Sunday, December 17, 2006
Senator Harry Reid is playing games...
...with Bush and he will corner the asshole come January too about sending in more troops to Iraq. Harry Reid stated earlier today when asked about sending more troops to Iraq that he would do it ONLY IF THERE WAS A SET DATE FOR WITHDRAWL. Hmmmm...if I remember correctly, we have a president who refuses to withdrawl the troops and wants future presidents to handle his chaotic mess of an illegal occupation in Iraq. So Mr. Harry is saying, "Okay, I'll give the president what he wants, BUT THERE'S THINGS I WANT TO". Interesting!
Here's some other thoughts about this subject:
1) Where will 30-50,000 new additional troops come from? From the butts of republicans? Will the children of chickenhawks lay down their Rolex watches to sign up for this? Bah hahahahahaha, oh Lord. Nope.
2) Bush wanted to illegally invade because of the oil and now that Saudi Arabia is saying that if the US troops are withdrawn, they will send in their military to back the Sunnis to fight the Shiites for control of the country (whoever controls the country controls the oil! Bush & Cheney want to be the Oil Maggots of Planet Earth, but they won't get that if our troops are taken out of there, because the Saudis will take it instead!) and for their own security. Interesting how those Saudis work, huh?
3) Will the republicans who are up for re-election in 2008 vote to put more boots on the ground and withdraw from Iraq next year with a set timetable or will they vote against it? Either way they're screwed! Ha ha. (They'll look like cowards if they choose to not send in more troops to "win the war" because this is what they've been touting for years!)
So, you see, Mr. Harry is playing games with Bush and is cornering the fascist Pig. He's making Bush and the republicans put their money where their mouths are and ole Harry is just winking away at the cameras!
Give 'em hell Harry...Give. Them. Hell.
Here's some other thoughts about this subject:
1) Where will 30-50,000 new additional troops come from? From the butts of republicans? Will the children of chickenhawks lay down their Rolex watches to sign up for this? Bah hahahahahaha, oh Lord. Nope.
2) Bush wanted to illegally invade because of the oil and now that Saudi Arabia is saying that if the US troops are withdrawn, they will send in their military to back the Sunnis to fight the Shiites for control of the country (whoever controls the country controls the oil! Bush & Cheney want to be the Oil Maggots of Planet Earth, but they won't get that if our troops are taken out of there, because the Saudis will take it instead!) and for their own security. Interesting how those Saudis work, huh?
3) Will the republicans who are up for re-election in 2008 vote to put more boots on the ground and withdraw from Iraq next year with a set timetable or will they vote against it? Either way they're screwed! Ha ha. (They'll look like cowards if they choose to not send in more troops to "win the war" because this is what they've been touting for years!)
So, you see, Mr. Harry is playing games with Bush and is cornering the fascist Pig. He's making Bush and the republicans put their money where their mouths are and ole Harry is just winking away at the cameras!
Give 'em hell Harry...Give. Them. Hell.
Comments:
<< Home
Ha ha! Reid is cornering your Bush. Ha hahahahahahahahaha!!!
I'm not going down with the ship..you are Bushboy! You want a million more troops to go because THAT IS WHAT BUSH WANTS TOO!
Bush wants to stay and Reid does not. Ha ha. You're rearranging the deck chairs as your Bush Ship sinks.
I'm not going down with the ship..you are Bushboy! You want a million more troops to go because THAT IS WHAT BUSH WANTS TOO!
Bush wants to stay and Reid does not. Ha ha. You're rearranging the deck chairs as your Bush Ship sinks.
Who would be in charge in sending more troops in anyways? Bush or Reid? Is Reid the Commander in Chief of the military or is Bush?
See? Bush loses no matter what!
See? Bush loses no matter what!
Harry Reid can bring forth bills:
To reinstate the draft/National Service (all the rich kids would have to sign up!)
To stop funding the war
So, let Bush do what he wants and if Harry backs him, who will the neocons blame? Huh? Not Bush for wanting it and getting it? Bah hahahahaha.
The problem is Bushboy, you neocons can't blame Bush for anything. Stand back while you want the democrats work! If the Americans in this country are not happy with the democrats, YOU CAN BET YOUR SWEET ASS THEY'LL HEAR FROM THE DEMOCRATS IN THIS COUNTRY!
We want good government and are not party-liners like you Bushtards are. We'll kick out our own for the good of the country while your party will keep your scurge and let it grow!
I trust Harry Reid more than I trust all the republicans and Bush Appeasers combined. Reid is working for Americans, while the repukes are working for themselves.
I can't wait for January!!
To reinstate the draft/National Service (all the rich kids would have to sign up!)
To stop funding the war
So, let Bush do what he wants and if Harry backs him, who will the neocons blame? Huh? Not Bush for wanting it and getting it? Bah hahahahaha.
The problem is Bushboy, you neocons can't blame Bush for anything. Stand back while you want the democrats work! If the Americans in this country are not happy with the democrats, YOU CAN BET YOUR SWEET ASS THEY'LL HEAR FROM THE DEMOCRATS IN THIS COUNTRY!
We want good government and are not party-liners like you Bushtards are. We'll kick out our own for the good of the country while your party will keep your scurge and let it grow!
I trust Harry Reid more than I trust all the republicans and Bush Appeasers combined. Reid is working for Americans, while the repukes are working for themselves.
I can't wait for January!!
Actually Bushboy, I have the power to delete all your comments. I, like your Tom Delay, don't have to listen to your side at all!
Gee Bushboy! Wouldn't it have been a dream to have the borders in Iraq secured right off the bat when the first boots were put on the ground! How the hell are our soldiers going to get to the borders when they're now mainly in the center of the country? Securing the borders now will only inflame the countries that border Iraq because Bush has fucked up everything now!
I say....GET OUT NOW! Why keep our soldiers in there when their only option is to be in the middle of a civil war where they can't take sides? Why not die trying to get out rather than be a sitting duck to die?
I say let the Saudis fight this war, since they're the ones willing to send in their own troops if we leave!
I say, divide the country BACK into 3 sects (it was like that when Saddam was in charge....BUSH IS THE ONE THAT BROKE UP THIS CONTAINED BEE'S NEST!) and divide the OIL PROFITS UP EQUALLY BETWEEN THE 3 SO EVERYONE IS HAPPY!
I say get out troops out!
I say get out troops out!
I say get out troops out!
I say....GET OUT NOW! Why keep our soldiers in there when their only option is to be in the middle of a civil war where they can't take sides? Why not die trying to get out rather than be a sitting duck to die?
I say let the Saudis fight this war, since they're the ones willing to send in their own troops if we leave!
I say, divide the country BACK into 3 sects (it was like that when Saddam was in charge....BUSH IS THE ONE THAT BROKE UP THIS CONTAINED BEE'S NEST!) and divide the OIL PROFITS UP EQUALLY BETWEEN THE 3 SO EVERYONE IS HAPPY!
I say get out troops out!
I say get out troops out!
I say get out troops out!
Bushboy, please explain why the right wing blogs never allow a liberal to sign up and talk on their blogs. They ban them before they even start posting.
You're lucky that you're allowed on my site and others, but then again, it's the liberals blog that are the blogs of the REAL AMERICANS! Reich Wing blogs are not made up of these individuals!!
How many negative comments were left on Delay's blog today? I bet none because they were deleted!!!
You neocons suck big time.
You're lucky that you're allowed on my site and others, but then again, it's the liberals blog that are the blogs of the REAL AMERICANS! Reich Wing blogs are not made up of these individuals!!
How many negative comments were left on Delay's blog today? I bet none because they were deleted!!!
You neocons suck big time.
So Numbnuts you want to FORCE the Iraqi's to live in 4 separate areas, because?
Just who the fuck is gonna force the Iraqi's to follow your idiotic ideas son...YOU?
Bahhahwahahwhahswahwha ,
Your FUNNY boy.
It is NOT what they want apparently moron, because they have NOT tried to do as you think they should, but coming from MORON who thinks it is a good idea to take people who VOLUNTEERED to serve this country in uniform in a combat zone, and force them to live in another country just because of their religious preference, well son your opinion is worth less then SHIT.
You are a sorry assed excuse for a person who claims to be an American, because NO REAL American would ever dare think of claiming American soldiers should receive anything but "thank yous" for their service, instead you think some should be deported from the country of their birth the country they volunteered to defend, just because of their religious preference?
Your a complete ass son, your opinion is WORTHLESS.......go back to sucking repug dick son, I do not have any patience for an assclown like you PUNK.
As for a plan, PUT Bush, Cheney, Dumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-cons in the green zone, bring the American Soldiers home, and let the PNAC crowd and neo-cons fight the Iraqi's for the OIL.
