BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 11:03 PM

That does not obviate the fact that Hussein was known to be a mass murderer. Whether or not it was America's right to 'dethrone' him is another issue, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 08:08 PM

The mere existence of deadly weapons of any sort in another country is in my opinion no sane (or legal) excuse for attacking that country if it has NOT already attacked you first. No one has the right to attack anyone else FIRST. Therefore that excuse, even if it had been true, lent no credibility whatsoever to an American attack on Iraq in 2003.

That's the part that drives me crazy.

The USA obviously thinks it's perfectly okay for them to do to others exactly what others can NEVER be allowed to do to them. This has been the blind spot in the thinking of all self-serving conquering empires...or at least the blind spot in the thinking of their own common people who are dumb enough to fall for it (their leaders know better). It's willful, blind ignorance for people to support a government that attacks others first. Just like the Japanese people in 1941...never question "Daddy", because "Daddy" always knows best.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:38 PM

Thanks, Bruce, forgot that one... Duhhhh???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 07:03 PM

1. too partisan to question or
2. too stupid to know what to ask or
3. too busy to to know what the Hell to think 'or
4. too out-of-the-loop to know anything at all....

or of the opinion that there WERE WMDs there and that Hussein was crazy enough to use them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Well, given what we know now, which many of us knew before, about the phony reasons being given for fighting in Iraq, I really don't think that "we" decided to fight this war...

Given former Secretary of the Treasury O'Niel's observations that Bush was intent on invading Iraq from Day One there is little evidence that "we" had anything to do with the decision...

This was a trumped up war and sold to those who were either:

1. too partisan to question or
2. too stupid to know what to ask or
3. too busy to to know what the Hell to think 'or
4. too out-of-the-loop to know anything at all....

Pick one...

So when I read that folks think that the American people, ebing fully informed, decided to invade Iraq is, ahhhh, purdy rediculuos...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 06:17 PM

BB-
We did win in Iraq. It's what's been happening since that's the problem. Or did you mean something else when you said "win"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 05:37 PM

And we should only fight a war against a recognizable and definable enemy.

Who will surrender to mark the end of "The War on Terror"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

A soldier, of course, always fights to win. That's his job.

When should he look beyond his job at the larger implications of the war he's fighting in? That is a difficult question.

Soldiers who do look beyond their job and decide that they are serving a wrongful cause are usually called deserters and traitors if they press their point. Sometimes they are shot for it.

We applaud their actions when they're on "the other side" and make them into heroes. We execute them for those actions when they're on "our side" and make them into traitors.

How many humans actually think outside their tribal/cultural box and how many just react to a predetermined script that someone handed them? Does freedom really mean "freedom for all people" or does it just mean "freedom to do things OUR way"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:52 PM

Amos,

The decision to fight a war is a political decision.

The action of fighting a war is a military one.



In hindsight, most wars are not actually "in last resort". although the people making the decisions may have honestly thought that they were.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:37 PM

I would add that human decency requires that such a decision be made only in the clear and indisputable condition that it is a last resort, in a situation in which human discourse has honestly and intelligently been attempted and failed.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 12:30 PM

"Nevertheless, the Indochina politics of the USA was a disaster. "


Agreed.

If we decide to fight a war,

1. We should fight to win.
2. We should give the military the goals, and let the knowledgable stratagists decide stratagy.


And yes, the interference of politicians in this and other conflicts is an ongoing problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 10:52 AM

Does anyone remember the domino theory? (Ebbie)
Does anyone remember 2 million dead Cambodians? (BeardedBruce)

BB just reminds us that the domino theory might have been right after all. Both Laos and Cambodia turned communist after the American defeat in South Vietnam.

So it was actually correct, in a superficial way.

Nevertheless, the Indochina politics of the USA was a disaster. It did not prevent what it tried to prevent and it can be argued that it even has increased the probability of happening what the USA tried to avoid at high costs (more countries turning to communist ideas). So, the politics of the USA may even have initiated the small domino-effect the defeat had. They made communism in that region of the world more popular than it deserved to be.

Look at Vietnam now. Despite paying lip service to the communist past the economy is now very close to a market economy and the threat to the West consists of lower prices for some goods. Sometimes I say cynically that the Vietnam war has only served to postpone the defeat of communist ideas in Vietnam.

