy hippies in the streets made it politically difficult to nuke 'em back to the stone age.

Hey, and guess what? It was demented bullshit then, and it's demented bullshit now. Bad wars are bad wars. They don't go well because they are not being fought for the right reasons, or because their planners fail to take the measure of the situation correctly, or because they don't have a realistic goal going in, fail to commit sufficient resources, and don't have a metric to know when they've "won".

Blaming the people that notice this for the failures of a doomed enterprise is like blaming the West Nile Virus on the Centers for Disease Control, as if naming a thing conjured it into existence.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #3 of 83
By the way, maybe if you hadn't been so busy branding anyone who opposed this war as "traitors" and "Saddam lovers" and "terrorist sympathizers" and "working for al Qaeda" you might have noticed that the precise reason many of us kept arguing against this little cluster-fuck was our perception that it was unworkable.

As in, will fail to bring about desired results. As in, installing a democracy by force of arms in a region that has no tradition of democratic institutions or political infrastructure to support same will likely fail. As in, attacking a middle eastern country that had not attacked us and whose threat to us was highly debatable would most likely result in inflaming the passions of muslims everywhere and lead to increased animosity towards the US if not swelling the ranks of potential terrorists.

As in, a war such as this was for all intents and pruposes unwinnable.

And now you belatedly come to the same conclusion and you want to blame the same people who laid it all out for you after dismissing them as traitors and worse.

Jesus.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #4 of 83
Nice. Blame the citizens. Let me guess...."you're either with us or against us".

What did you expect from invading a(deeply divided) country that was no threat to us and without a plan of action as to how to secure it AFTERWARDS taking into consideration religious beliefs and differences among the population and the region itself? Oh yeah, they were all gonna "greet us with roses" so no need to worry right?

No matter the party, it's probably very hard for you to do that I understand, common sense would dictate having a post war plan to secure the peace. The sole fact you're starting a thread that has to do with the mess that Iraq is right now, is enough of a clue that we didn't.

Maybe DUHbya should've listened when he was told he was gonna OWN the country.

By the way, read Addabox's excellent post a couple times. Maybe, or I should say, hopefully, it will all click.
post #5 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am at the point that I believe that the situation in Iraq is not winnable or at least at the edge of being so. Hand in hand with that also goes the WOT.

I am sad that America, where I was born and have come to love, has shown the world that though being the most powerful military force on earth, it is morally lacking and without true vision or focus. Our collective moral compass is so dar off, it never stops spinning. Every rogue nation and terrorist group gains strength and boldness from that very lack of direction.

The situation with this Al-Sadr guy in Iraq is case in point. I am sitting here wandering why this guy was not arrested or put down when he first ordered his army kill US soldiers and innocent civilians. Oh yeah, it is because 30-50% of the US population, and half of their representatives felt uneasy about doing that and let the administration know. Then the President lost some resolve and gave in to the notion that "negotiations" would work, rather than a preemptive strike.

Now again we are at a crossroads and the future once again hangs in the balance, and we hear that "negotiations" are being relied on. Of course, they broke down, DUH. and now more people are going to die. The only thing that stands between some chance for peace and months or years of fighting the "Mahdi Army" (spelling, I know) is a military base disguised as a mosque.

Where is the squeaking coming from? Well, those of you here and your counterparts across this and other countries, that have questioned and cast doubt on everything that this administration does/has done, are the the proverbial wheel. Are you right? Hell, I hope so. Al-Sadr has a larger following as each and every day that passes. I predict that he becomes yet another Anti-US figurehead like UBL, if he is not already there.

I am at a loss as to why this thug, Al-Sadr, is worth any legitimacy. I would be glad to hear where I am going wrong. But, as it sits now, I just cant see it. How many here argued against taking this guy out last time?

As far as squeaking goes, many of you have adopted the practice of protest just because you can, along with adopting the notion that this is somehow patriotic, in and of itself. I am not trying to finger anyone here in particular. How could I, when our national and political leaders are setting the precedent? If we are going to squeak, it should be be about things that are bigger than politics. Sadly that's not how it is now.

I know that I'm talking about more than just the Al-Sadr problem in iraq, but it seems to me that a lot of things relate to this problem. It is a fact that political pressures effect major decisions.