When the Iraqi's finish with the idiots which screwed up their country so badly, they might calm down and work it out among themselves.
Idiots like you could never solve this mess, because your way too stupid to realize their not the monolithic mass of robotic people you delusional think they are, and so what ever you try top propose is doomed to failure because it is based on your Bigoted world view.
The Iraqis are as different amongst their countrymen as we Americans are, and the Muslims are as different in their approach to religion and what they want in this life as the Christian peoples are son, BUT morons like you try to claim they are all automatons which only want to destroy our world....
Your as stupid in your approach to your problems with the world as Tim Mc Viegh was in HIS.
In some ways your as violent as he was, just too much of a puss to carry your ideas out.
Your Idea for Iraq is NOT workable son, and you delusional views of 1.6 billion Muslims is moronic. Neither idea shows either much thought, or understanding of the historical differences of Iraq or the tensions of the region.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran do not want the country broken up son. they have NO desire to see the VIOLENT sectarian war which is happening there, because each of them have sizable minorities of Sunni, Shiite or Kurds which would back one or another faction Inside Iraq, which would mean the fighting inside Iraq would spill over their borders, and engulf large portions of their countries.
Saudi Arabia has a large Shiite minority that lives around the large oil field it receives a large majority of its income from, the spill over could endanger that oil field, it's infrastructure, and delivery mechanisms, which could have catastrophic repercussions for the world oil markets and OUR economy son. But assclowns like YOU probably do NOT even know this do you boy?
Turkey has a large Kurdish minority they have fought a twenty years guerrilla war with, they have said they will use force to prevent a free Kurdish state inside parts of Iraq. RIGHT now they have 125,000 troops stationed near the Iraqi border to hold down violence by Kurdish rebels inside Turkey, and have already shelled Kurdish villages INSIDE Iraq. and since Turkey IS a member of NATO, the US has already promised to come to their aid, in the event of ANY attack on them, so in effect we could have to attack the Kurdish state to defend a NATO ally son if you stupid idea was ever put into effect.
Iran also has a Kurdish Minority and has similar views like Turkey, and have taken the same actions in side Iran the Turks have Turkey. Iran does NOT want an unstable Iraq on its border, because it has a minority Arab population, but Iran is Persian, NOT Arab for the most part. So they have to be careful NOT to raise the IRE of the Arab world against them like they did in the very early 1980's when the Sunni Monarchy's of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan backed Saddam Hussein in his attacks on Iran. The Iranians do NOT want a repeat of that time, nor do they want unrest to cross their borders, because most of the Iranian youth do not follow the mullahs as much as the leadership wants and unrest could be used by portions of the Iranian population to foment revolutionary activities.
Your idea feeds the bad trends IN all of these countries boy, so it is not only a NON starter, but dumb.
Coming from a DUMB repug like you that is expected boy.
Just who the fuck is gonna force the Iraqi's to follow your idiotic ideas son...YOU?
Bahhahwahahwhahswahwha ,
Your FUNNY boy.
It is NOT what they want apparently moron, because they have NOT tried to do as you think they should, but coming from MORON who thinks it is a good idea to take people who VOLUNTEERED to serve this country in uniform in a combat zone, and force them to live in another country just because of their religious preference, well son your opinion is worth less then SHIT.
You are a sorry assed excuse for a person who claims to be an American, because NO REAL American would ever dare think of claiming American soldiers should receive anything but "thank yous" for their service, instead you think some should be deported from the country of their birth the country they volunteered to defend, just because of their religious preference?
Your a complete ass son, your opinion is WORTHLESS.......go back to sucking repug dick son, I do not have any patience for an assclown like you PUNK.
As for a plan, PUT Bush, Cheney, Dumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-cons in the green zone, bring the American Soldiers home, and let the PNAC crowd and neo-cons fight the Iraqi's for the OIL.
When the Iraqi's finish with the idiots which screwed up their country so badly, they might calm down and work it out among themselves.
Idiots like you could never solve this mess, because your way too stupid to realize their not the monolithic mass of robotic people you delusional think they are, and so what ever you try top propose is doomed to failure because it is based on your Bigoted world view.
The Iraqis are as different amongst their countrymen as we Americans are, and the Muslims are as different in their approach to religion and what they want in this life as the Christian peoples are son, BUT morons like you try to claim they are all automatons which only want to destroy our world....
Your as stupid in your approach to your problems with the world as Tim Mc Viegh was in HIS.
In some ways your as violent as he was, just too much of a puss to carry your ideas out.
Your Idea for Iraq is NOT workable son, and you delusional views of 1.6 billion Muslims is moronic. Neither idea shows either much thought, or understanding of the historical differences of Iraq or the tensions of the region.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran do not want the country broken up son. they have NO desire to see the VIOLENT sectarian war which is happening there, because each of them have sizable minorities of Sunni, Shiite or Kurds which would back one or another faction Inside Iraq, which would mean the fighting inside Iraq would spill over their borders, and engulf large portions of their countries.
Saudi Arabia has a large Shiite minority that lives around the large oil field it receives a large majority of its income from, the spill over could endanger that oil field, it's infrastructure, and delivery mechanisms, which could have catastrophic repercussions for the world oil markets and OUR economy son. But assclowns like YOU probably do NOT even know this do you boy?
Turkey has a large Kurdish minority they have fought a twenty years guerrilla war with, they have said they will use force to prevent a free Kurdish state inside parts of Iraq. RIGHT now they have 125,000 troops stationed near the Iraqi border to hold down violence by Kurdish rebels inside Turkey, and have already shelled Kurdish villages INSIDE Iraq. and since Turkey IS a member of NATO, the US has already promised to come to their aid, in the event of ANY attack on them, so in effect we could have to attack the Kurdish state to defend a NATO ally son if you stupid idea was ever put into effect.
Iran also has a Kurdish Minority and has similar views like Turkey, and have taken the same actions in side Iran the Turks have Turkey. Iran does NOT want an unstable Iraq on its border, because it has a minority Arab population, but Iran is Persian, NOT Arab for the most part. So they have to be careful NOT to raise the IRE of the Arab world against them like they did in the very early 1980's when the Sunni Monarchy's of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan backed Saddam Hussein in his attacks on Iran. The Iranians do NOT want a repeat of that time, nor do they want unrest to cross their borders, because most of the Iranian youth do not follow the mullahs as much as the leadership wants and unrest could be used by portions of the Iranian population to foment revolutionary activities.
Your idea feeds the bad trends IN all of these countries boy, so it is not only a NON starter, but dumb.
Coming from a DUMB repug like you that is expected boy.
Pussy Boy said;
Bush is pulling the "Rope-a-Dope".
But the real truth of what he said is;
Bush is pulling the "Rope-a-Dope".
And he ain't pulling no rope son, hell he probably ain't got a rope, his "ranch" ain't got no cattle or horses, so he don't need much rope.
Bush is pulling the "Rope-a-Dope".
But the real truth of what he said is;
Bush is pulling the "Rope-a-Dope".
And he ain't pulling no rope son, hell he probably ain't got a rope, his "ranch" ain't got no cattle or horses, so he don't need much rope.
BOY we DO NOT own IRAQ, get a clue fuck face, the US does not OWN Iraq anymore than the Soviets OWNED Afghanistan son....So you just sucking cock on that one boy.
The rest of your IGNORANT rant is just that son, But if you think 140,000 troops OWNS a country of 25,000,000 which can barely control the road from the green zone to the Airport in Baghdad son, YOUR an IDIOT first class son, suck some more neo-con dick son and come back when you've got anything reality based to say.
You're NO military brain son, other wise you'd understand the US owns NOTHING but the ground INSIDE the bases they reside in.
Hell son they do NOT even have either Ramadi or Falugha secured son, let alone Baghdad, and YOU idiotically say we OWN it.
It is Fooles like you who condemn 100 US troops and 3000 Iraqi civilians top horrible deaths with your gutless ignorance son.
We OWN nothing inside that country anymore than we OWNED Vietnam son, or the Nazi's owned the Yugoslavia provinces son. You know NOTHING of fourth generation war son, IT is what is happening in Iraq, exactly the same way it happened in Vietnam in the 60'2 and 70's, Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iraq in post WW1 when the British were forced OUT, South Lebanon this summer...it is where a smaller less equipped indigenous force runs circles around a larger better equipped foreign occupation force, until,the foreign forces withdrawal because they are unable to force the guerrilla forces to surrender. Iraq is going almost according to the standard fourth generation warfare model......
and because you as dumb as a box of rocks you THINK we own it,
bahhahahahahahahaahah your getting really funny boy, stupidly funny at this point.
The rest of your IGNORANT rant is just that son, But if you think 140,000 troops OWNS a country of 25,000,000 which can barely control the road from the green zone to the Airport in Baghdad son, YOUR an IDIOT first class son, suck some more neo-con dick son and come back when you've got anything reality based to say.
