A good regime to bump off

[Bunz]

At this point considering the fiasco we have found ourselves in Iraq, and our military being stretched to a considerable point, we are not in any position to undertake any effort on the scale that our buddy Libs is suggesting in my honest and objective opinion.

 

[Libsmasher]

Terrible situation in Burma, nobody will probably argue with that. A natural tragedy turned worse by an uncooperative government.
Id like to know where this IEF would come from. Any suggestions?
Why would a right wing zealot suggest an international effort when the US has made it generally our policy to take on the lions share of the work when it comes to nation building. Maybe we could contract it out?

How about the euroweenies? Excluding the UK, they've done nothing about dictators for 63 years.

 

[Libsmasher]

Id be curious as to how many participated in the discussion that made you jump to that conclusion.

Oh, yeah - there I go jumping to conclusions - garsh doggit - you're right. How the devil do I know that there aren't some Burmese who want to starve, die of thirst or disease, get tortured, or rifle butts in the face when they demonstrate for democracy??

 

[Libsmasher]

Liberation, sure. But what do you want the rest of Europe to committ to?
I remember being annoyed at the French over thier non-assistance with Iraq. But damn if they werent right.

Uh, no, they weren't right. Saddam was overturned, the coalition set up a democracy - was in all the papers - you missed it?

I guess I am not sure if it was a bad idea in the first place, or just run so poorly that it is criminal in my mind.

Let's here your great ideas about how it should be run. Be REAL CAREFUL not to contradict any standard appeaser positions.

But I am not sure if you asked the average Iraqi if "liberation" was such a good idea.

Any facts to base this on?

 

[Libsmasher]

At this point considering the fiasco we have found ourselves in Iraq, and our military being stretched to a considerable point, we are not in any position to undertake any effort on the scale that our buddy Libs is suggesting in my honest and objective opinion.

Like I said - how about the euros? The US could supply plenty in the way of intelligence, air support, etc.

 

[PLC1]

Uh, no, they weren't right. Saddam was overturned, the coalition set up a democracy - was in all the papers - you missed it?

Right, right, Baghdad is now the Paris of the Mideast, peace and prosperity now dominate the news from Iraq, its democratic government is in control of the country and it was all done with a minimum of violence and paid for by Iraqi oil.

Just as Bush said it would be.

 

[Libsmasher]

Right, right, Baghdad is now the Paris of the Mideast, peace and prosperity now dominate the news from Iraq, its democratic government is in control of the country and it was all done with a minimum of violence and paid for by Iraqi oil.

Just as Bush said it would be.

Awwwwwwww ....... are you upset because Bush didn't run a casualty-free perfect war? Poooor widle baby.

 

[PLC1]

Awwwwwwww ....... are you upset because Bush didn't run a casualty-free perfect war? Poooor widle baby.

Yes, and because it lasted more than the six months it was supposed to, and it cost hundreds of billions more than it was supposed to, and because it was unnecessary to begin with, and because the soldiers whose lives were shattered there got a raw deal when they came home, and because it is the first war on history paid for by the collective MasterCard, and because it has cost us credibility all over the world, and because it associated the Unitted States with torture and keeping prisoners without charges for years, and a whole lot of other reasons not related to the attack of 9/11.

But, on the other hand, God himself told Bush to invade Iraq, so what other choice could he have possibly had?

 

[Libsmasher]

Yes, and because it lasted more than the six months it was supposed to,

What major war has ever lasted six months?

and it cost hundreds of billions more than it was supposed to,

Nobody can predict how long a war will be or how expensive it will be, there's no such thing as what it is "supposed to".

and because it was unnecessary to begin with, and because the soldiers whose lives were shattered there got a raw deal when they came home,

Has nothing to do with the war itself.

and because it is the first war on history paid for by the collective MasterCard,

You are ignorant of history - eg, we are still paying for WWII.

and because it has cost us credibility all over the world,

What do you mean by this? What possible meaning could the above have? We had "credibility" of not taking out fascist regimes before? Glad we lost that "credibility".

and because it associated the Unitted States with torture and keeping prisoners without charges for years, and a whole lot of other reasons not related to the attack of 9/11

.