I know that a lot of you will point fingers at GWB and his "people". However, the problem lies with each citizen, US and world, it is up to us to get along and fight for what we all agree is right and stand up to what is wrong.

Is this even possible anymore?


While this thread is extra dumb it does show that things in america are still the way they should be. The people not self serving politicians are in charge.


By the way Vietnam wasn't winnable either.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #6 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
You might be interested to know that I saw this starting to be predicted in some liberal journals about 6 months ago.

That is, once Bush's Iraqi adventure had clearly degenerated into a no win quagmire (the inevitability of which was obvious to a lot of us "leftists" at the time), the right would start to shift the blame to that portion of the American people who failed to get behind the program.

In Vietnam they called it "tying our hands", which meant all those filthy hippies in the streets made it politically difficult to nuke 'em back to the stone age.

Hey, and guess what? It was demented bullshit then, and it's demented bullshit now. Bad wars are bad wars. They don't go well because they are not being fought for the right reasons, or because their planners fail to take the measure of the situation correctly, or because they don't have a realistic goal going in, fail to commit sufficient resources, and don't have a metric to know when they've "won".

Blaming the people that notice this for the failures of a doomed enterprise is like blaming the West Nile Virus on the Centers for Disease Control, as if naming a thing conjured it into existence.

Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven
post #7 of 83
Naples, you are delusional. The idea that "Bush lied" has somehow been foisted on the republic by a cabal of leftists and a compliant media is insane. I mean, actually insane, get help, take meds, check yourself in, settle your affairs crazy.

People think Bush lied because he did. They've figured it out despite a complacent media that has done almost nothing but transcribe the administration's talking points. They still don't use the "L" word, preferring a more circumspect "he was misled by the CIA" and "may have exaggerated".

Kerry voted to give the president the authority to wage war. He has been consistent in saying that he believes that Bush abused that authority by failing to use the tools short of war that he had at hand. If Kerry had been president he would have proceeded with inspections, and guess what? It's entirely likely that it would have been established that the WOMD weren't there, the ties to al Qaeda weren't there, and the capacity to strike at America wasn't there. Hence: no war.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #8 of 83
Quote:
If Kerry had been president he would have proceeded with inspections, and guess what? It's entirely likely that it would have been established that the WOMD weren't there, the ties to al Qaeda weren't there, and the capacity to strike at America wasn't there. Hence: no war.

You're cutting Bush too much slack here: inspections diddetermine there were no WMD's, and that intelligence about WMD's was completely wrong + intelligence always said ties with Al Qaeda were flimsy at best and ties with 9/11 non-existent.

Bush attacked the very first day the troops were in position and ready to go. The whole UN thing was a masquerade. And millions around the world saw that. I've a gut feeling Bush isn't very good at foreign languages, which is too bad, 'cause wir haben das nicht gewusst would fit him perfectly.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #9 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven


-----------------------------------------------------------

" The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong "

-----------------------------------------------------------


Huh?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #10 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

It was the constant barrage of anti-bush detractors including Kennedy, Sharpton, Dean, Clarke, Gore, just to name but a few, that have put their mugs in front of the camera to influence the American public. Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

There are plenty of things that can be scrutinized simply because our leadership is human, but to call everything that one person does wrong and misguided, simply because your political views are different, and then claim victory when something does go wrong is unpretentiously dishonest.

Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush. So where is the incessant attacks on Kerry by the very same people that constantly flame Bush? The silence is deafening.

Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven

Your comments read like self-parody.

In fact, you are so well adept at this turn of phrase technique, I may have use for you in my irreverent band of citizen comedians (note: citizenship is not really required).
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #11 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, it is easy to say "I saw this coming" when everything that this admin has been done was/is under attack. Think about that a little.

Yeah, cause no other president in history has been attacked by the opposition right? If you weren't so rabidly pro-Bush you'd actually see that he's been given quite an easy time actually.
Quote:
The whole "Bush lied" thing has been proven wrong, yet poling shows that a huge chunk of the population thought he did. This lie is what all of the current Anti-Bush movement is based on.

Is this some kind of reverse psychology or a joke or something?
Quote:
Many of you have allowed yourselves to be falsely influenced.