You're NO military brain son, other wise you'd understand the US owns NOTHING but the ground INSIDE the bases they reside in.
Hell son they do NOT even have either Ramadi or Falugha secured son, let alone Baghdad, and YOU idiotically say we OWN it.
It is Fooles like you who condemn 100 US troops and 3000 Iraqi civilians top horrible deaths with your gutless ignorance son.
We OWN nothing inside that country anymore than we OWNED Vietnam son, or the Nazi's owned the Yugoslavia provinces son. You know NOTHING of fourth generation war son, IT is what is happening in Iraq, exactly the same way it happened in Vietnam in the 60'2 and 70's, Afghanistan in the 1980's, Iraq in post WW1 when the British were forced OUT, South Lebanon this summer...it is where a smaller less equipped indigenous force runs circles around a larger better equipped foreign occupation force, until,the foreign forces withdrawal because they are unable to force the guerrilla forces to surrender. Iraq is going almost according to the standard fourth generation warfare model......
and because you as dumb as a box of rocks you THINK we own it,
bahhahahahahahahaahah your getting really funny boy, stupidly funny at this point.
Bushboy, you're missing the whole point! Myself and others right from the start didn't like the idea of going into Iraq in the first place! We were the smart ones and still are. We shouldn't have to come up with the answers because we were never for this illegal occupation in the first place!
It's not different if you come up to me and say, "Kay, I'm going to break into that home and steal their stuff", and I say, "Don't do that Bushboy! You're only going to upset the people inside and it could come back to haunt you", and when you IGNORE ME and then find yourself in a mess, I CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU! I told you to not do it.
See?
Bush needs to come up with a plan, but he doesn't want to. He's right where he wants our country to be. HE'S TO BLAME FOR WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ. He's the Commander of the military and HE SHOULD BE CALLING THE SHOTS. Instead, he doesn't listen and has put 'yes men' all around him.
Not my fault! He's your problem Bushboy. When the democrats take control in January, you're going to be very surprised. Woohoo! They can't be blamed for Bush sending in more troops either, because he's the one in charge of them. The dems can defund the war to stop the profiteering, can bring up the draft, and other stuff to wake up the American people to turn them against Bush's illegal occupation!!
It's going to be wild next year and I can't wait!
It's not different if you come up to me and say, "Kay, I'm going to break into that home and steal their stuff", and I say, "Don't do that Bushboy! You're only going to upset the people inside and it could come back to haunt you", and when you IGNORE ME and then find yourself in a mess, I CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO YOU! I told you to not do it.
See?
Bush needs to come up with a plan, but he doesn't want to. He's right where he wants our country to be. HE'S TO BLAME FOR WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ. He's the Commander of the military and HE SHOULD BE CALLING THE SHOTS. Instead, he doesn't listen and has put 'yes men' all around him.
Not my fault! He's your problem Bushboy. When the democrats take control in January, you're going to be very surprised. Woohoo! They can't be blamed for Bush sending in more troops either, because he's the one in charge of them. The dems can defund the war to stop the profiteering, can bring up the draft, and other stuff to wake up the American people to turn them against Bush's illegal occupation!!
It's going to be wild next year and I can't wait!
Bushboy, what would be wrong with saying we lost the war in Iraq and then leaving? Our egos would be hurt? Who the fuck cares! Which of our soldiers in the future are going to say to their kids, "I fought an illegal occupation to line the pockets of my president's rich powerful friends!"? Will this make them proud? Nope.
Pussy Boy I have read History son I spent years in the military learning it son, and we have less of a chance in Iraq at this point because of the combined HATRED of the American military by the Iraqi's and their desire for militias instead of the feeble government we hide inside the green zone, means we have little control of the street, and as for the OIL..well son the pipeline going North thru Turkey is so destroyed it no longer is usable, and the oil in the south goes thru Shiite hands,,NOT the US hands son.
So you as misinformed about the OIL situation inside Iraq as you are military affairs son.
And with the different Shiite militias fighting for control around Basra it don't look too good for increased oil production anytime soon boy.
In fact Iraq NOW imports Gasoline and Kerosene, which they NEVER did before April 2003 son....NOT a good record if you want to say we are making any progress son...you seem to keep getting your facts wrong and your ideas suck son, seem to be because you suck so much neo-con cock and drink the repug kool aid for your ideas, might be why your wrong so much of the time here boy.
If your the best the repugs have left boy you idiots really are in trouble in 08 son, BIG trouble.
Cause son your pathetic in a debate, and your ideas are so sophomoric they actually are funny. Go back to shagging sheep in the dark son, that is about all you seem good at ......
Because Numbnuts your the one who said we OWN Iraq
We own Iraq now We can divide it anyway we want. If it doesn't work?
Sun Dec 17, 10:15:49 PM 2006
We didn't win in vietnam because Nixon wouldn't carpet bomb Hanoi.
BTW son carpet bombing a city is against the Geneva Convention of 1949, Nixon couldn't do that to Hanoi, son without becoming a WAR CRIMINAL son, I know reality and Facts seem to be foreign ideas to you, but the rest of us live in a reality based world and deal with facts , not your delusions son.
and son carpet bombing a country had NEVER gotten it to surrender.
It failed for the Germans in the battle of Britain, and failed when we tried it in Vietnam....no peoples ever surrendered to air power. Even in Desert storm it took the invasion of the allies to force Saddam out of Kuwait.
Jees-ass H Key-rist are you stupid son!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just so YOU know little boy, we did not win in Vietnam for the same reason the Japanese never subdued that country in the WW2 period and France never re-subjugated it post WW2 , because the vast MAJORITY of it's people wanted to be FREE son with OUT foreign rule whether it was japan, France or a US installed puppet government.
Get a clue about the real history of this world and NOT the repug lies about it son.
So you as misinformed about the OIL situation inside Iraq as you are military affairs son.
And with the different Shiite militias fighting for control around Basra it don't look too good for increased oil production anytime soon boy.
In fact Iraq NOW imports Gasoline and Kerosene, which they NEVER did before April 2003 son....NOT a good record if you want to say we are making any progress son...you seem to keep getting your facts wrong and your ideas suck son, seem to be because you suck so much neo-con cock and drink the repug kool aid for your ideas, might be why your wrong so much of the time here boy.
If your the best the repugs have left boy you idiots really are in trouble in 08 son, BIG trouble.
Cause son your pathetic in a debate, and your ideas are so sophomoric they actually are funny. Go back to shagging sheep in the dark son, that is about all you seem good at ......
Because Numbnuts your the one who said we OWN Iraq
We own Iraq now We can divide it anyway we want. If it doesn't work?
Sun Dec 17, 10:15:49 PM 2006
We didn't win in vietnam because Nixon wouldn't carpet bomb Hanoi.
BTW son carpet bombing a city is against the Geneva Convention of 1949, Nixon couldn't do that to Hanoi, son without becoming a WAR CRIMINAL son, I know reality and Facts seem to be foreign ideas to you, but the rest of us live in a reality based world and deal with facts , not your delusions son.
and son carpet bombing a country had NEVER gotten it to surrender.
It failed for the Germans in the battle of Britain, and failed when we tried it in Vietnam....no peoples ever surrendered to air power. Even in Desert storm it took the invasion of the allies to force Saddam out of Kuwait.
Jees-ass H Key-rist are you stupid son!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just so YOU know little boy, we did not win in Vietnam for the same reason the Japanese never subdued that country in the WW2 period and France never re-subjugated it post WW2 , because the vast MAJORITY of it's people wanted to be FREE son with OUT foreign rule whether it was japan, France or a US installed puppet government.
Get a clue about the real history of this world and NOT the repug lies about it son.
Pussboy said...
Bushboy, what would be wrong with saying we lost the war in Iraq and then leaving?
We've already won.
Bahahahahahahahahaaa, son your an Idiot.
We have won Nothing son, we destroyed a country, and captured saddam, but as for winning, not so much son.
If we had WON then we would NOT be thinking What the Fuck to do NOW.........3 1/2 years later boy. If you WIN you do NOT fight for over three years....in a losing series of campaigns to establish control.....you absolutely moronic in your delusions son.
That is the reason. All we have to do is to secure the borders,
How numbnuts, Bush has not even been able to secure OUR own countries borders son, and YOU think we can secure hundreds of miles of Iraqi borders with exactly what son...your sorry ass?
the separation of provinces,
right son back to FORCING the Iraqis to do as we say, it has worked SO well the last three years son, they will just fall in line right now when they have us at the brink of leaving? Stupid does define you son.
(leave some to secure the oilfields); and leave.
Why leave anybody at all son?