It associated the US with taking out the torturer par excellance - Saddam Hussein.

 

[PLC1]

What major war has ever lasted six months?

Taking out a pathetic third world dictatorship is not a major war, any more than the first gulf war was a major war. This is a small scale war, of the very kind Orwell wrote about in 1984

War is peace.

Nobody can predict how long a war will be or how expensive it will be, there's no such thing as what it is "supposed to".

Rumsfeld predicted how long it was supposed to last.

Has nothing to do with the war itself.

Whether or not a war was necessary has nothing to do with the war itself? Sure, sure, whatever you say.

You are ignorant of history - eg, we are still paying for WWII.

I remember war bonds, rationing, sky high taxes to pay for the war effort, and I'm ignorant of history? Did we really borrow the money to fight WWII from China while cutting taxes and increasing domestic spending? If we did, then pardon my ignorance.

I remember the entire country on a war footing to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. We didn't simply send in a small force of volunteers and place the entire burden for the war on their shoulders, as we did in Iraq. We were able to do that because the people of this nation saw that we had no choice. In Iraq, in contrast, most of the population would never have supported going to war had they been asked to pay for it, let alone be drafted into it.

What do you mean by this? What possible meaning could the above have? We had "credibility" of not taking out fascist regimes before? Glad we lost that "credibility".

We had credibility for not invading foreign nations on false assumptions. That credibilty is gone.

It associated the US with taking out the torturer par excellance - Saddam Hussein.

Yes, and with becoming torturers ourselves.

Say, Libsmasher, if you're so against liberals, how is it that you can support the most liberal administration since Lyndon Johnson? Surely, you don't think that the Bushies are conservatives, do you?

 

[Libsmasher]

Taking out a pathetic third world dictatorship is not a major war, any more than the first gulf war was a major war. This is a small scale war, of the very kind Orwell wrote about in 1984

There was nothing pathetic about the iraq military - they were armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons the euros and russians could sell them - all those people whom you worry about our "credibility" with. Baghdad had probably the world's most dense and advanced air defense system.

Rumsfeld predicted how long it was supposed to last

.

And you stupidly believed it?

Whether or not a war was necessary has nothing to do with the war itself? Sure, sure, whatever you say.

No - I was referring to the "raw deal for soldiers" you were hallucinating about.

I remember war bonds, rationing, sky high taxes to pay for the war effort, and I'm ignorant of history? Did we really borrow the money to fight WWII from China while cutting taxes and increasing domestic spending? If we did, then pardon my ignorance.

You're forgiven - just this once.

I remember the entire country on a war footing to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. We didn't simply send in a small force of volunteers and place the entire burden for the war on their shoulders, as we did in Iraq. We were able to do that because the people of this nation saw that we had no choice. In Iraq, in contrast, most of the population would never have supported going to war had they been asked to pay for it, let alone be drafted into it.

Well, not to worry - they appear about to elect the worst appeaser in US history president - a person who has made a campaign pledge of promising a US defeat in Iraq. Never thought I'd see the day.

We had credibility for not invading foreign nations on false assumptions. That credibilty is gone.

We had bad intelligence, and other countries intelligence services concurred - did they lose "credibility" too? Unlike the phony issues you've raised, the poor quality of US intelligence, of concern only to appeasers as leverage to lose this war, is a real issue. The CIA, designed for the Cold War, has been wrong again and again, and needs to be reconstituted from the ground up for today's challenges.

Yes, and with becoming torturers ourselves.

Yaaaaaa - waterboarding a few genocidal islamofascists is the same as the rape rooms and REAL torture (like a videotape found that shows Saddam fed a general who displeased him to a pack of hungry dobermans) of hundreds of thousands of iraqis. More appeaser wild, looney exaggeration.