I'd somehow forgotten that Ho Chi Mihn ordered the Vietnamese Army to invade Cambodia (Bobert)

So you mean he didn't know about the path named after him? (deliberately misunderstanding what I know you mean)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 07 - 09:45 AM

The Khymer Rouge were backed primarily by Maoist China as far as I know, and they were probably the most insane outfit that has ever taken over a country. The subsequent conflict between the Khymer Rouge and the Communist administration in Vietnam was inevitable, as was further conflict between Vietnam and China (when the Chinese invaded northern Vietnam and fought a border war there to "punish" Vietname for having knocked off the Khymer Rouge).

The whole affair suggests a number of things, such as...

1. Communism is not one single monolithic world movement (as it was falsely depicted by Cold Warriors), but exists in a number of different forms just as non-Communist systems exist in a number of different forms. Some forms of Communism are far more sensible and useful than others. The Khymer Rouge were the worst.

2. The colonial aspirations of France and tbe USA succeeded in destabilizing and ruining the lives of a vast number of Southeast Asians between 1945 and the present, and the region is still suffering from the aftereffects. Neither France nor the USA ever had any business screwing around in Southeast Asia and neither did the British. To hell with them and to hell with their excuses and justifications for their colonialist agendas.

3. The Vietnamese, imperfect though they may be, did the whole world a favor when they invaded Cambodia and brought down that insane Khymer Rouge regime. They did their own country a favor by finally getting the French and Americans the hell out of it. I fully support their wars against the French, the Americans, the Chinese, and the Khymer Rouge. In every case, their cause was essentially a just one.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

She cannot force Bush's hand but she & other can break his grip!

As to what happens afterwards, why didn't they consider that before hand? Idiots!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:31 PM

Are you saying, bb, that the reason the Kmer Rouge came into power was because the US 'lost' the Vietnam war?

"The Khmer Rouge turned Cambodia to year zero. They banned all institutions, including stores, banks, hospitals, schools, religion, and the family. Everyone was forced to work 12 - 14 hours a day, every day. Children were separated from their parents to work in mobile groups or as soldiers. People were fed one watery bowl of soup with a few grains of rice thrown in. Babies, children, adults and the elderly were killed everywhere. The Khmer Rouge killed people if they didn't like them, if didn't work hard enough, if they were educated, if they came from different ethnic groups, or if they showed sympathy when their family members were taken away to be killed. All were killed without reason. Everyone had to pledge total allegiance to Angka, the Khmer Rouge government. It was a campaign based on instilling constant fear and keeping their victims off balance.

"After the Vietnamese {Not the US. hmmmm Eb) invaded and liberated the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge, 600,000 Cambodians fled to Thai border camps. Ten million landmines were left in the ground, one for every person in Cambodia. The United Nations installed the largest peacekeeping mission in the world in Cambodia in 1991 to ensure free and fair elections after the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops. Cambodia was turned upside down during the Khmer Rouge years and the country has the daunting task of healing physically, mentally and economically."

This was well after the US secretly invaded Cambodia

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:22 PM

Why should a competent politician take up a battle she cannot win?

Seeking the same effect by alternate means may be evasive management or underhanded management, but it is not micromanagement.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 03:19 PM

Hmmmm, I'd somehow forgotten that Ho Chi Mihn ordered the Vietnamese Army to invade Cambodia???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:31 PM

Does anyone remember 2 million dead Cambodians?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

Does anyone remember the domino theory? Everybody important knew that if the US left Vietnam, all the surrounding countries in the area would fall to the Communists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:50 AM

Amos,

"Calling for withdrawal is not a micromanagement, but a strategic assertion"

Then let Pelosi CALL FOR WITHDRAWAL, instead of trying to force it without ever voting on it.

HR Resolution: Bring the US troops home.

And see if she can get THAT to pass Congress.

You are the one who does not understand. Pelosi IS micromanaging, to avoid a straight vote that she knows she would not win.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

Bruce:

Calling for withdrawal is not a micromanagement, but a strategic assertion.

Splitting hairs advances no cause.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:22 AM

I know some here have reading comprehension problems...