The OIL supposedly belongs to the Iraqi people son, so why do WE need to guard it son?
However leaving does sound right...like right NOW.
If Iraq were to achieve it's true oil production potential;
With a collapsed infrastructure which has had decades of neglect even before years of sabotage...who exactly is gonna spend the BILLIONS it is gonna take to modernize it, and secure the hundreds of mile s of pipeline against sabotage and refineries from attack?
it would be only 2nd to Saudi Arabia.
Maybe Georgie should have though about THAT before illegally invading Iraq son.
Gasoline would be 50 cents a gallon again.
Bahahahahahahwhahwhahwhhwhahah, you getting even dumber son each POST.
Gas IS never gonna return to 50 cents a gallon son...dream on, with the increasing Chinese and Indian economies, OIL is gonna get more NOT less expensive moron.....oil is not gonna get cheaper no matter what repug assclowns like you want to believe son.
Then, if some people would get their heads out of the sand in the US?;.....
Go look in the mirror son, it is people like you and the Idiot in Chief who have had their heads in the sand about Iraq for years son.
we could work on some non-polluting energy without the poor people in the country being in the poorhouse.
assholes like the Oil companies will Block this as long as they can and assholes like Reagan and BOTH Bushs' will pimp for them...you just the Whore on the street at this point son.
Jimmy Carter was trying to get the US to do this and repugnant assholes blocked it, and Reagan even FORCED the US government to change away from this course....Bush-Cheney has cut funding for this each year son....to GIVE Exxon ET Al big tax breaks, to the detriment of the rest of us, and have the US Military trying to secure Iraq for them to make profits over there at this time.
Bremer and Baker have the OIL law which hands exploration and production to the BIG OIL for their benefit NOT either the US consumer or the Iraqi peoples son....
The problems we face as a nation in regards to energy were laid OUT in the late 1970's by jimmy Carter son and you repugnant assclowns laughed at that time, well son Jimmy has been PROVEN right by time...and NOW you want to try what he said work on back then when it would have involved a lot less pain, and NO troops to secure the OIL in the middle east.
Bushboy, what would be wrong with saying we lost the war in Iraq and then leaving?
We've already won.
Bahahahahahahahahaaa, son your an Idiot.
We have won Nothing son, we destroyed a country, and captured saddam, but as for winning, not so much son.
If we had WON then we would NOT be thinking What the Fuck to do NOW.........3 1/2 years later boy. If you WIN you do NOT fight for over three years....in a losing series of campaigns to establish control.....you absolutely moronic in your delusions son.
That is the reason. All we have to do is to secure the borders,
How numbnuts, Bush has not even been able to secure OUR own countries borders son, and YOU think we can secure hundreds of miles of Iraqi borders with exactly what son...your sorry ass?
the separation of provinces,
right son back to FORCING the Iraqis to do as we say, it has worked SO well the last three years son, they will just fall in line right now when they have us at the brink of leaving? Stupid does define you son.
(leave some to secure the oilfields); and leave.
Why leave anybody at all son?
The OIL supposedly belongs to the Iraqi people son, so why do WE need to guard it son?
However leaving does sound right...like right NOW.
If Iraq were to achieve it's true oil production potential;
With a collapsed infrastructure which has had decades of neglect even before years of sabotage...who exactly is gonna spend the BILLIONS it is gonna take to modernize it, and secure the hundreds of mile s of pipeline against sabotage and refineries from attack?
it would be only 2nd to Saudi Arabia.
Maybe Georgie should have though about THAT before illegally invading Iraq son.
Gasoline would be 50 cents a gallon again.
Bahahahahahahwhahwhahwhhwhahah, you getting even dumber son each POST.
Gas IS never gonna return to 50 cents a gallon son...dream on, with the increasing Chinese and Indian economies, OIL is gonna get more NOT less expensive moron.....oil is not gonna get cheaper no matter what repug assclowns like you want to believe son.
Then, if some people would get their heads out of the sand in the US?;.....
Go look in the mirror son, it is people like you and the Idiot in Chief who have had their heads in the sand about Iraq for years son.
we could work on some non-polluting energy without the poor people in the country being in the poorhouse.
assholes like the Oil companies will Block this as long as they can and assholes like Reagan and BOTH Bushs' will pimp for them...you just the Whore on the street at this point son.
Jimmy Carter was trying to get the US to do this and repugnant assholes blocked it, and Reagan even FORCED the US government to change away from this course....Bush-Cheney has cut funding for this each year son....to GIVE Exxon ET Al big tax breaks, to the detriment of the rest of us, and have the US Military trying to secure Iraq for them to make profits over there at this time.
Bremer and Baker have the OIL law which hands exploration and production to the BIG OIL for their benefit NOT either the US consumer or the Iraqi peoples son....
The problems we face as a nation in regards to energy were laid OUT in the late 1970's by jimmy Carter son and you repugnant assclowns laughed at that time, well son Jimmy has been PROVEN right by time...and NOW you want to try what he said work on back then when it would have involved a lot less pain, and NO troops to secure the OIL in the middle east.
Asswipe the US signed the Geneva convention so we have to abide by them son. Not assholes like you BOY but thr real soldiers who stand the posts and are subject to UCMJ action for VIOLATIONS of the Geneva Convention, see BOY they are written into the legal rules the US Military are required to follow so go suck another repug dick son, because your WRONG in your assertional DELUSIONS SON it is not ONE sided moron.
Second asswipe, 75% of Iraq IS NOT secure, unless you accept the MILITIAS as the real government because it is the Shiite Militias, Kurdish Peshmurga and Sunni Insurgents who actually control that ground son, NOT the US ,military or the puppet government that HIDES inside the green zone FOOLE.
As for carpet bombing Anbar, well we tried to level Fallugha, and have destroyed large parts of Ramadi son, but ONLY achieved MORE anger and more recruits for the insurgency son, at some point we have to say Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld have completely failed in Iraq, accept it, and MOVE on. Just as in Vietnam, we have little control over the peoples of Iraq, and even though the Neo-con fooles mission has unleashed centuries old animosities which underlie the sectarian violence, there is little we can do NOW to stop them as ling as they are dedicated on its path.
Once idiots like Bush ET AL unleash the fiasco of Iraq, and leave it unsecured for the elements of Militias and Sunni insurgents to operate in, we have little left to do BUT referee it, and to ME that is not worth the lives of US soldiers.
Sorry son, BUT I was against this fooles mission from the start son, so when ever the idiot in the white house accepts he is a failure and decides to stop getting US troops killed for hie ego it is NOT me that has the blood on MY hands son, it is assholes like YOU who back that abject failure called George W Bush.
You might think more American soldiers deaths are worth it, I do not.
So trying to say the blood is ON my hands son is as limp as rush's dick son.
Sorry son but the solution that existed was LOST in 2003...by invading on the cheap and ignoring reality for the last three years son.
It is like you idiots allowed a country to implode and NOW want to blame US, sorry son but it was asshole LIKE you who has blood which will not come off your hands or souls for the rest of YOUR lives NOT me .
and I do NOT have to STFU asswipe I have NOT been wrong time after time for the last three years son....YOU have son.
DEAL WITH IT.
Second asswipe, 75% of Iraq IS NOT secure, unless you accept the MILITIAS as the real government because it is the Shiite Militias, Kurdish Peshmurga and Sunni Insurgents who actually control that ground son, NOT the US ,military or the puppet government that HIDES inside the green zone FOOLE.
As for carpet bombing Anbar, well we tried to level Fallugha, and have destroyed large parts of Ramadi son, but ONLY achieved MORE anger and more recruits for the insurgency son, at some point we have to say Bush, Cheney and Dumsfeld have completely failed in Iraq, accept it, and MOVE on. Just as in Vietnam, we have little control over the peoples of Iraq, and even though the Neo-con fooles mission has unleashed centuries old animosities which underlie the sectarian violence, there is little we can do NOW to stop them as ling as they are dedicated on its path.
Once idiots like Bush ET AL unleash the fiasco of Iraq, and leave it unsecured for the elements of Militias and Sunni insurgents to operate in, we have little left to do BUT referee it, and to ME that is not worth the lives of US soldiers.
Sorry son, BUT I was against this fooles mission from the start son, so when ever the idiot in the white house accepts he is a failure and decides to stop getting US troops killed for hie ego it is NOT me that has the blood on MY hands son, it is assholes like YOU who back that abject failure called George W Bush.
You might think more American soldiers deaths are worth it, I do not.
So trying to say the blood is ON my hands son is as limp as rush's dick son.
Sorry son but the solution that existed was LOST in 2003...by invading on the cheap and ignoring reality for the last three years son.
