The conservatives are even coming to blows... for all those that think it's only the peacenik liberals that thought this war was a bad idea.
" Discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn't say that he was supporting Bush."
I saw both Clancy and Zinni on Charlie Rose last night... here's two admitted republicans both stating that there was no reason to go into Iraq... and no reason to go in with such a poor plan.
Zinni blames Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith... and thinks he won't vote for Bush if he doesn't fire them or they don't resign.
Perle doesn't give a shit about our troops... his theories are more important. Wolfowitz didn't even know how many soldiers had died when he recently testified to congress... and it was Rumsfeld who asked for Zinni to submit a "new plan" for Iraq... Zinni's original plan... was last updated in 2000... was a refined plan that was updated every 2 years since the first Gulf War, it called for more troops and international support, Rumsfeld felt he could come up with a better plan.
By the way... Zinne feels that we ABONDONED the fight we should be fighting... which was in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al-Qaida and OBL.
Perle just came out against our occupation . . . not the invasion so far, just the manner in which the occupation has taken place. He ow admits that we should have simply left after invading
Coming from the man who is probably as responsible for this war as Bush, and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz . . . that is a pretty strong condemnation!!!!!!!
Perle just came out against our occupation . . . not the invasion so far, just the manner in which the occupation has taken place. He ow admits that we should have simply left after invading
Coming from the man who is probably as responsible for this war as Bush, and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz . . . that is a pretty strong condemnation!!!!!!!
I guess the 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan don't count, then. And how many more are there by way of other countries?
Just because it is not in the news does not mean that the does not rage on there.
The point is not that there are only 25K troops in Afghanistan. The point is that a huge percentage of the troops there fighting in the RIGHT PLACE were pulled out to go to Iraq. The result?
1) The only place in Afghanistan that the government has any real power is Kabul.
2) There aren't enough forces there to secure Kabul AND hunt down AQ and Taliban baddies
3) The warlords are back in power in the boonies
4) The Taliban and AQ are able to reconstitute
As for the number of troops in EITHER of these conflicts from other countries: other than the UK, no one is really sending gobs and gobs of troops.
Maybe you should at least work hard enough to read you own links . . . the latter of which maintains that the Warlords are possing a problem . . . doesn't seem to be an argument in favor of our doing so well there . .
This is noted in other news sources as well, and the Warlords are posing a problem because our presence and our 'nation building' has not been given the amount of strength it deserves. . . we went elsewhere to chase 'Visions"
Zinni's point was that the Terrorists that attacked us were IN AFGHANISTAN. Get those guys BEFORE you decide to take down Saddam. (Who had nothing to do with 9/11)
25,000 in ALL OF AFGHANISTAN... how many do you suppose are just in Bahgdad?
Does anyone think the Uniformed Pentagon is happy with the Civilian Pentagon at the moment?
Maybe you should at least work hard enough to read you own links . . . the latter of which maintains that the Warlords are possing a problem . . . doesn't seem to be an argument in favor of our doing so well there . .
This is noted in other news sources as well, and the Warlords are posing a problem because our presence and our 'nation building' has not been given the amount of strength it deserves. . . we went elsewhere to chase 'Visions"
Um, OK, you are right.
But it also has many other things in there supporting the fact that A large number of US military is still there and fighting the Taliban/AQ. That was the point I was making. Come on.
Zinni's point was that the Terrorists that attacked us were IN AFGHANISTAN. Get those guys BEFORE you decide to take down Saddam. (Who had nothing to do with 9/11)
25,000 in ALL OF AFGHANISTAN... how many do you suppose are just in Bahgdad?
Does anyone think the Uniformed Pentagon is happy with the Civilian Pentagon at the moment?
Where is the security that a large number of troops encourage, needed most?
I would have to say Iraq. Thus the number of troops.
But it also has many other things in there supporting the fact that A large number of US military is still there and fighting the Taliban/AQ. That was the point I was making. Come on.
Yes. 25K is a large number of US military for, say, a picnic. For an occupation, it's laughably deficient.
Where is the security that a large number of troops encourage, needed most?
I would have to say Iraq. Thus the number of troops.
You're kidding. You did NOT just torpedo your own argument, did you? The whole point here is that WE PULLED THEM OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BEFORE THE JOB WAS DONE.