This one took the prize. Yeah, we've been influenced about a 1,000,000th of the amount you have. Karl Rove dreams of 290,000,000 people like you every day.
Quote:
Kerry now says that knowing all that he knows now, he would still give the authority to the president. Isn't he also misleading the masses? He would likely still attempt to take out SH. Sure maybe he would jump through more hoops for the UN, but his stance is basically the same as Bush.

I think Kerry said he would vote to give the president the authority again....the authority that was hurried and abused to invade a much smaller country that represented no immediate threat to any countries at the time. Quite a difference. EDIT: You might want to do some "Foogling" on the subject. Many liberals have actually criticized Kerry for saying that and not being specific enough about his statements.
By the way, you may say Bush's current stance is not that much different than Kerry's....but that's just because he toned it down now that countries of the much hyped coalition of the willing(read rent-a-country) dropped and want out and the American people realized they'd been misled/lied to about the war. More like borrowing from Kerry's Iraq book actually.
Quote:
Kerry says he would work with France and Germany and Russia (read pay-off) so they would fight with the US. I hear everyone piss and moan about the cost of the war thus far, yet under a Kerry admin, the cost would be increased by billions in kickbacks. Where are the squeaky wheels on that one? Nothing but crickets...

lol. WTF. Kickbacks eh? Like the ones used for the rent-a-country for the coalition of the willing program? Kerry could get some tips on that from both Bush and Cheneyburton. Could you name specifically the type of kickbacks Kerry would pay out and to whom and how...with links if you have any?
Quote:
EDIT: Point is that the squeaky wheels are predominantly left leaning and the outcry is idealistically/politically driven

Rather have a squeaky wheel than no wheels at all. Are you Common Man's older brother or something? By the way, your thread/threads is/are both politically and idealistically driven aswell. Pot, meet the kettle.
post #12 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh yeah, it is because 30-50% of the US population, and half of their representatives felt uneasy about doing that and let the administration know. Then the President lost some resolve and gave in to the notion that "negotiations" would work, rather than a preemptive strike.

You should be ashamed of yourself NaplesX. You yourself state that "the President lost some resolve" but you still refuse to hold him responsible. Bush made a decision, not 30-50% of the US population. If Bush fucked up, you should have the courage to admit it.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #13 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Naples, you are delusional. The idea that "Bush lied" has somehow been foisted on the republic by a cabal of leftists and a compliant media is insane. I mean, actually insane, get help, take meds, check yourself in, settle your affairs crazy.

People think Bush lied because he did. They've figured it out despite a complacent media that has done almost nothing but transcribe the administration's talking points. They still don't use the "L" word, preferring a more circumspect "he was misled by the CIA" and "may have exaggerated".

Kerry voted to give the president the authority to wage war. He has been consistent in saying that he believes that Bush abused that authority by failing to use the tools short of war that he had at hand. If Kerry had been president he would have proceeded with inspections, and guess what? It's entirely likely that it would have been established that the WOMD weren't there, the ties to al Qaeda weren't there, and the capacity to strike at America wasn't there. Hence: no war.

I am actually leaning more and more away from the notion of a "Left-wing" or "Liberal' media. Although I really don't think that there is a dispute that the majority of media people are liberal. The media overall is simply lazy, regurgitators of gossip and innuendo. The fact that it is made up of mostly liberals does not speak highly of that group. I do believe that there are a small percentage that are strictly politically driven and hiding behind their legitimate press credentials. Of course the rest gladly parrot any information to garner ratings.

But as is usual here, the point that I was making is totally blown out of context. I am thoroughly pissed about the situation with Al-Sadr. I am also disappointed in this admin, or whomever has given into the "talking" notion visa vi Al-Sadr.

But what I and most savvy media types realize is that our leaders are political creatures and can be influenced in any number of ways.

As far as the WMD situation, I predict that they are found outside of Iraq and maybe even used in an attack. Of course everyone will blame Bush for not acting fast enough.

There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ. I assume you're just choosing to ignore that fact...

As far as blaming anyone, I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.
post #14 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You should be ashamed of yourself NaplesX. You yourself state that "the President lost some resolve" but you still refuse to hold him responsible. Bush made a decision, not 30-50% of the US population. If Bush fucked up, you should have the courage to admit it.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Um, read my previous post.
post #15 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
...visa vi...