It is like you idiots allowed a country to implode and NOW want to blame US, sorry son but it was asshole LIKE you who has blood which will not come off your hands or souls for the rest of YOUR lives NOT me .
and I do NOT have to STFU asswipe I have NOT been wrong time after time for the last three years son....YOU have son.
DEAL WITH IT.
GFY son, I have fought a war, you not so much, and it was Idiots you back which went INTO the wrong country for the wrong reasons son, which CREATED this Fiasco which has NO good solution.
The Geneva Convention since it was signed by the sitting president ratified by the Senate is LAW foole and MUST be followed son, whether pussy's like you want to or not.
It has NOTHING to do with the UN son but actual US law foole.
BTW just as Picketts charge was not the best military idea, and Hitlers orders to HOLD Stalingrad at all costs was a fooles errand at that time. Bush is trying to add his name to that list of idiots who think they have the ability to lead the military irregardless of what the Generals said.
Baghdad could be as destructive to the US military as Stalingrad was to the German army. and the war in Iraq is not gonna turn out any better for the US than Afghanistan did for the Soviets.
Your the Foole if you think there is any way for the MORONS in charge can save the Bremer Oil law in Iraq at this time son, it is way past that time, and now like Gen Shoemaker says, the Army is at the breaking point but fooles like you scream charge.
and MORON invading Iraq was wrong son, there was NO WMD's so NO danger to the US, thus NO legal basis for the US to attack Iraq.
YOU are wrong there son.
The invasion was POORLY planned and not carried out very well with bypassing large numbers of Iraqi troops and irregulars which we NOW fight son, that is STUPID from a security standpoint especially if you plan to occupy the country afterwards. Phase four operations are the most important part of the planning of any plan where you have an occupation to include reshaping the government and society, but the FOOLES who designed this fiasco left that part OUT. Whether through incompetence or neglect, it lead directly to the utter fiasco we find in Iraq today, thus you repugs screwed the pooch on this one also, and have little to crow about but a lot of crow to eat on this one also.
At this time we are not fighting with one hand tied behind our back asshole, because we do NOT have enough troops to actually fight many places, and since this has evolved into a classic fourth generation war, it leaves the decisions of attack and surprise to the insurgency MOST of the time. we are NO longer on the Offense son, but trying to react because of the lack of adequate troops. In Iraq we would need almost 4-500,000 troops for 6-10 years to restructure the country back into something that could be called stable and where a real police force and Army could be stood up, however we do NOT have anywhere enough troops to field that force for a year let alone a decade.
Obviously you KNOW little about what it really takes to fight a counter insurgency any more than you know HOW to debate son.
The Geneva Convention since it was signed by the sitting president ratified by the Senate is LAW foole and MUST be followed son, whether pussy's like you want to or not.
It has NOTHING to do with the UN son but actual US law foole.
BTW just as Picketts charge was not the best military idea, and Hitlers orders to HOLD Stalingrad at all costs was a fooles errand at that time. Bush is trying to add his name to that list of idiots who think they have the ability to lead the military irregardless of what the Generals said.
Baghdad could be as destructive to the US military as Stalingrad was to the German army. and the war in Iraq is not gonna turn out any better for the US than Afghanistan did for the Soviets.
Your the Foole if you think there is any way for the MORONS in charge can save the Bremer Oil law in Iraq at this time son, it is way past that time, and now like Gen Shoemaker says, the Army is at the breaking point but fooles like you scream charge.
and MORON invading Iraq was wrong son, there was NO WMD's so NO danger to the US, thus NO legal basis for the US to attack Iraq.
YOU are wrong there son.
The invasion was POORLY planned and not carried out very well with bypassing large numbers of Iraqi troops and irregulars which we NOW fight son, that is STUPID from a security standpoint especially if you plan to occupy the country afterwards. Phase four operations are the most important part of the planning of any plan where you have an occupation to include reshaping the government and society, but the FOOLES who designed this fiasco left that part OUT. Whether through incompetence or neglect, it lead directly to the utter fiasco we find in Iraq today, thus you repugs screwed the pooch on this one also, and have little to crow about but a lot of crow to eat on this one also.
At this time we are not fighting with one hand tied behind our back asshole, because we do NOT have enough troops to actually fight many places, and since this has evolved into a classic fourth generation war, it leaves the decisions of attack and surprise to the insurgency MOST of the time. we are NO longer on the Offense son, but trying to react because of the lack of adequate troops. In Iraq we would need almost 4-500,000 troops for 6-10 years to restructure the country back into something that could be called stable and where a real police force and Army could be stood up, however we do NOT have anywhere enough troops to field that force for a year let alone a decade.
Obviously you KNOW little about what it really takes to fight a counter insurgency any more than you know HOW to debate son.
Well asswipe if they ONLY have months NO amount of troops that WE have available will accomplish ANYTHING.
There are far too many insurgent positions, and militias who both have control of sections of the country, and have infiltrated the police and Army which means they are controlling what both the police and Army does in areas.
So according to YOUR time line the troops should start getting packed UP and boarding planes to come home.
It takes a while to re-deploy a large contingent like this, Hell son we had a REAL win in Desert Storm at the end of Feb 1991, and some of us did not leave until June son.
If your asinine ideas were to be implemented, people would have to believe we were gonna drop 20-30 thousand people into Baghdad primarily, only to have them to start to tear down just about the time they get set up.
YOU obviously know NOTHING about deployment operations, how to set up a mission once your in theater...and what it takes to re deploy back home.
Stick to shagging sheep and sucking off the neo-cons son, it is all your mental abilities seem destined to allow you success at son.
There are far too many insurgent positions, and militias who both have control of sections of the country, and have infiltrated the police and Army which means they are controlling what both the police and Army does in areas.
So according to YOUR time line the troops should start getting packed UP and boarding planes to come home.
It takes a while to re-deploy a large contingent like this, Hell son we had a REAL win in Desert Storm at the end of Feb 1991, and some of us did not leave until June son.
If your asinine ideas were to be implemented, people would have to believe we were gonna drop 20-30 thousand people into Baghdad primarily, only to have them to start to tear down just about the time they get set up.
YOU obviously know NOTHING about deployment operations, how to set up a mission once your in theater...and what it takes to re deploy back home.
Stick to shagging sheep and sucking off the neo-cons son, it is all your mental abilities seem destined to allow you success at son.
BTW asswipe a real general that WON a war against Iraq and served this country for YEARS, who actually knows a hell of a lot MORE than you ever will about the subject of war in Iraq said this;
Before any decision to increase troops, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."
"That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained." The "active Army is about broken," [Colin] Powell said. Even beyond Iraq, the Army and Marines have to "grow in size, in my military judgment," and Congress must provide significant additional funding to sustain them.
So punk, unless your volunteering to lead a gaggle of gutless college repug dick suckers into Baghdad to fight this war Shut the FUCK up punk.
Before any decision to increase troops, "I'd want to have a clear understanding of what it is they're going for, how long they're going for. And let's be clear about something else. . . . There really are no additional troops. All we would be doing is keeping some of the troops who were there, there longer and escalating or accelerating the arrival of other troops."
"That's how you surge. And that surge cannot be sustained." The "active Army is about broken," [Colin] Powell said. Even beyond Iraq, the Army and Marines have to "grow in size, in my military judgment," and Congress must provide significant additional funding to sustain them.
So punk, unless your volunteering to lead a gaggle of gutless college repug dick suckers into Baghdad to fight this war Shut the FUCK up punk.
BTW pussboy, here is HOW somebody WHO actually knows what the fuck HE is talking about thinks of the Fiasco Bush and Dumsfeld created in Iraq is going son;
The Iraq Catch-22
by
Larry C Johnson
Regardless of your feelings or beliefs about sending more U.S troops to Iraq, you must accept the painful truth that anything we do to salvage or strengthen the existing Shia-dominated government in Iraq redounds to the benefit of Iran. If we weigh in on the side of the Sunni insurgents we run a serious risk that the Shias will attack us in strength and, at least for the short time, cut our supply lines that run through the heart of Shia territory. Moreover, anything we do to militarily challenge Iran will weaken our influence in Iraq and jeopardize the mission of our forces in Iraq.
George Bush has made his choice and it is calamitous. He rejected out of hand the proposal to "Go Home". And dismissed the "Go Long" course of action, which would have emphasized counterinsurgency, public works vice combat, and diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria. Instead, he has thrown his weight behind "Go Strong".
The key elements of the "go strong" plan are outlined in the accompanying analysis by Pat Lang (see Stalingrad on the Tigris?). What is not yet announced, but implicit in the plan, is a direct attack on Moqtada al Sadr and his militia, the Jayshi al Mahdi (JAM). During their meeting in Jordan last month, George Bush reportedly told Maliki in no uncertain terms that he would have to separate himself from al Sadr or become a casualty in the upcoming offensive against the bearded cleric. Ironically, Moqtada al Sadr has discouraged sectartian strife rather than egged it on and, among the various Shia clerics, is more receptive to working with Sunni counterparts to rebuild Iraq.