NaplesX remember back last year when we were in Afghanistan, about to catch OBL? Guess where all our Arab language units went? Duuuuh...? OK you can boil it down to a few sentences so just about anyone even an 8 year old will understand. We went to Iraq to accomplish xyx (find WMD, get rid of "Al Quaeda" that were "there" and save Iraqi lives bye "liberating" them.) Basically the opposite of xyz has happened. There are Al Quaeda in Iraq, there weren't before we were there. In fact AQ has record numbers of members now thanks to Bush! So yeah...and the only WMD they have are the ones we gave them...I love that pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. Where's that pic? Kerry should run that on TV for 30 seconds with no text or voiceover sometime this summer. Maybe that would make it clear whose "side" Bush is on, for people that don't understand big words.
What's really funny is that Bush hasn't even achieved his ulterior oily motives: oil prices skyrocketed. He was all about the economy. Oh wait...or has he achieved his goal? Who's economy? His fat cat friends? Bare with me here Naples. He doesn't want to "play politics" with the federal Oil Reserve. Why doesn't he really want to release the oil? So his friends can have the most profitable quarter yet over at Texaco. And did you know Dick Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton? Yeah. Disgraceful. How stupid/gullible can the American public be.
I was reading about Perle....which led me of course to his ties with people form the Iran-Contra scandal (he was Sec of Def for Reagan), his ties to Kissinger, Israel, it blows my mind. My favorite is still how Bush wanted Poindexter to head the Information Awareness Office. Whoa. Not to be a conspiracy junky
Quote:
Nope. Just one. Former President Ronald Reagan is the real culprit here.
Pshh no he's note! He never did anything wrong. Leave the poor old man alone. He didn't know Iran-Contra was going on! Of course why would the President of the United States ever know what was going on his own administration? The buck doesn't stop here! It never even got here!
I like the parallels between Reagan and Bush. Or rather don't like them. You have to give them one thing; they're both real good at playing stupid. Which is sometimes worse than just being stupid.
NaplesX remember back last year when we were in Afghanistan, about to catch OBL? Guess where all our Arab language units went? Duuuuh...? OK you can boil it down to a few sentences so just about anyone even an 8 year old will understand. We went to Iraq to accomplish xyx (find WMD, get rid of "Al Quaeda" that were "there" and save Iraqi lives bye "liberating" them.) Basically the opposite of xyz has happened. There are Al Quaeda in Iraq, there weren't before we were there. In fact AQ has record numbers of members now thanks to Bush! So yeah...and the only WMD they have are the ones we gave them...I love that pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. Where's that pic? Kerry should run that on TV for 30 seconds with no text or voiceover sometime this summer. Maybe that would make it clear whose "side" Bush is on, for people that don't understand big words.
What's really funny is that Bush hasn't even achieved his ulterior oily motives: oil prices skyrocketed. He was all about the economy. Oh wait...or has he achieved his goal? Who's economy? His fat cat friends? Bare with me here Naples. He doesn't want to "play politics" with the federal Oil Reserve. Why doesn't he really want to release the oil? So his friends can have the most profitable quarter yet over at Texaco. And did you know Dick Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton? Yeah. Disgraceful. How stupid/gullible can the American public be.
I was reading about Perle....which led me of course to his ties with people form the Iran-Contra scandal (he was Sec of Def for Reagan), his ties to Kissinger, Israel, it blows my mind. My favorite is still how Bush wanted Poindexter to head the Information Awareness Office. Whoa. Not to be a conspiracy junky
Pshh no he's note! He never did anything wrong. Leave the poor old man alone. He didn't know Iran-Contra was going on! Of course why would the President of the United States ever know what was going on his own administration? The buck doesn't stop here! It never even got here!
I like the parallels between Reagan and Bush. Or rather don't like them. You have to give them one thing; they're both real good at playing stupid. Which is sometimes worse than just being stupid.
Oil prices are high for many reasons. Some people that know what they are talking about, think that China's rapid growth of 9% over the last 25 years has more to do with it than Iraq. But don't let that fact get in the way. You wouldn't want to include that tidbit.
I wonder what the police force for the entire state of Wisconsin is?
Now imagine that a huge amount of Wisconsin's friendly and 'nice' citizens suddenly turned fanatical women-hating crazies and hell bent on overthrowing the police.
And the rest of the populatin suddenly turned different too.