I corrected this for you once before. It's "vis-a-vis", literally meaning "face to face" in French. You're not spelling it right and you're not using it right.
post #16 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ...

Hook, line and sinker. What a maroon.

Naples. There are proven ties between you and AQ. You just talked about them. That's a connection.

Significance of the connection plays a part here, and to claim that Iraq (as a government, nation or entity of peoples) has a significant enough connection with AQ to censure their actions due to such a connection, is being absolutely, undeniably dishonest.
post #17 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as blaming anyone, I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.

So in formulating policy, don't you think adherence should be a factor? Of course the nation will be split on a decision such as this. Any decision that requires 100% support for it to be successful is a bad decision. A good manager (or President) has the ability to predict the level of support, and formulate policy that works based on that level of support. Your argument that Bush policies didn't work because we didn't give him enough support shows just how inexperienced and naive you are.
post #18 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am actually leaning more and more away from the notion of a "Left-wing" or "Liberal' media. Although I really don't think that there is a dispute that the majority of media people are liberal. The media overall is simply lazy, regurgitators of gossip and innuendo. The fact that it is made up of mostly liberals does not speak highly of that group. I do believe that there are a small percentage that are strictly politically driven and hiding behind their legitimate press credentials. Of course the rest gladly parrot any information to garner ratings.

But as is usual here, the point that I was making is totally blown out of context. I am thoroughly pissed about the situation with Al-Sadr. I am also disappointed in this admin, or whomever has given into the "talking" notion visa vi Al-Sadr.

But what I and most savvy media types realize is that our leaders are political creatures and can be influenced in any number of ways.

As far as the WMD situation, I predict that they are found outside of Iraq and maybe even used in an attack. Of course everyone will blame Bush for not acting fast enough.

There are proven ties between Iraq and AQ. I assume you're just choosing to ignore that fact...

As far as blaming anyone, I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.


The WOMD won't be found NaplesX.

Get over it.

The thing is there's alot of people out there who don't think any of Bush's agenda is " right ".

You'll just have to deal with that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 83
Naples, would you like to pick 3 posts you made before the Iraq war about what was going to happen, why, and why you were for the war?

I'll pick 3 posts I made.

To turn round now and blame people who predicted this and gave exact reasons when you and Rummy were on cloud fucking cuckoo land is ... typical of you, that's what.

So: direct challenge. You up for reminding everyone how you got it wrong and the people you hate got it right?
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #20 of 83
Naples. Did you miss the results of those TWO frigging enquiries that declared there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

You've got it so arse-over-tit it'd be funny if there weren't so many other Americans who've been misled so thoroughly, like you - the last poll I remember showed that %67 of Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for the 11th of September 2001.

Your President is a liar, and an effective liar. And you have the gall to bemoan some utterly fictional poll that shows that 'a huge chunk' of your population believes him to have been untruthful.

It's not my fault that this war was so unsuccessful, it's the fault of people like you for supporting action prompted by polity and sold on untruths that don't matter to you even now when more than a thousand of your own citizens have died.
post #21 of 83
Bush is responsible of his actions weither there are bad or goods. He is a president and should be above public opinion : if he is not, he is only a politician seekings votes, and not a countrie leader.

My feelings for Iraq, is that it wasn't workable. I don't blame the current admin in charge of Iraq, for the management : they do their best*. The error was to start this war : you don't transform a tyranny into a democratie with a magical wand.

* it's because they are doing their best, that they do not fall under Saadr, they do not want to turn it into a martyr. Like in the battle of Massada, the symbolic aspect of the war is very important and in many aspects the psychological war is more important than the battlefieds.




I will also add, that Iraq is supposed to have a legitimate governement, helped for security by US troops who have their liberty of action. The decision of catching Saadr, belong to this governement. By saying that US should catch him, you gave reason to many Iraqi people, who think that the Iraq governement is an US puppet, and that US is an invader.
post #22 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Naples, would you like to pick 3 posts you made before the Iraq war about what was going to happen, why, and why you were for the war?

I'll pick 3 posts I made.

To turn round now and blame people who predicted this and gave exact reasons when you and Rummy were on cloud fucking cuckoo land is ... typical of you, that's what.

