BS: I still doubt they've learned

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Dec 06 - 12:10 PM

You need to learn more dianavan it is you that babbles

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: kendall
Date: 23 Dec 06 - 09:06 AM

Doug, if we pull out what will happen to Iraq? Remember Viet Nam? are they better off today than when we were over there slaughtering women and children, trying to impose our idea of government on people who did not want it? They now have their country back and we are trading with them.

I'd love it if we could win in Iraq. But, I see no hope of that. I'm convinced that the majority of Iraquis don't want us there, and the puppet government we set up can not control the majority. Seems to me that the "insurgents" are the majority, and it is obvious that the Iraqi police are in cahoots with the majority.

Some are saying we must stay there until the country is stable. Ok, we have been there for three years and our national debt is 8 trillion dollars. I believe we will go bankrupt long before Iraq is stable. It's madness.
Tell me where I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Dec 06 - 03:23 AM

GUEST - When you say, "These failures have been the main cause of the unrest in the Arab world, and the growth of radical groups like al Qaeda," you are reducing a very complex situation to babble.

...the growth of radical groups like al Qaeda are a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The failures are a result of U.S. foreign and economic policy.

Blaming the people of the Middle East is truly blaming the victims.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: DougR
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 05:23 PM

I'm here, Kendall. No point in debating stuff like tis. As someone already said, minds are difficult to change (or words to that effect). My mind had not been changed. I still think we have to stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government is fully established and the Iraq security forces can protect the people. I don't know how long that will take.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 11:14 AM

Go back to bed Trevor it's too complicated for your mind to follow

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Trevor
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 09:01 AM

Ah, so that's why Dr Rice thinks that the 'investment' of lives there is worthwhile - because it will provide the foundation for cultural change, and the Arab world can catch up and be as civilised as the rest of us. OK, bereaved families, its all worthwhile.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 08:36 AM

In the last half century, despite enormous oil wealth, the Arab countries have fallen behind the rest of the world in most categories that matter (economic, education, scientific, political.) These failures have been the main cause of the unrest in the Arab world, and the growth of radical groups like al Qaeda. It's been popular, for the last half century, for Arabs to blame everyone but themselves for these problems. But even Arabs are now having second thoughts about these popular excuses for Arab failure. There are problems within Arab culture, and only now are they being openly talked about by Arabs. But solutions will be difficult, and won't attract much media attention. It's dull stuff, cultural failure, but it's where the key to the future of peace in the Middle East will be found.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: kendall
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 07:43 AM

"Brevity is the soul of wit"

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 07:30 AM

282RA, there is soemthing to be said about brevity.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: eddie1
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 03:53 AM

Yesterday, for the third week in succession on my radio programme, I played John McCutcheon singing "Christmas in The Trenches" with no apologies.
The line in the final verse, "The ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and maimed" gets to me every time.
I read somewhere that McCutcheon had received an award for one of his books and the deal included dinner at the White House. He was going to present Bush with a copy of "Christmas in The Trenches"!
I wonder if it happened.

Eddie

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: autolycus
Date: 22 Dec 06 - 02:57 AM

Just how many of us 'catters, having made a big decision
like Bush/Blair have, have said within a few years,"I've got
this big choice completely wrong".

   And how many of us say,"IIIIIIIIII haven't made a mistake.
I am right/Things are going wrong because of (naming others)/
It'll be alright in the end/in time/Everything's going O.K.(or
will turn out for the best/It's what the Creator told me to do
so I must be right"?


Hm?





       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 12:34 PM

Eric the Red musn`t have seen Teribus postings, and he is Bush`s biggest fan, 282ra is brief in comparison, and 282ra hits the nail on the head, what he writes here is the plain truth.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Trevor
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 11:25 AM

I quite like the idea of being a shill. I've got a moustache and everything. And I'm stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: kendall
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:57 AM

If I remember right, President Johnson kept seeing this light at the end of the tunnel which turned out to be a train! He kept sending more and more troops like pouring sand down a rat hole because he didn't know what else to do.
Our military is not the only thing that is being stretched to the limit; there's the matter of that pesky 8 TRILLION dollar debt that we owe, mostly to China! Does that scare anyone besides me?

Where are Old Guy, Doug R. and the other Bush supporters on this forum?

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Wolfgang
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 09:43 AM

Has it dawned on you shills that Bush has lied to you?

Thanks to Giok's link I know now what a shill is but I don't understand the sentence. There is no need to lie to a shill, just to pay him for playing a role.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 07:29 AM

Hasn't it dawned on that gimboid 282RA that no-one reads posts longer than a screen length.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:47 AM

Shill.
G.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Trevor
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 04:40 AM

What's a shill?

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: Slag
Date: 21 Dec 06 - 03:41 AM

Yawn.

Subject: RE: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 11:54 PM

Nothing will ever change a true believer's mind.