Then, imagine that the police suddenly didn't speak much Pashtun (Aquaitic: it isn't arabic in Afghanistan) or any other of the obscure languages the Wisconsinites started suddenly speaking.
Also, make sure that all the usual nice ways of doing things, teh mannes etc, that make the Wisconsitintes so famous suddenly become extremely different . . very very different . . and suddenly they aren't exactly telling you what makes them angry and what offends them . . which, strangely enough, is almost anything that those WI Cops used to take for granted, like shaking hands . . . (the same hand they 'use to wipe their bung-holes with) and not cleaning several times a day, etc etc . . . and don't be looking at their women either!
Then, imagine that the terrain of WI suddenly bcame about a thousand times HARSHER and completely unfamiliar.
And, just to rub it in, take all the policemen's families and there homes and transport them miles and miles and miles away and then bed the policemen down in cots.
Also, don't forget to arm those 'huge amounts' of sudden fanatics hellbent on killing cops
then you start to get the picture . . .
oh yeah . . i forgot, I'm trying to reason with NaplesX
Oil prices are high for many reasons. Some people that know what they are talking about, think that China's rapid growth of 9% over the last 25 years has more to do with it than Iraq. But don't let that fact get in the way. You wouldn't want to include that tidbit.
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
Were all screwed. But that is and has been at peril at any given moment.
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
Ooh! Ooh! Like, say, oil passing peak production and entering permanent global decline?
Like what happened sometime in the last 4 years?
It's happened. It's happening around us. And either Bush is a liar (and we invaded Iraq for oil) or he's an idiot (investing in an unwillable war on terror when we should be investing in oil replacement, scarcity / high prices of which will kill half the planet).
Comments
" Discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.
"He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."
Both Clancy and Zinni praised President Bush but would not commit to voting for him. Clancy said that voting for Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' presumptive nominee, would be "a stretch for me," but wouldn't say that he was supporting Bush."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html
I saw both Clancy and Zinni on Charlie Rose last night... here's two admitted republicans both stating that there was no reason to go into Iraq... and no reason to go in with such a poor plan.
Zinni blames Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith... and thinks he won't vote for Bush if he doesn't fire them or they don't resign.
Perle doesn't give a shit about our troops... his theories are more important. Wolfowitz didn't even know how many soldiers had died when he recently testified to congress... and it was Rumsfeld who asked for Zinni to submit a "new plan" for Iraq... Zinni's original plan... was last updated in 2000... was a refined plan that was updated every 2 years since the first Gulf War, it called for more troops and international support, Rumsfeld felt he could come up with a better plan.
By the way... Zinne feels that we ABONDONED the fight we should be fighting... which was in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al-Qaida and OBL.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
By the way... Zinne feels that we ABONDONED the fight we should be fighting... which was in Afghanistan and Pakistan against Al-Qaida and OBL.
I guess the 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan don't count, then. And how many more are there by way of other countries?
Just because it is not in the news does not mean that the does not rage on there.
Coming from the man who is probably as responsible for this war as Bush, and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz . . . that is a pretty strong condemnation!!!!!!!
Originally posted by NaplesX
I guess the 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan don't count, then. And how many more are there by way of other countries?
Just because it is not in the news does not mean that the does not rage on there.
here is some links:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../86990/1/.html
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1909060
I am sure there are more but I have said before I don't to do you work for you guys.
Originally posted by pfflam
Perle just came out against our occupation . . . not the invasion so far, just the manner in which the occupation has taken place. He ow admits that we should have simply left after invading
Coming from the man who is probably as responsible for this war as Bush, and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfowitz . . . that is a pretty strong condemnation!!!!!!!
link please.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I guess the 25,000 US troops in Afghanistan don't count, then. And how many more are there by way of other countries?
Just because it is not in the news does not mean that the does not rage on there.
The point is not that there are only 25K troops in Afghanistan. The point is that a huge percentage of the troops there fighting in the RIGHT PLACE were pulled out to go to Iraq. The result?
1) The only place in Afghanistan that the government has any real power is Kabul.
2) There aren't enough forces there to secure Kabul AND hunt down AQ and Taliban baddies
3) The warlords are back in power in the boonies
4) The Taliban and AQ are able to reconstitute
As for the number of troops in EITHER of these conflicts from other countries: other than the UK, no one is really sending gobs and gobs of troops.