So: direct challenge. You up for reminding everyone how you got it wrong and the people you hate got it right?

i would love to, I am not sure if I was commenting on the war when I first started posting on AO, or even on here. I will have to check.

Edit: When did they change the message in the left? It's now back to the way it was before.

<----------- Signup date is right here.
post #23 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
i would love to, I am not sure if I was commenting on the war when I first started posting on AO, or even on here. I will have to check.

Edit: When did they change the message in the left? It's now back to the way it was before.

<----------- Signup date is right here.

Bloody marvellous. I hope to God you can do that, because I predicted exactly what was going to happen. And I wasn't the only one.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #24 of 83
Quote:
I blame all of us for failing to come together to support doing what is right and what is best for everyone and not just one political agenda.

Since when did GWB listen to others who opposed his idea? It didn't stop him from going to war with Iraq. Why blame everyone now? Did GWB have a change of heart? Does public/international opinion mean something in the White House? What changed?
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #25 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
Bloody marvellous. I hope to God you can do that, because I predicted exactly what was going to happen. And I wasn't the only one.

Um...

Mar 2003 was when Operation Iraqi Freedom started....

I began posting on AI June 2003 and didn't even discover AO for many months after that.

Saying that the war would have problems is not exactly predicting what will happen. Saying "Bushie lied" until you are blue in the face, does not make it true. Saying that some Iraqi's would be against an occupation, is a given.

Some of the very same things that you and others are saying about this war, were being said about WWII after the major fighting was over.

You cannot judge a war's success or failure so soon after the fact. Decades of ebb and flow will however. I think history will look kindly on the results.
post #26 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by talksense101
Since when did GWB listen to others who opposed his idea? It didn't stop him from going to war with Iraq. Why blame everyone now? Did GWB have a change of heart? Does public/international opinion mean something in the White House? What changed?

He wants to get re-elected.
post #27 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
He wants to get re-elected.

When the superior interests of a nations, such as security, are in balance, no such considerations should prevails.

Note that french presidents are not superiors in this matter. Only De Gaulle resigned twice, when he think that there was a contradiction between the two. That's why I respect this man, a man of the old time : an extincted specie.
post #28 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
He wants to get re-elected.


For the first time you've hit the nail on the head. That's what this all has been about. There was never any WOMD to find. There wasn't any connections between SH and Al Queda etc. It's all been about George seeming like he was doing a necessary job. So he could get reelected.

And that is at it's heart the big problem with having George W Bush in office. He doesn't belong there because he's out for himself not the country.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #29 of 83
The problem is that people in the US think of a war too much as a process of outgunning the other guy, something we are exceedingly good at. But we really aren't that good at the aftermath of nation building.

I think we tend to forget that because of the unprecedented successes of the Marshall plan and what the Germans and Japanese have done for themselves over the last sixty years have made the US borderline delusional IMO in terms of thinking that they can save the world. You have two major world powers which had quite powerful militaries, middling histories of democracy, past aggressive tendencies and a big economic mess after the war. Now they are established democracies, with strong pacifist tendencies, and modern economies that are relatively strong (despite minor problems with German unemployment and the Japanese financial sector et al).

War as a form of problem solving in terms of creating a lasting improvement for all sides really hasn't worked all that well since WWII. Consider how the Koreas, Vietnam, Gulf War, Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq have turned out for all parties. No Winner-Winner situations with the possible exception of the Balkans.
post #30 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
When the superior interests of a nations, such as security, are in balance, no such considerations should prevails.

Note that french presidents are not superiors in this matter. Only De Gaulle resigned twice, when he think that there was a contradiction between the two. That's why I respect this man, a man of the old time : an extincted specie.

DeGaulle: you are right, no more people with that kind of integrity . . . . it would do a country good to contemplate such figures.
Even if I found his politics a little too conservative, I could still respect him

. . . BTW, the French government (of that era) asked my mother to spy on my father, to keep tabs
Needless to say, she was absolutely infuriated!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #31 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam


. . . BTW, the French government (of that era) asked my mother to spy on my father, to keep tabs
Needless to say, she was absolutely infuriated!!