Say, Libsmasher, if you're so against liberals, how is it that you can support the most liberal administration since Lyndon Johnson? Surely, you don't think that the Bushies are conservatives, do you?

To call Bush more lib than say Jimmy Carter is fatuous, but conservatives are under no misapprehensions about George Bush. The alternatives, however, are even worse.

 

[9sublime]

Excepting the estimable contributions of the UK in that regard specifically since the Gulf War, the post world war two record of europeans is ZERO - at least we try, and what exactly do you mean with the scornful quotes around "liberate"? Getting rid of eg, saddam isn't a liberation?

Very poor comeback buddy.

Just because you have gone around invading other countries under the pretence of liberation and we haven't doesn't make up for your chronic failure in pretty much every 'liberation'.

Yeah - getting rid of Saddam was liberation. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners etc. which resulting in large factions turning against your forces and plunging large parts of the country into civil war with hundereds of people brutally murdered on the streets of Baghdad puts a bit of a dampner on it.

Not to mention all the oil was sold off to American companies, and I can't remember the name of the dock but within 24 hours of it being captured an American company had been given permission to run it, charging locals to use it. Sounds like more than unselfish liberation to me.

 

[PLC1]

There was nothing pathetic about the iraq military - they were armed to the teeth with the most modern weapons the euros and russians could sell them - all those people whom you worry about our "credibility" with. Baghdad had probably the world's most dense and advanced air defense system.

Seriously, you're saying that the Iraqi military was anything but pathetic? Talk about losing your credibility!

And you stupidly believed it?

I most certainly did not believe it, but those who beat the drums for war, expecting a quick and easy fight followed by ticker tape parades must have believed it.

No - I was referring to the "raw deal for soldiers" you were hallucinating about.

Oh. You mean hallucinations like this one:

Behind the door of Army Spec. Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. The entire building, constructed between the world wars, often smells like greasy carry-out. Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

You're forgiven - just this once.

No comeback at all, after having said I was "ignorant of history." Pathetic, just like that Iraqi military.

Well, not to worry - they appear about to elect the worst appeaser in US history president - a person who has made a campaign pledge of promising a US defeat in Iraq. Never thought I'd see the day.

"I pledge to the American People this day that, should I be elected, I promise a defeat in Iraq." Sure, I remember that pledge, doesn't everybody?

We had bad intelligence, and other countries intelligence services concurred - did they lose "credibility" too? Unlike the phony issues you've raised, the poor quality of US intelligence, of concern only to appeasers as leverage to lose this war, is a real issue. The CIA, designed for the Cold War, has been wrong again and again, and needs to be reconstituted from the ground up for today's challenges.

Sure, that's it. Every country in the world, well at aleast our allies, were ready to go fight Saddam Hussain on the same faulty intelligence. Now that they know that Bush Inc. had egg all over its face, they're trying to pretend they weren't fooled. That's it.

You do believe in the mutability of the past, don't you?

Yaaaaaa - waterboarding a few genocidal islamofascists is the same as the rape rooms and REAL torture (like a videotape found that shows Saddam fed a general who displeased him to a pack of hungry dobermans) of hundreds of thousands of iraqis. More appeaser wild, looney exaggeration.

That, and keeping prisoners in Gitmo without charges for years, and hanging prisoners from the ceiling, and shipping people to clandestine prisons where waterboarding is considered a pleasure cruise, yes, all that wild loony exaggeration that has been well documented by such as Amnesty International. Oh well, that's just a liberal organization anyway, so who would listen to them?

To call Bush more lib than say Jimmy Carter is fatuous, but conservatives are under no misapprehensions about George Bush. The alternatives, however, are even worse.

I conservatives are under on misapprahensions about the current POTUS, it must have been the liberals who elected him to office. It certainly couldn't have been anyone who was in favor of less government.