"In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone."

Micromanagement by Bush- No support regardless of the complaints earlier about how the war was run. Full blame for the human cost to Iraqis.

"From all the early indications, Chickenhawk in Chief, has decided that the career military folks don't know jack about winning a war and so, after firing Don Rumsfeld for screwin' up the micromanging of the Iraq War, Bush is now ready to give it a try himself...

"Little Hawk - PM
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:48 PM

Bush is going to micromanage the war? Good! That's what Hitler did too. Like Hitler, Bush will lose this unjustified war a good deal sooner by applying his unique powers of command to the problem. "


Mocromanagement by Pelosi- full support regardless of the human cost to Iraqis.




I just wish you folks would make up your minds.

Oh, yeah. Democratic micromanagement- GOOD
          Republican micromanagement- BAD


I need to remember how you "think"...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:07 AM

Well, BB-
How long should the US be prepared to support a puppet government? The anti-war faction doesn't have to garner votes--tthe votrs were counted last November. Or do you feel that the electorate's desires should have no effect upon the actions of elected officials?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 11:07 AM

At least the article admits that one reason for this war is that Iraq, "...holds the world's second-largest oil reserves..."

It fails, however, to explain that until the U.S. invasion, there was not, "...a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants."

So much for the rationale and micromanagement of the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq
It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; Page A16


THE RESTRICTIONS on Iraq war funding drawn up by the House Democratic leadership are exquisitely tailored to bring together the party's leftist and centrist wings. For the Out of Iraq Caucus, which demands that Congress force a withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of this year, there is language that appears to deliver that mandate, albeit indirectly. For those who prefer a more moderate course, there is another withdrawal deadline, in August 2008. Either way, almost all American troops would be out of Iraq by the time the next election campaign begins in earnest. And there are plenty of enticements on the side: more money for wounded veterans, for children's health, for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.
In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031201198.html

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

the agreed set of talking points is now utterly ridiculous..
(how many people still buy this crap?)
step up instead of stand up..
Failure is not an option- there is no plan B.
There is just the Plan. (Plan A sounds too pessimistic)

Donuel, you also forgot to mention the new retort echoes all the way down from Cheney to Tony Snow and all the Fox news hacks.

..if anyone is critical or doesnt like the presidents new plan, it is up to them to come up with a better one..

(well actually there are quite a few recommendations in the Iraq study group. Remember the one that took quite a few informed people to formulate and put together and when they presented it to Bush he didnt have one question (think about that for a second).

The Neocon group is trying to make it look like the only other option is immediate withdrawal - and thats certainly not the case)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:39 AM

Rice;We won'ttalk with terrorist orgs. Like Hammas

For those like Bush, Rice & other that say we cannot talk to terrorist states or groups like Hammas, why are we (Rice) now about to consult & attempt to work with Fathar, Hammas rival sister?

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:19 AM

Doug R. says, "they would come home when the Iraqi military and police were trained enough so that they could provide stability and safety for the Iraqi people."

Do you honestly believe that the U.S. military is providing stability and safety for the Iraqi people?


Sorry, Doug, the number of dead and wounded (not to mention the displaced) do not support your belief that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has solved anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:01 AM

Stigweard--

Got it in one. Teribus (UK), Doug R, , Bush, and the others of his ilk treat every problem as a nail--since they only have a hammer----use of force.

As you note, they used to have another tool--democracy--but after the way it's worked out in Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Venezuela, Ecuador, etc. it seems they're having severe second thoughts on the second tool.

So it's back to the old tried-and-true-----use of force.

After all, it eliminates the need to think--always a serious burden for Bush supporters.


One correction for you, though:   Doug R's view is not the "American way of looking at the world".   Probably over half the US population disagrees strongly with his view---in fact, finds it anathema.

Actually, you may note, some of us have told him so--rather directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

And change "invasion and pillage" to "democratization".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 09:08 PM

sorry, please change the term "Iraq civil war" to insurgent instability and change surge to augmentation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM

In all fairness to the neo con stategery of the Bush Iraq invasion, the NEW way forward is * much different * from all other strategeries thus far. After the Baker study group suggestions and a whirl wind listening tour by the President I believe he has hit the nail on the head... ignore everyone who is not a decider and surge forward with plan A in which failure is not an option...
this time.
Last time failure was an option but Bush has cleaverly called for a do over, a mulligan so to speak as if the first 3,000 dead troops don't count. Remember the old way forward was that we were going to stand down when the Iraqis stand up.