Very bad, and a totally stupid suggestion. I expect that today french secret services are less stupid ...
post #32 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Bush is responsible of his actions weither there are bad or goods. He is a president and should be above public opinion : if he is not, he is only a politician seekings votes, and not a countrie leader.

My feelings for Iraq, is that it wasn't workable. I don't blame the current admin in charge of Iraq, for the management : they do their best*. The error was to start this war : you don't transform a tyranny into a democratie with a magical wand.

* it's because they are doing their best, that they do not fall under Saadr, they do not want to turn it into a martyr. Like in the battle of Massada, the symbolic aspect of the war is very important and in many aspects the psychological war is more important than the battlefieds.




I will also add, that Iraq is supposed to have a legitimate governement, helped for security by US troops who have their liberty of action. The decision of catching Saadr, belong to this governement. By saying that US should catch him, you gave reason to many Iraqi people, who think that the Iraq governement is an US puppet, and that US is an invader.

Good points.

However, we had the chance before the hand-over. We did not take it, and partly because of the reasons that I mentioned, IMO.

So when I hear someone use the line that Clinton had a chance to get UBL, the same can now be said of GWB in regards to Sadr. I think it was a bad decision then as well as now. Yes, you are right the onus is on Bush, and he or someone in the admin dropped the ball on this. If this guy Sadr is not taken care of, it will seriously set back the war in Iraq and probably the WOT, IMO.

Resolve has been set aside in favor of getting reelected. I'm not sure if that is the right approach. I don't like it, even though I know it is somethiing that he must do, being an election year and all.

And as far as this war being waged to get re-elected, that is far fetched speculation. If that is true then he would have started this war much closer to election day, if that was the aim. I think the perceived threat of further terror after 9/11 prompted the urgency to remove SH. The WMD issue was blown up by the opposition and thrown to the masses and is being used to bludgeon bush even though it was not the only reason for the war. But that's polotics, right

We Americans love a good scandal to rally around.
post #33 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
The problem is that people in the US think of a war too much as a process of outgunning the other guy, something we are exceedingly good at. But we really aren't that good at the aftermath of nation building.

I think we tend to forget that because of the unprecedented successes of the Marshall plan and what the Germans and Japanese have done for themselves over the last sixty years have made the US borderline delusional IMO in terms of thinking that they can save the world. You have two major world powers which had quite powerful militaries, middling histories of democracy, past aggressive tendencies and a big economic mess after the war. Now they are established democracies, with strong pacifist tendencies, and modern economies that are relatively strong (despite minor problems with German unemployment and the Japanese financial sector et al).

War as a form of problem solving in terms of creating a lasting improvement for all sides really hasn't worked all that well since WWII. Consider how the Koreas, Vietnam, Gulf War, Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq have turned out for all parties. No Winner-Winner situations with the possible exception of the Balkans.

You wage war to destroy you're enemies. Period.

And as far as waging the peace, we just don't do it fast enough for the bleeding hearts. We can go in and totally annihilate our enemies in days and weeks. What used to takes years now takes months. But when the stabilization process drags on, like it will, the US bashers call to arms because it seems so out of proportion. But if anyone cares to research it any, they know that reconstruction takes longer than what some are demanding take place now.

The US is not taking over the world. Bush's plan to withdraw some of the troops from countries of former conquests, shows just that. But of course who is crying about it? Hmmm?
post #34 of 83
Naples, for the love of God, call a doctor. There still may be time.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #35 of 83
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You wage war to destroy you're enemies. Period.

See, this is where people who are REALLY dumb get it wrong.

Every action has consequences, and you need to be responsible with every action you take. You need to weigh the pros and cons, best and worst case scenarios before you do ANYTHING. And you need to have a complete, start-to-finish plan of action that INCLUDES the aftermath and restoring sovereignty (not the same as forcing democracy).

It's just dumb and irresponsible to do it otherwise. In early 2003, Bunge, Giant, SJO, SPJ, Harald, pfflam and I, as well as others, said "the Bush Administration has no plan and no legitimate reason to go to war".

In August 2004, NaplesX says: "I am at the point that I believe that the situation in Iraq is not winnable or at least at the edge of being so. Hand in hand with that also goes the WOT."

Told you so.
Told you so.
Told you so.
Told you so.