It is no surpise that Maliki returned to Iraq and is making a desperate bid to align himself now with Hakim and the "moderates" in the current government and is signaling he will abandon al Sadr. Bush, in his zeal for a deal in Iraq, is either ignorant or oblivious to the fact the al Hakim (a recent visitor to the White House) is closely aligned with Iran; in contrast to al Sadr who is more independent. Notwithstanding these facts the "Decider"-in-Chief" has rolled the dice and will try to rub out Sadr's JAM. He also is betting he can do so without provoking a full scale revolt among the Shia.
Ah, but here's the rub. When you attack al Sadr you elevate his status. He becomes the face of the Iraqi opposition. Unlike the Jordanian Zarqawi, who met his end in June, a martyred al Sadr becomes more powerful in life than in death. It is not a question of "will the Shia retaliate"? They will. And in the process U.S. forces will once again "make" news destroying neighborhoods and civilians in Sadr City as the insurgent forces melt away; just as we did and they did in Fallujah.
But unlike Fallujah, the Shia can hurt us and hurt us bad. The vast majority of the supplies--the food, water, bullets, and bandages--sustaining our troops in Iraq flow from Kuwait in the south along the highway the runs through the middle of Shia-controlled territory in Iraq. If the Shia retaliate, as they have in the past, our lines of communication will be in jeopardy, at least over the short term.
This is more serious than going without toliet paper for a couple of days. With the anticipated surge in troops to Baghdad the logistics demands will increase. That makes the supplies from the south more, not less, critical. The tactical challenge of keeping the resupply line open is daunting. In June of this year one in every 20 convoys was attacked while heading from Kuwait to Baghdad. Now that figure is approaching one in every five. Most of these attacks appear to be the work of criminal gangs intent on filling their pockets. But the ease and frequency of these attacks should keep military commanders up at night. A concerted effort could effectively shut down our resupply effort. Any one remember Jessica Lynch and her ill-fated colleagues?
We also need to accept the fact that the ethnic partitioning of Iraq is underway and the battle is focused in and around Baghdad. The Shia essentially control the east half of Baghdad. The Sunni control the west half. Scattered throughout the city (but primarily on the outer suburbs) are mixed Sunni/Shia neighborhoods. That's where the fighting is occuring So far the Shia appear to have the upper hand.
Early last week President Bush was touting the body count of insurgents and implying things were getting better in Iraq. But he failed to report that notwithstanding the insurgent bodies we are stacking up that the level of violence has continued to soar. The last three months in Iraq--September, October, and November--have been the most violent since George Bush announced Mission Accomplished. And December is on track to keep pace with this disturbing trend. With more troops headed into the fray more of our boys and girls will be added to the casualty lists.
Now that Bush has taken the Go Home and Go Long options off of the table we also should acknowledge that whether intended or not (and I believe it was intentional) the President has tied Bob Gates' hands, much to the relief of the neo-cons. Gates faces a senior military leadership roiled by dissent and disgust. Many are appalled that they are being blamed for the fiasco in Iraq because they followed the orders and dictates of Bush and his political appointees. Some, like Pete Schoomacher, have seized the initiative and are going to speak candidly without regard to the effect on their careers. Schoomacher, who was called back from retirement, really does not give a shit if he is rocking the boat as long as he his certain that he is acting in the best interest of his soldiers and his country.
I am waiting for the Congress to wake up and realize that no one in the military has done an assessment of our "progress" in the war. So far the only written assessments have come from the CIA and the National Intelligence Council. No one in either CENTCOM, SOCOM, JCS, or DIA appears to have done an analysis of the trends. If they have it is the best protected secret in the U.S. Governement. I think the Generals learned from the fate of the two CIA station chiefs who provided their stark assessment in the early days of the insurgency (they sent back what is known as an AARDWOLF) about the disastrous course of the war and wound up losing their jobs. So much for rewarding candor. The military leadership got the message and has shied away from putting in writing what many concede in private to be the case.
For now the focus is on Iraq, but do not imagine for a second that the neo-cons and their patrons in the Bush Administration have given up their quest to take down Iran. The dream is alive. Iran is the longterm obsession. What the Bushies in their zeal fail to realize is that their efforts to get control over events in Iraq are destined to backfire and will make it more difficult to contain the threat they claim we face from Iran. Bush and Cheney don't have a learning curve, it is a flat line.
and JUST to make it easy for you boy, here is Col. Pat Langs article,
Stalingrad on the Tigris
by
W. Patrick Lang
Here is a Power Point (what else?) presentation on the recent AEI analytic meeting run by one of the Kagans. The cast of contributers at the end reads very much like one of the great neocon "papers" done up before their return to power under Bush 41'. I have in mind the "Clean Break" paper which contained so much of "future history. The military men listed among the supposed authors are a mystery to me. I know who some of them are but I question how much they really understood what was going to be said in their names.
The paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice. The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. I do not think that belief is justified.
The authors assert that contrary to General Schoomaker's appraisal below in"State of the Army," such a surge will not "break the Army."
They also assert that with an increase in recruiting the brigades that would be missing from the present rotation queue because of this "surge" could be replaced with the one year or so period of the 'surge.' I doubt that this is a realistic appraisal of how long such a process of unit creation would take.
One of the tasks to be accomplished by the "surged" force would be to disarm the Mahdi's Army and the other Shia militias. The authors seem unclear as to whether or not the militias will fight to avoid being disarmed.
This concept is a recipe for a grand and climactic battle of attrition between US and Iraqi forces on one side and the some combination of Sunni and Shia forces on the other. The Sunnis and Shia would not necessarily "ally" themselves to each other, but a general co-belligerence against our people would be bad enough.
President Bush may well accept the essence of this concept. He wants to redeem his "freedom agenda," restore momentum to his plans and in his mind this might "clear up" Iraq so that he could move on to Iran.
The carnage implicit in this concept would be appalling. The authors have much to say about the consequences of defeat in Iraq, but, I wonder if they have contemplated what it would be like to fail in their climactic battle and still be required by '43 to stay in Iraq. pl
Both these men have more time shitting on the commode in uniform than you will ever have and KNOW a hell of a lot more about it than you EVER will son, so your lousy bigoted ideas should be left to the circle jerk you have every night with your repug butt buddies son. Stick to burning crosses and wearing sheets in the dark boy, it is all you have to really contribute moron. If the rest of you ass droppings you spout on the web is as ridicules as that you have here son, you have NOTHING to contribute to this discussion, and you LOSS last November son should have been a clue to give it up.......
The Iraq Catch-22
by
Larry C Johnson
Regardless of your feelings or beliefs about sending more U.S troops to Iraq, you must accept the painful truth that anything we do to salvage or strengthen the existing Shia-dominated government in Iraq redounds to the benefit of Iran. If we weigh in on the side of the Sunni insurgents we run a serious risk that the Shias will attack us in strength and, at least for the short time, cut our supply lines that run through the heart of Shia territory. Moreover, anything we do to militarily challenge Iran will weaken our influence in Iraq and jeopardize the mission of our forces in Iraq.
George Bush has made his choice and it is calamitous. He rejected out of hand the proposal to "Go Home". And dismissed the "Go Long" course of action, which would have emphasized counterinsurgency, public works vice combat, and diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria. Instead, he has thrown his weight behind "Go Strong".
The key elements of the "go strong" plan are outlined in the accompanying analysis by Pat Lang (see Stalingrad on the Tigris?). What is not yet announced, but implicit in the plan, is a direct attack on Moqtada al Sadr and his militia, the Jayshi al Mahdi (JAM). During their meeting in Jordan last month, George Bush reportedly told Maliki in no uncertain terms that he would have to separate himself from al Sadr or become a casualty in the upcoming offensive against the bearded cleric. Ironically, Moqtada al Sadr has discouraged sectartian strife rather than egged it on and, among the various Shia clerics, is more receptive to working with Sunni counterparts to rebuild Iraq.
It is no surpise that Maliki returned to Iraq and is making a desperate bid to align himself now with Hakim and the "moderates" in the current government and is signaling he will abandon al Sadr. Bush, in his zeal for a deal in Iraq, is either ignorant or oblivious to the fact the al Hakim (a recent visitor to the White House) is closely aligned with Iran; in contrast to al Sadr who is more independent. Notwithstanding these facts the "Decider"-in-Chief" has rolled the dice and will try to rub out Sadr's JAM. He also is betting he can do so without provoking a full scale revolt among the Shia.