 

[Libsmasher]

Very poor comeback buddy.

Just because you have gone around invading other countries under the pretence of liberation and we haven't doesn't make up for your chronic failure in pretty much every 'liberation'.

Very weak, mate. South Korea was a "pretense"? Holding the soviet union at bay so you you could sit in the pub with your pint unmolested for 40 years was a "pretense"? Kuwait wasn't liberated? The US efforts in the Balkans was "pretense"?

Yeah - getting rid of Saddam was liberation. The abuse of Iraqi prisoners etc. which resulting in large factions turning against your forces and plunging large parts of the country into civil war with hundereds of people brutally murdered on the streets of Baghdad puts a bit of a dampner on it.

How about this UK war crime?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/20/iraq.military

Did americans run around afterward and prattle about the UK having no "credibility"? Noooooooo...........

The abuse of prisoners by rogue elements of an army or individual soldiers who snap happens in every war. To confuse this with or misrepresent it as the policy of a belligerent is silly.

Not to mention all the oil was sold off to American companies, and I can't remember the name of the dock but within 24 hours of it being captured an American company had been given permission to run it, charging locals to use it. Sounds like more than unselfish liberation to me.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Libsmasher]

Seriously, you're saying that the Iraqi military was anything but pathetic? Talk about losing your credibility!

They were loaded to the armpits with modern weaponry. Years after the liberation, the coalition was STILL finding huge depots of ordinance and weapons. If you want to hallucinate away that fact - go ahead - that seems to be the chief appeaser practice.

I most certainly did not believe it, but those who beat the drums for war, expecting a quick and easy fight followed by ticker tape parades must have believed it.

You started out whining that you were promised a six month war. NOBODY older than 12 would believe that, I didn't, you claim not to have - what's your gripe?

Oh. You mean hallucinations like this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html

Something bad happened to a soldier in the army? Who'da thunk it. Well damn, I guess that ends our 200 year history of perfect wars.

No comeback at all, after having said I was "ignorant of history." Pathetic, just like that Iraqi military.

You were whimpering about the war causing debt, when EVERY war back to and including the American Revolution incurred debt that lasted after the war. What's your next complaint - that we had to shoot a lot of expensive bullets?

"I pledge to the American People this day that, should I be elected, I promise a defeat in Iraq." Sure, I remember that pledge, doesn't everybody?

OF COURSE he won't say it that way Einstein.

Sure, that's it. Every country in the world, well at aleast our allies, were ready to go fight Saddam Hussain on the same faulty intelligence. Now that they know that Bush Inc. had egg all over its face, they're trying to pretend they weren't fooled. That's it.

You do believe in the mutability of the past, don't you?

When logic fails you, trot out the strawman. Euros haven't been willing to fight, with rare exception, for 60 years WHATEVER happens. The comment was about intelligence, but I'll just let you duck out on that one.

That, and keeping prisoners in Gitmo without charges for years, and hanging prisoners from the ceiling, and shipping people to clandestine prisons where waterboarding is considered a pleasure cruise, yes, all that wild loony exaggeration that has been well documented by such as Amnesty International. Oh well, that's just a liberal organization anyway, so who would listen to them?

The islamofascists are properly considered prisoners of war, to be held during hostilities, as is the millenia-old custom of all nations. It wasn't invented by the "neocons" - regardless of what moveon.org told you. At the end of the war, the ordinary prisoners can be let go - the ones suspected of war crimes put on trial - just like what happened at the end of WWII. As for AI, an organization I used to belong to, they completely lost their historic status as an impartial organization when they started making (liberal/left) political statements.

I conservatives are under on misapprahensions about the current POTUS, it must have been the liberals who elected him to office. It certainly couldn't have been anyone who was in favor of less government.

Unfortunately, conservatives have rarely controlled the republican party - last time was all of 20 years ago with Reagan.