So here it is ...ta ta ta da da daaaa The NEw sTrategery is

NOW we are going to "step" down when Iraq steps up. This new talking point was parroted not only by Cheney on Meet the Press this week but also every other major Republican sack of pundit liar for hire. Hmm Liar for Hire has a nice ring to it. But a sack of pundit stinks. But to get back to the point...

The other new way forward is to stay longer in rough neighborhoods in Bagdad so the bad guys (insurgents, goons, thugs and evil doers) can't creep back in. Pure genius, besides if the Democrats had a better idea they should tell us. They haven't so they don't. If liberals had a better idea we surely would be hearing about it non stop on the FOX networks.

Baghdad had 7 million people in it but is now down to over 5 million. An extra 21,000 troops should nicely outnumber the bad guys.
At this rate we should win the Iraq civil war even if by attrition in less than 20 years, less if we go go nukuler*.


* depending on when an invasion of Iran becomes unavoidable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM

Anyway, if anyone is going to micromanage the Iraq War, it shouldn't be Bush, it should be Teribus. I have never witnessed a stronger inclination toward micromanagement than he displays, at least in his postings on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:35 PM

Everyone loves freedom! It's other people feeling free to restrict their freedom that they cannot stand.

Every country the USA has ever invaded and taken over would passionately like to be free of American intervention, for example. The desire for the freedom to be who and what you wish to be is universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 08:23 PM

Why do the "terrorists" hate us? Not because they "hate freedom" as our fearless leader says. No, they don't hate freedom at all. In fact, they would like some of their very own.

If you want to know the main reason they hate the us, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. In fact, there are several countries out there who hate us for this same reason. And the United States is not the only country that interferes in the internal affairs of other countries in this way.

Of course, no "Patriotic American" wants to hear this sort of thing.

Negotiate? Yes, that would help a great deal. Would probably solve the whole problem. But we couldn't just make demands, we'd have to listen to and heed some of theirs.

But again, no "Patriotic American". . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:45 PM

Shoot, Brucie, Dougie is older than dirt so I wouldn't exactly give in so quickly wid the boy... I think he was bluffin' though I can't remember if he made anu predictions but knowin' him the way I do, I doubt he did... But, lets get real here... The Bushite's didn't want a quick war 'cause they needed to hold power in '04 so that they could continue to fleece the treasry and give it to their buddies so they weren't in any hurry... Still aren't with the latest decision to stay the course... Ahhhhh, where is the new strategy here???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 07:34 PM

"My recollection is that I made no prediction as to when our troops would come home."

Thanks, Doug. I withdraw that comment (With apologies) because I trust your memory more than my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:37 PM

In their childhood and their youth, Doug, in the formative years, people develop instinctive loyalties and prejudices...and the fact is that they almost always remain deeply attached to those instinctive loyalties and prejudices until the day they die.

This is probably equally true of you, me, and all the people you disagree with on this forum when it comes to politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 06:02 PM

"do you SERIOUSLY believe that talking to the leaders of the many terrorist groups in the middle-east would remove the terrorist threat to the world?"

I certainly do - and it works. As I said, it is working in NI and it would work in many (but not all, I concede) of the many groups your chaps want to kill (remember - Hammas politicians have been elected in free and democratic elections). Problem is, you won't win just by using force - a lesson from history America seems reluctant to take on board.

"You idealists have (IMO) a very strange attitude toward resolving conflicts."

A compliment indeed! it's nice to know you count me amongst those who think there is a better way of resolving our differences other than violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:27 PM

Stigweard: do you SERIOUSLY believe that talking to the leaders of the many terrorist groups in the middle-east would remove the terrorist threat to the world? And it IS a world-wide threat, not just one facing the USofA. You idealists have (IMO) a very strange attitude toward resolving conflicts. I don't believe I have ever read on the Mudcat a serious criticism of Al Quieda, Hammas, or any other terrorist group posted by anyone other than the conservative members of the Mudcat. To most of you they are never wrong, only the U. S. (particularly the U. S. leaders)and it's allies are wrong. It's all our fault. HORSEPUCKY I say!