You f**king numbwit. Now go away. And realize that you were wrong. And vote for someone who has a little better record at predicting results and determining cause. Otherwise our country will continue in its decline.
post #36 of 83
Quote:
You wage war to destroy you're enemies. Period.

You wage war to protect yourselves (and perhaps your friends or any innocent party) from harm. But to do so smartly involves a long term calculation of how best to do so while reducing the probability that a sequel will be needed.

As long as people keep reproducing, destroying your enemies has never really worked all that well. Wait a generation and the problem will return if the underlying causes are not addressed. Better to beat them and figure out a way to work with them afterwards (Marshall Plan) so it doesn't happen again. If you just fight them and then put the onus on them for their aggression without reform (Treaty of Versailles) then chances are it will become a problem again in another two decades. If you just fight them but they remain in power (North Korea) then chances are you'll still be posturing with them fifty years later with tens of thousands of troops send overseas as a deterrant and great worry about them attacking again. If you fight them (Gulf War) but then don't support their civilians after calling for them to uprise and don't force a change in leadership then chances are good you'll be back again in another decade to the same place (Iraq War). If you support "freedom fighters" (Afghans in the Soviet-Afghanistan War) but then let their country devolve into a shithole afterwards without intervening then you allow a vacuum for extremists and that is how you wind up back there again (War in Afghanistan). War on the cheap, the blow shit up and then fuck em mentality is how you wind up with long term security problems remaining. No we can't solve every problem easily (North Korea) but if we paid much more attention to some of the conflicts and their aftermaths (Iraq uprising/Afghanistin post-88) and went for real solutions at the right time we could have prevented several other problems that caused us to have to spend soldiers lives and hundreds of billions of bling bling later on.
post #37 of 83
Thread Starter 
I try to stay away from doing the point by point but you have covered so much ground, so here goes:
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
See, this is where people who are REALLY dumb get it wrong.

Ok so the childish name calling is out of the way.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Every action has consequences, and you need to be responsible with every action you take. You need to weigh the pros and cons, best and worst case scenarios before you do ANYTHING.

I am assuming that you have a bathroom plan. Ya know, in case anything goes wrong. Anything could happen when you're in there...

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
And you need to have a complete, start-to-finish plan of action that INCLUDES the aftermath and restoring sovereignty (not the same as forcing democracy).

Yeah that would be ideal, except the kind of intel we needed was not available. And that was a result of what presidency? Not this one.

I hope that if Kerry gets the job, he will not attack anyone until the facts on the ground are all there. That could be what... 10 to 20 years?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
It's just dumb and irresponsible to do it otherwise. In early 2003, Bunge, Giant, SJO, SPJ, Harald, pfflam and I, as well as others, said "the Bush Administration has no plan and no legitimate reason to go to war".

Is this an official outing of the AO liberal alliance? Don't forget jimmac.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
In August 2004, NaplesX says: "I am at the point that I believe that the situation in Iraq is not winnable or at least at the edge of being so. Hand in hand with that also goes the WOT."

Expressing concern. And?

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Told you so.
Told you so.
Told you so.
Told you so.

You forgot to stick your tongue out at me. Welcome back to the 4th grade.

Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You f**king numbwit. Now go away. And realize that you were wrong. And vote for someone who has a little better record at predicting results and determining cause. Otherwise our country will continue in its decline.

More name calling to put an exclamation an my point. Bonus.

Besides, I tried to stay away from predicting anything for a certainty. I may state my opinions but I shy away from predicting.

Who do you suggest I vote for?

As an aside, is the "f**king numbwit. Now go away." comment, acceptable in these boards now. I have been warned by the mods for far less than that. Is this the "borderline", if you will? Is this a "almost, but not quite over the line" kind of thing. Or does it sound better from a left leaning person? Is it the *'s that make it OK?

Just a bit curious.
post #38 of 83
Naples, look out! Bees! In your head! Bees! Millions of 'em!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #39 of 83
Personal attacks are not allowed. I take the necessary actions.
post #40 of 83
Sorry. I forgot that if I want to call people traitors and terrorists who have the blood of innocents on their hands I need to do it in terms of a (wink wink) indeterminate "you"

As in, "you apologists for this war are the lowest form of scum".

Which is so much nicer than joking around.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Squeaky Wheel...