Maybe you should at least work hard enough to read you own links . . . the latter of which maintains that the Warlords are possing a problem . . . doesn't seem to be an argument in favor of our doing so well there . .
This is noted in other news sources as well, and the Warlords are posing a problem because our presence and our 'nation building' has not been given the amount of strength it deserves. . . we went elsewhere to chase 'Visions"
Originally posted by NaplesX
link please.
US Policy a "GRAVE ERROR"
25,000 in ALL OF AFGHANISTAN... how many do you suppose are just in Bahgdad?
Does anyone think the Uniformed Pentagon is happy with the Civilian Pentagon at the moment?
Originally posted by pfflam
(to NaplesX)
Maybe you should at least work hard enough to read you own links . . . the latter of which maintains that the Warlords are possing a problem . . . doesn't seem to be an argument in favor of our doing so well there . .
This is noted in other news sources as well, and the Warlords are posing a problem because our presence and our 'nation building' has not been given the amount of strength it deserves. . . we went elsewhere to chase 'Visions"
Um, OK, you are right.
But it also has many other things in there supporting the fact that A large number of US military is still there and fighting the Taliban/AQ. That was the point I was making. Come on.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Zinni's point was that the Terrorists that attacked us were IN AFGHANISTAN. Get those guys BEFORE you decide to take down Saddam. (Who had nothing to do with 9/11)
25,000 in ALL OF AFGHANISTAN... how many do you suppose are just in Bahgdad?
Does anyone think the Uniformed Pentagon is happy with the Civilian Pentagon at the moment?
Where is the security that a large number of troops encourage, needed most?
I would have to say Iraq. Thus the number of troops.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Um, OK, you are right.
But it also has many other things in there supporting the fact that A large number of US military is still there and fighting the Taliban/AQ. That was the point I was making. Come on.
Yes. 25K is a large number of US military for, say, a picnic. For an occupation, it's laughably deficient.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where is the security that a large number of troops encourage, needed most?
I would have to say Iraq. Thus the number of troops.
You're kidding. You did NOT just torpedo your own argument, did you? The whole point here is that WE PULLED THEM OUT OF AFGHANISTAN BEFORE THE JOB WAS DONE.
NaplesX remember back last year when we were in Afghanistan, about to catch OBL? Guess where all our Arab language units went? Duuuuh...? OK you can boil it down to a few sentences so just about anyone even an 8 year old will understand. We went to Iraq to accomplish xyx (find WMD, get rid of "Al Quaeda" that were "there" and save Iraqi lives bye "liberating" them.) Basically the opposite of xyz has happened. There are Al Quaeda in Iraq, there weren't before we were there. In fact AQ has record numbers of members now thanks to Bush! So yeah...and the only WMD they have are the ones we gave them...I love that pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. Where's that pic? Kerry should run that on TV for 30 seconds with no text or voiceover sometime this summer. Maybe that would make it clear whose "side" Bush is on, for people that don't understand big words.
What's really funny is that Bush hasn't even achieved his ulterior oily motives: oil prices skyrocketed. He was all about the economy. Oh wait...or has he achieved his goal? Who's economy? His fat cat friends? Bare with me here Naples. He doesn't want to "play politics" with the federal Oil Reserve. Why doesn't he really want to release the oil? So his friends can have the most profitable quarter yet over at Texaco. And did you know Dick Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton? Yeah. Disgraceful. How stupid/gullible can the American public be.
And for some real mind warping go here...http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...chard_N._Perle
I was reading about Perle....which led me of course to his ties with people form the Iran-Contra scandal (he was Sec of Def for Reagan), his ties to Kissinger, Israel, it blows my mind. My favorite is still how Bush wanted Poindexter to head the Information Awareness Office. Whoa. Not to be a conspiracy junky
Nope. Just one. Former President Ronald Reagan is the real culprit here.
Pshh no he's note! He never did anything wrong. Leave the poor old man alone. He didn't know Iran-Contra was going on! Of course why would the President of the United States ever know what was going on his own administration? The buck doesn't stop here! It never even got here!
I like the parallels between Reagan and Bush. Or rather don't like them. You have to give them one thing; they're both real good at playing stupid. Which is sometimes worse than just being stupid.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Yeah...