Subject: BS: I still doubt they've learned
From: 282RA
Date: 20 Dec 06 - 09:41 PM

For some time now, the majority of catters have been warning about the bust that is our military involvement in the Middle East. These catters have been warning a few others here who steadfastly refused to believe what was in front of their faces every night on the news and chose to believe the lies and distortions of the man who started the mess. They even repeated him parrot-like insisting we were winning and no extra troops would be needed, their lord and master in the White House said so.

My question to them is: "So how do you like him now?" Of course, I'm sure some of them are insisting nothing has changed but, of course, everything has changed. George W. Bush finally admitted that our disgusting, unlawful and unethical occupation of Iraq--er, I mean, our gallant war on terrorism--isn't going very well. I believe he put it, "We're not winning, we're not losing." And, naturally, his shills and parrots will shout this to the moon and back until 2008 rolls around and we're getting ready to flee.

For the record, there's no such thing for us as "not winning but not losing." We've invested 3000+ lives and climbing and some $350 billion and have nothing whatsoever to show for it. I would call that losing. What Bush means is, we can stonewall the inevitable as long as we maintain a presence there. But surely even he knows that we can't stay there much longer. He also knows there can be no drawdown of troops because if levels fall too low, it will be no different than cutting and running and the inevitable takeover of Iraq by those we never ever wanted to see come to power under any circumstances, the very terrorists this war was supposed to destroy.

These shills and parrots echoed their master's insistence that more troops were not needed, that they would only complicate the situation. But today, Bush admitted to just that--we need more troops over there or forget it. Now, even the military people who stood so stalwartly behind him are FINALLY realizing they are fighting for their survival BECAUSE of Bush rather than in spite of him. These shills will continue to talk about how Clinton "pussified" our military and it's about time they had a real war to whip us into shape but the sad truth is, our military was much, much stronger under Clinton than Bush.

And I have to wonder if these shills will talk about a "temporary" increase of 20,000 to 30,000 troops to quell the violence (this will be--what?--the THIRD time we've tried this?) while ignoring the ugly, shocking truth the Pentagon itself has already admitted:

We don't have another 20,000 to 30,000 troops to spare. Another 15,000 or so will drain our pool of combat-ready troops. So now, they're talking about expanding the military before, as Colin Powell has pointed out, it gets "broken" by Bush's abuse. So rather than admit that the draft is inevitable, they talk this disarming garbage about bringing in more reserves. Folks, they're called reserves for a reason. Picture our military as a closed system like a car's engine and fuel system. What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics teach us about closed systems? If you don't pump in outside energy (or free energy), the energy in the closed system goes from order to disorder, i.e. it runs down if you don't keep putting gas in the tank. Even if you install a reserve tank for just such an emergency, you must still find a source of free energy or the system will eventually run down. That's what Bush is doing now--he's going to tap into that reserve tank and he will empty it in no time and then what?

Another option is gunboat diplomacy. Send the Navy with its fearsome warships to the Persian Gulf to reinforce our position. The trouble is, this is just retread of shock & awe which was such a failure that were the results not so tragic would be hilarious. Gunboats amount to lean stripped-down heavily armed fighting units which was the Rumsfeld-Franks-Bush (the triumvirate of sheer incompetance) new model army and it was the emperor's new clothes all over again. Failed to impress anyone but conservative ninnies, shills, and administration sycophants (who unfortunately appeared to be mainly composed of Pentagon brass). Everyone else stood there saying, "I don't see it." Now Bush is admitting in his coy way that there was really nothing there to see in the first place. It was telling you something was there and if you disagreed you were a terrorist sympathizer. Too many idiots interpreted this as patriotism instead of the obvious demogoguery that it is. And we're paying for our idiocy.

Well, so far they are proposing $170 billion for the war next year ($100 billion of it for Afghanistan which looks worse than Iraq and that pricetag proves it) which would bring our total to $520 billion--already exceeding the total cost of Vietnam and having far less to show for it.

Now not even Bush's military ass-kissers side with him anymore. He wants to send more troops and they say no--it won't do any good since we've already done this several times now and it has never worked. It's like that saying of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is lunacy. Welcome to Bush's lunacy. One of Bush's biggest supporters who has defected on him is Gen. John Abizaid who opposes sending more troops. Not surprisingly, he just announced his retirement to take effect early next year.

Has it dawned on you shills that Bush has lied to you? Do you see that now? He fed you bullshit and you willingly swallowed it and begged for more. But now what do you get for singing his song? Nothing. He's now dropped that song and is singing the one you attacked "liberals" for holding--that we're not winning and we need more troops if we're going to have a chance to win. Do you really think that he only just now realized Iraq is a wash since November 7th or do you think he probably knew it a lot earlier? That makes you see how insane he is. He was going to continue with this failed policy for as long as the people would let him get away with it. He knew it wasn't working and he refused to do anything about it. If that's lunacy, it is criminal lunacy.