Ah, but here's the rub. When you attack al Sadr you elevate his status. He becomes the face of the Iraqi opposition. Unlike the Jordanian Zarqawi, who met his end in June, a martyred al Sadr becomes more powerful in life than in death. It is not a question of "will the Shia retaliate"? They will. And in the process U.S. forces will once again "make" news destroying neighborhoods and civilians in Sadr City as the insurgent forces melt away; just as we did and they did in Fallujah.
But unlike Fallujah, the Shia can hurt us and hurt us bad. The vast majority of the supplies--the food, water, bullets, and bandages--sustaining our troops in Iraq flow from Kuwait in the south along the highway the runs through the middle of Shia-controlled territory in Iraq. If the Shia retaliate, as they have in the past, our lines of communication will be in jeopardy, at least over the short term.
This is more serious than going without toliet paper for a couple of days. With the anticipated surge in troops to Baghdad the logistics demands will increase. That makes the supplies from the south more, not less, critical. The tactical challenge of keeping the resupply line open is daunting. In June of this year one in every 20 convoys was attacked while heading from Kuwait to Baghdad. Now that figure is approaching one in every five. Most of these attacks appear to be the work of criminal gangs intent on filling their pockets. But the ease and frequency of these attacks should keep military commanders up at night. A concerted effort could effectively shut down our resupply effort. Any one remember Jessica Lynch and her ill-fated colleagues?
We also need to accept the fact that the ethnic partitioning of Iraq is underway and the battle is focused in and around Baghdad. The Shia essentially control the east half of Baghdad. The Sunni control the west half. Scattered throughout the city (but primarily on the outer suburbs) are mixed Sunni/Shia neighborhoods. That's where the fighting is occuring So far the Shia appear to have the upper hand.
Early last week President Bush was touting the body count of insurgents and implying things were getting better in Iraq. But he failed to report that notwithstanding the insurgent bodies we are stacking up that the level of violence has continued to soar. The last three months in Iraq--September, October, and November--have been the most violent since George Bush announced Mission Accomplished. And December is on track to keep pace with this disturbing trend. With more troops headed into the fray more of our boys and girls will be added to the casualty lists.
Now that Bush has taken the Go Home and Go Long options off of the table we also should acknowledge that whether intended or not (and I believe it was intentional) the President has tied Bob Gates' hands, much to the relief of the neo-cons. Gates faces a senior military leadership roiled by dissent and disgust. Many are appalled that they are being blamed for the fiasco in Iraq because they followed the orders and dictates of Bush and his political appointees. Some, like Pete Schoomacher, have seized the initiative and are going to speak candidly without regard to the effect on their careers. Schoomacher, who was called back from retirement, really does not give a shit if he is rocking the boat as long as he his certain that he is acting in the best interest of his soldiers and his country.
I am waiting for the Congress to wake up and realize that no one in the military has done an assessment of our "progress" in the war. So far the only written assessments have come from the CIA and the National Intelligence Council. No one in either CENTCOM, SOCOM, JCS, or DIA appears to have done an analysis of the trends. If they have it is the best protected secret in the U.S. Governement. I think the Generals learned from the fate of the two CIA station chiefs who provided their stark assessment in the early days of the insurgency (they sent back what is known as an AARDWOLF) about the disastrous course of the war and wound up losing their jobs. So much for rewarding candor. The military leadership got the message and has shied away from putting in writing what many concede in private to be the case.
For now the focus is on Iraq, but do not imagine for a second that the neo-cons and their patrons in the Bush Administration have given up their quest to take down Iran. The dream is alive. Iran is the longterm obsession. What the Bushies in their zeal fail to realize is that their efforts to get control over events in Iraq are destined to backfire and will make it more difficult to contain the threat they claim we face from Iran. Bush and Cheney don't have a learning curve, it is a flat line.
and JUST to make it easy for you boy, here is Col. Pat Langs article,
Stalingrad on the Tigris
by
W. Patrick Lang
Here is a Power Point (what else?) presentation on the recent AEI analytic meeting run by one of the Kagans. The cast of contributers at the end reads very much like one of the great neocon "papers" done up before their return to power under Bush 41'. I have in mind the "Clean Break" paper which contained so much of "future history. The military men listed among the supposed authors are a mystery to me. I know who some of them are but I question how much they really understood what was going to be said in their names.
The paper urges a "surge" of many thousands more US troops into Baghdad beginning in March, 2007 for one more grand roll of the iron dice. The concept seems to be based on the notion that Shia militias exist because of Sunni violence against them rather than as expressions of a Shia drive to political dominance in Iraq. Based on that belief the authors seem to believe that if the additional US and Iraqi forces to be employed in the Capital area defeat (destroy?) the Sunni insurgent groups, then the Shia militia armies will "wither away" from a lack of need. I do not think that belief is justified.
The authors assert that contrary to General Schoomaker's appraisal below in"State of the Army," such a surge will not "break the Army."
They also assert that with an increase in recruiting the brigades that would be missing from the present rotation queue because of this "surge" could be replaced with the one year or so period of the 'surge.' I doubt that this is a realistic appraisal of how long such a process of unit creation would take.
One of the tasks to be accomplished by the "surged" force would be to disarm the Mahdi's Army and the other Shia militias. The authors seem unclear as to whether or not the militias will fight to avoid being disarmed.
This concept is a recipe for a grand and climactic battle of attrition between US and Iraqi forces on one side and the some combination of Sunni and Shia forces on the other. The Sunnis and Shia would not necessarily "ally" themselves to each other, but a general co-belligerence against our people would be bad enough.
President Bush may well accept the essence of this concept. He wants to redeem his "freedom agenda," restore momentum to his plans and in his mind this might "clear up" Iraq so that he could move on to Iran.
The carnage implicit in this concept would be appalling. The authors have much to say about the consequences of defeat in Iraq, but, I wonder if they have contemplated what it would be like to fail in their climactic battle and still be required by '43 to stay in Iraq. pl
Both these men have more time shitting on the commode in uniform than you will ever have and KNOW a hell of a lot more about it than you EVER will son, so your lousy bigoted ideas should be left to the circle jerk you have every night with your repug butt buddies son. Stick to burning crosses and wearing sheets in the dark boy, it is all you have to really contribute moron. If the rest of you ass droppings you spout on the web is as ridicules as that you have here son, you have NOTHING to contribute to this discussion, and you LOSS last November son should have been a clue to give it up.......
Oh and FOOLE if the Iraqis only have months, why are assclowns like Fred Kagan proposing plans that last at least 24 months in length son?
(read the power point presentation he gave at AEI, it is linked to on Pat Lang's website son)
I guess the Idiots in DC do not listen to you son, anymore than the rest of us do. Must suck to realize you as useless as the Pimple on Rush Limpballs as he used to duck out of Vietnam.
(read the power point presentation he gave at AEI, it is linked to on Pat Lang's website son)
I guess the Idiots in DC do not listen to you son, anymore than the rest of us do. Must suck to realize you as useless as the Pimple on Rush Limpballs as he used to duck out of Vietnam.
NEITHER one wanted to go in asshole, neither one.
So as usual your wrong on the facts son, because nobody but gutless punks like YOU hiding here in the US wanted somebody ELSE to do YOUR fighting stupid.
Fuck son where do you get your facts Rush limpballs as when you suck him off?
So as usual your wrong on the facts son, because nobody but gutless punks like YOU hiding here in the US wanted somebody ELSE to do YOUR fighting stupid.
Fuck son where do you get your facts Rush limpballs as when you suck him off?
Why when YOU get shown your an IDIOT son do you come back with a question about the LAST war which at this time is MOOT.
Must be a repug thing to attempt to distract the debate when your SO wrong son.
NO facts
No real ideas that could ever really work,
Lose the debate and then come back with a fucked up question which is both off topic and wrong on the facts
Tell me son do you get this stupid from fucking goats at night or is it heretic on your part son?
Must be a repug thing to attempt to distract the debate when your SO wrong son.
NO facts
No real ideas that could ever really work,
Lose the debate and then come back with a fucked up question which is both off topic and wrong on the facts
Tell me son do you get this stupid from fucking goats at night or is it heretic on your part son?
BTW fuckface, a lot of these people said DO NOT go in, so they were right then, why do assclown goatfuckers like YOU always ask the rest of us to clean up the messes you make son?
Powell tried to warn Bush but the asshole never listened, and lied to get a war he has no clue what the fuck to do with now it has exploded into a very bad civil war...where none of the Iraqi people see the US as anything but the occupation force and refuse to accept the Maliki government as legitimate.
That is the reason the vast majority of Iraq is ruled by some sort of militia, whether the Sunni insurgents Kurdish Peshmurga or Shiite Militias of Al Sadr or Hakim.