And Peace, I don't recall making such a prediction. My recollection is that I made no prediction as to when our troops would come home. Only that they would come home when the Iraqi military and police were trained enough so that they could provide stability and safety for the Iraqi people.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Stu
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:54 PM

"Our great grandchildren will likely be fighting terrorism and perhaps even then future generations will have to continue the fight"

One line that sums up all that is wrong with the American way of looking at the world. I'd be quite interested in your definition of terrorism in this context.

As long as violence is all you consider as a solution to the problem, then you will condem your children to repeat your own mistakes, and that means innocent people dying.

Despite the suggestion that talking to some of the other parties involved, mainly Iran and Syria, Monkey-Boy continues to disregard the mistakes of the past and send more servicemen into the bloodbath he helped create.

You will eventually have to talk to these people - you might even find you have some common ground. It is working slowly (and not without problems) in NI, but luckily the main progagonists there have a little more gumption and respect for their countrymen and have decided to put down the guns.

Your government (and ours too) will have to talk - best be grown-up about it and start sooner rather than later.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:54 PM

What you have not addressed, Doug, is the fact that America invading Iraq is based on LIES. However, I agree that any withdrawal will take time. The operative word being withdrawal, NOT occupation. Three years ago the 'hawks' on this forum, and I think that included you, were telling us--the 'liberal bleeding hearts'--that your troops would be out of Iraq over one and a half years ago. Your President is the world's laughing stock. He is a dimwit sorrounded by bastards for advisors. Your continued support of a corrupt regime does not look good on you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: DougR
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:20 PM

Seasons change but the Mudcat never does. Bobert kicks off a thread designed to raise the troops in opposition to George W. Bush, who was elected president of the U.S. fair and square, both electoral college and popular vote. And he succeeds.

Yes, GWB is managing the war in Iraq. He doesn't micro-manage, he manages. Why? That's what a president is supposed to do. The micro-managers are those who disagree with the president's decisions, and so far the only solution that I have heard or read from those folks is to withdraw our troops. Teribus is right. If we withdraw our troops now, and leave the Iraqi people to Bin Laden's followeers, or Iran and/or Syria, the first round in the war against the Islamic fanatics will have been lost. Terrorism is not going away. Our great grandchildren will likely be fighting terrorism and perhaps even then future generations will have to continue the fight.

Bobert makes much of some General officers not supporting Bush. It is unrealistic to assume that all Generals or Admirals think alike. There are Generals (those who are advising Bush) who believe that the plan to increase troop levels in Iraq and change the rules of engagement are the best courses of action to take to try to stabilize Iraq. There are Generals who vehemently disagree (even some that do not plan to run for president in 2008)with those Generals who are advising the president.

Time will tell who is right.

However, any president who relies on "popular" opinion to do his/her job is a lunatic (IMO).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:31 PM

The question of Bush micromanaging the war contains the assumption that he's not a puppet figure, and that his decisions aren't just scripted for him by the government installed by the bloodless coup which installed him as "President".

Take a better look and ask another question...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:41 PM

No, TIA...

As per usaul, the T-zer won't do tyhe heavy lifting and he won't answer questions that lead directly to the finding that the most screwed up foriegn policy decision since, and perhaps before, Vietnam was George Bush's decision to attack Iraq...

Oh, yeah, he revels in reems and reems os Resolution this an' Resolution that's because it is all that he has... He will not, I repeat, ****not**** answer any questions which paint his hero, George W. Bush, as a the bumblin' fool that Bush is...

This has been T-Bird's MO since as long as I can remember... It was his MO in the ***mad-dash-to-Iraq*** and like it is said, "People don't change, they just get more so" which explain perfectly well why the T continues to try to bog his opponents down in academic squabbling when their are much larger and more important questions left conviently on the table...

But, hey, after 4 or so years of this it shouldn't come as anything new... True believers and brownshirts are just that... They avid the tough questions for which they have no answers and try to beat you down with details that are barely relevant to the discussion...