NaplesX remember back last year when we were in Afghanistan, about to catch OBL? Guess where all our Arab language units went? Duuuuh...? OK you can boil it down to a few sentences so just about anyone even an 8 year old will understand. We went to Iraq to accomplish xyx (find WMD, get rid of "Al Quaeda" that were "there" and save Iraqi lives bye "liberating" them.) Basically the opposite of xyz has happened. There are Al Quaeda in Iraq, there weren't before we were there. In fact AQ has record numbers of members now thanks to Bush! So yeah...and the only WMD they have are the ones we gave them...I love that pic of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. Where's that pic? Kerry should run that on TV for 30 seconds with no text or voiceover sometime this summer. Maybe that would make it clear whose "side" Bush is on, for people that don't understand big words.
What's really funny is that Bush hasn't even achieved his ulterior oily motives: oil prices skyrocketed. He was all about the economy. Oh wait...or has he achieved his goal? Who's economy? His fat cat friends? Bare with me here Naples. He doesn't want to "play politics" with the federal Oil Reserve. Why doesn't he really want to release the oil? So his friends can have the most profitable quarter yet over at Texaco. And did you know Dick Cheney still gets paid by Halliburton? Yeah. Disgraceful. How stupid/gullible can the American public be.
And for some real mind warping go here...http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...chard_N._Perle
I was reading about Perle....which led me of course to his ties with people form the Iran-Contra scandal (he was Sec of Def for Reagan), his ties to Kissinger, Israel, it blows my mind. My favorite is still how Bush wanted Poindexter to head the Information Awareness Office. Whoa. Not to be a conspiracy junky
Pshh no he's note! He never did anything wrong. Leave the poor old man alone. He didn't know Iran-Contra was going on! Of course why would the President of the United States ever know what was going on his own administration? The buck doesn't stop here! It never even got here!
I like the parallels between Reagan and Bush. Or rather don't like them. You have to give them one thing; they're both real good at playing stupid. Which is sometimes worse than just being stupid.
Oil prices are high for many reasons. Some people that know what they are talking about, think that China's rapid growth of 9% over the last 25 years has more to do with it than Iraq. But don't let that fact get in the way. You wouldn't want to include that tidbit.
Originally posted by pfflam
I wonder what the police force for the entire state of Wisconsin is?
Now imagine that a huge amount of Wisconsin's friendly and 'nice' citizens suddenly turned fanatical women-hating crazies and hell bent on overthrowing the police.
And the rest of the populatin suddenly turned different too.
Then, imagine that the police suddenly didn't speak much Pashtun (Aquaitic: it isn't arabic in Afghanistan) or any other of the obscure languages the Wisconsinites started suddenly speaking.
Also, make sure that all the usual nice ways of doing things, teh mannes etc, that make the Wisconsitintes so famous suddenly become extremely different . . very very different . . and suddenly they aren't exactly telling you what makes them angry and what offends them . . which, strangely enough, is almost anything that those WI Cops used to take for granted, like shaking hands . . . (the same hand they 'use to wipe their bung-holes with) and not cleaning several times a day, etc etc . . . and don't be looking at their women either!
Then, imagine that the terrain of WI suddenly bcame about a thousand times HARSHER and completely unfamiliar.
And, just to rub it in, take all the policemen's families and there homes and transport them miles and miles and miles away and then bed the policemen down in cots.
Also, don't forget to arm those 'huge amounts' of sudden fanatics hellbent on killing cops
then you start to get the picture . . .
oh yeah . . i forgot, I'm trying to reason with NaplesX
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oil prices are high for many reasons. Some people that know what they are talking about, think that China's rapid growth of 9% over the last 25 years has more to do with it than Iraq. But don't let that fact get in the way. You wouldn't want to include that tidbit.
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
Originally posted by midwinter
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
Were all screwed. But that is and has been at peril at any given moment.
Originally posted by midwinter
You're exactly right on China, I think. But here's what ought to keep you up at night: if oil prices are high simply because China's (and the US's) increased demand for oil has stretched the supply lines too thin (and thus, that oil prices are purely the result of market forces), what happens if something does happen to affect oil supplies significantly?
Ooh! Ooh! Like, say, oil passing peak production and entering permanent global decline?
Like what happened sometime in the last 4 years?
It's happened. It's happening around us. And either Bush is a liar (and we invaded Iraq for oil) or he's an idiot (investing in an unwillable war on terror when we should be investing in oil replacement, scarcity / high prices of which will kill half the planet).
NaplesX KINDS of gets it.