And the last Pentagon Quarterly Report to congress just released today says the violence is getting WORSE, and the Iraqi's have lost faith that the US or Maliki can do anything about it.
Kagan's AEI presentation which Bush praised was calling for a 18-24 month plan son, which means your just a stupid brainless fuck spewing ideas NOBODY else is considering son.
Why the fuck do YOU waste your time son, goat fucking leave you that lonely son?
Powell tried to warn Bush but the asshole never listened, and lied to get a war he has no clue what the fuck to do with now it has exploded into a very bad civil war...where none of the Iraqi people see the US as anything but the occupation force and refuse to accept the Maliki government as legitimate.
That is the reason the vast majority of Iraq is ruled by some sort of militia, whether the Sunni insurgents Kurdish Peshmurga or Shiite Militias of Al Sadr or Hakim.
And the last Pentagon Quarterly Report to congress just released today says the violence is getting WORSE, and the Iraqi's have lost faith that the US or Maliki can do anything about it.
Kagan's AEI presentation which Bush praised was calling for a 18-24 month plan son, which means your just a stupid brainless fuck spewing ideas NOBODY else is considering son.
Why the fuck do YOU waste your time son, goat fucking leave you that lonely son?
Son since I served in it, and was with 7th corps during the Assualt and follow on operations in the southern desert of Iraq I know a hell of a lot more about it than a gutless punk like you son. and NOBODY suggested to go to Baghdad, hell even Cheney at that time said it was a BAD idea son.
Get a hooked on phonics book son learn to read before you attempt to ask questions based on historical facts son.
And give up chasing goats at night son.
Get a hooked on phonics book son learn to read before you attempt to ask questions based on historical facts son.
And give up chasing goats at night son.
So asswipe GIVE me a historical link to something which says anybody in the government in 1991 was advocating attacking all the way to Baghdad....
Cause dickbreath, I can give you many that say they did not want to go there son.
Cause dickbreath, I can give you many that say they did not want to go there son.
See son here is Dick Cheney's quote son...
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.
And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.
And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."
So President Bush 41 decided NOT to go to Baghdad son.
Dick Cheney agreed with him then. so did Gen Colin Powell, so son YOUR facts are wrong, give it up son...
Nobody wanted to GO TO BAGHDAD
Dick Cheney agreed with him then. so did Gen Colin Powell, so son YOUR facts are wrong, give it up son...
Nobody wanted to GO TO BAGHDAD
Son "we" have won NOTHING asshole,
1 Powell never wanted to go to baghdad in 1991, I know what he sent down the chain of command and where we were directed to go..
Gen. Schwartzkopf did NOT have it in his battle plans son, not the initial one or the "hail mary" revision we actually used.
Powell never pushed for it either son,
Your wrong as usual so think destroying a country murdering 650,000 people is winning when we are going to have to leave some tine soon with NO real gain but over 3000 American soldiers deaths, 21,000 wounded, go celebrate that asshole but I am going to ask Kay to just to delete your sorry ass from NOW on son, your stupid and boring, have NO debating skills are wrong on the facts military strategy and the ideas you push are more fitting 1944 Dachau than 2006 America son.
America has WON nothing but thousands of Americans families have lost far too much.
And Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have also.
1 Powell never wanted to go to baghdad in 1991, I know what he sent down the chain of command and where we were directed to go..
Gen. Schwartzkopf did NOT have it in his battle plans son, not the initial one or the "hail mary" revision we actually used.
Powell never pushed for it either son,
Your wrong as usual so think destroying a country murdering 650,000 people is winning when we are going to have to leave some tine soon with NO real gain but over 3000 American soldiers deaths, 21,000 wounded, go celebrate that asshole but I am going to ask Kay to just to delete your sorry ass from NOW on son, your stupid and boring, have NO debating skills are wrong on the facts military strategy and the ideas you push are more fitting 1944 Dachau than 2006 America son.
America has WON nothing but thousands of Americans families have lost far too much.
And Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have also.
Pussy Boy Schwartzkopf DID NOT want to go to Baghdad asshole, go back to fucking goats son.
Nobody planned it son, I remember both war plans son, neither had any ground forces going anywheres near either Baghdad or Basra even son.
Where do you get your facts son YOUR ASS?
Nobody planned it son, I remember both war plans son, neither had any ground forces going anywheres near either Baghdad or Basra even son.
Where do you get your facts son YOUR ASS?
We did have SF teams inside the capital for BDA and intell, and if they could have gotten a clean shot, Saddam would have been toast son, but NO ground units were ever envisioned attacking any Iraqi cities just for the reasons we are bogged down today.
Not the mission based on either the UN mandate or Congressional Authorization......
Some fooles are just stupid, and your a stupid foole son.
Not the mission based on either the UN mandate or Congressional Authorization......
Some fooles are just stupid, and your a stupid foole son.
Fuck off BOY I do not have to read a book son,
I was there at the time..and NO plans for an assault on Baghdad were ever drawn up, and we were even kept clear of Basra.....read all you want numnuts but it does NOT change history one bit son.
Only some gutless asshole would think the words of a book trump the actual history those who were there at the time lived.
I was there at the time..and NO plans for an assault on Baghdad were ever drawn up, and we were even kept clear of Basra.....read all you want numnuts but it does NOT change history one bit son.
Only some gutless asshole would think the words of a book trump the actual history those who were there at the time lived.
The disagreement between Powell and Schwartzkopf had to do with the destruction of the republican guards son, Schwartzkopf wanted one or two more days to completely destroy them, but Bush had decided with the Iraqis out of Kuwait the mission was accomplished and there was no need for more fighting which could mean more US deaths son, nothing about Baghdad asshole, your so misinformed your almost funny boy.
Like I said son;
Some fooles are stupid, and your a stupid foole boy.
Like I said son;
Some fooles are stupid, and your a stupid foole boy.
No asshole I was privy to both battle plans son, and NEITHER ever had any charge or attack on Baghdad son, so go fuck yourself or another goat, cause your wrong as usual son.
You must BE desperate for attention If your arguing with somebody who was there at the time son, and keep getting the facts wrong, get shown your wrong and refuse to pull your head out of your ass .... must be a repug thing.
Keeps it warm and keeps all the bad out, but your so wrong so much of the time you'd think you'd learn son, but i guess you like the smell and taste there up you as.
Keeps it warm and keeps all the bad out, but your so wrong so much of the time you'd think you'd learn son, but i guess you like the smell and taste there up you as.
Son who know NOTHING about who I am and where I served there, and YOU a gutless repug asshole questions ME, go fuck yourself son, your wrong and can NOT admit it anymore than the asshole in the white house can.
Must be a repug thing, BTW when YOU gonna pull a haggard son, Georgie Boy was lips to his frat boy friends son.
Must be a repug thing, BTW when YOU gonna pull a haggard son, Georgie Boy was lips to his frat boy friends son.
Sorry BOY but your irrelevant now.,
GO back and check you have started to disappear son...like you NEVER existed son, like your NOTHING boy.......
so son GFY
GO back and check you have started to disappear son...like you NEVER existed son, like your NOTHING boy.......
so son GFY
and Pussboy YOUR no patriot, because NO patriot would stand for what the idiot in DC has done to the constitution or the American people both here and in Iraq.
Your a gutless punk who pimps for a war that if started by any other country would have been declared illegal by the UN.
And Bush would be in the same league as Saddam for illegally invading a country with NO justification son.
Bush did to Iraq what Saddam did to both Iran (with Reagan's approval) and Kuwait.
Your a gutless punk who pimps for a war that if started by any other country would have been declared illegal by the UN.
And Bush would be in the same league as Saddam for illegally invading a country with NO justification son.
Bush did to Iraq what Saddam did to both Iran (with Reagan's approval) and Kuwait.
Sorry Bushboy but I'm not falling for your, "I'm a patriot and big bad Kay is so mean to me because she deletes my posts. I am so military all the time and you liberals don't appreciate that!".
You are such a liar. If you were a REAL soldier or were surrounded by REAL soldiers than you would have respected Clif right off the bat. Soldiers love talking with other soldiers. You're a stinking deceiver.
I don't like deleting comments but after last night YOU LOST YOUR RIGHT TO POST HERE. It's your actions that brought it about...not ours.
Bye!!!!!! You're so vain that you probably think I'm going to miss you too! Wrong!!!!!!!! I'm happy!
Post a Comment
You are such a liar. If you were a REAL soldier or were surrounded by REAL soldiers than you would have respected Clif right off the bat. Soldiers love talking with other soldiers. You're a stinking deceiver.
I don't like deleting comments but after last night YOU LOST YOUR RIGHT TO POST HERE. It's your actions that brought it about...not ours.
Bye!!!!!! You're so vain that you probably think I'm going to miss you too! Wrong!!!!!!!! I'm happy!
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]