So, bottom, line, don't hold yer breath expectin' anything different from the guy... He is what he is and that's all... Okay, the one that came back after he was proven wrong about his rosey scenerio for Iraq prior to the invasion, is a tad on the nastier side... Seems that being ***that worng*** has had some impact on his level of patience and also wiped out what little bit, which wasn't much to begin with, of a sense of humor...

So, TIA, Okay to say "bye" but not to even jokingly do it in "defeat"... No, you won because T is on the wrong side of history here, so if you don't mind I'll just retract the "You win" part of yer last post for ya and leave the "Buh bye" intact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:07 PM

Not going to do your lifting for you. It's not even heavy lifting. simple reading should have been easy enough for the Emperor/
Empress of Oil & Gas.

Now go to the Maliki thread and answer the questions you have been ducking for days.

On second thought....
Nevermind. You are correct in all you say. You win. I lose. Buh bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM

Guest petr,

1) Why would Wolfowitz say the war would pay for itself thanks to Iraqi oil revenues.

At the time it seemed a reasonable assumption I suppose, best ask the man yourself. But the following was the case immediately after the war - CPA in charge, NOT an Iraqi Government - Iraqi Government elected in December 2005 and formed in 2006. That Government now decides and directs what happens to Iraqi Oil & Gas - The USA has got nothing whatsoever to do with that process - If any of the people who up to now have sworn blind that they have, then please explain how. Please note hastily cobbled together US think-tanks with absolutely no authority do not count. I want to know how the US is stealing Iraqi Oil, when they do not operate or control a single field or pipeline in Iraq. OK Guest petr, you now have the floor, TIA for all his/her implied oilfield experience has been ducking that particular question now for days.

2) Apologies, your link did not work so I am unable to comment

3) What the CPA did or did not do is irrelevant to the point TIA was making about US control of Iraqi Oil.

4) "As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz somehow managed to ignore the Pentagon's failure to follow competitive bidding requirements for the reconstruction of Iraq -- an omission that made Halliburton the king of American war profiteers."

Unfortunately for Senator Waxman and his buddy, the Pentagon played it completely by the book. Waxman tried like hell to make something out of this about three years ago and failed. Halliburton won a competitively bid five year Frame Agreement Contract in 1998. That covered various types of works and services in support of the US armed forces world-wide. That was the perfectly valid contract called up in 2003 (1998 + 5 = 2003). Matter of record check up on it.

5) "The Pentagon's failure to protect American taxpayers has led to an ongoing epidemic of waste and fraud".

That really made me laugh petr. Go and look at the defence ministries and defence procurement contracts in ANY country in the world and you could say exactly the same. During the "Cold War" the Pentagon's counterparts in the USSR bankrupted the country at least five times, just to try and counter the US Strike Carrier Fleet. An Example in the UK HMS "Ferrous Oxide" the Royal Navy's Diving Vessel, they designed and built a second generation DSV when the offshore industry were already moving on to 4th generation for a cost of around £30 million a piece. The UK Audit Office, PSA and Royal Navy had to be coaxed into admitting that the ship, which was never commissioned by the way, cost £160 million. By the time those agencies stopped counting it had actually cost the UK taxpayer a staggering £345 million - for something that was never used. So I have no doubt in my mind at all that the Pentagon squanders the US taxpayers money, that is not news, that is not confined to this administration, it has been going on for ages.

PS TIA, please indicate where in any of your posts to this thread that you have answered a single question. Now if you actually believe the bullshit you write, that should not be all that difficult - simple cut-n-paste job right?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 04:21 PM

Terry has a letter from matron excusing him from answering questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 03:17 PM

Teribus does not answer questions himself (been to the Maliki thread fella?).

And when he does not like an answer, claims his went unanswered. did you like my specific answers to your question in Maliki? Haven't even looked have you?

Not worth a moments more discussion with such.









BTW, checked under your hood.......










Empty, as expected.









You're welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 02:00 PM

so Teribus answer me why would Wolfowitz say the war would pay for itself thanks to Iraqi oil revenues.

one doesnt have to look far.. in substantiating this

see the part about the CPA siphoning off Oil revenue funds and unaccounted for Billions.

How Wolfowitz can be praised for "fighting corruption" and following the rule of law is difficult to fathom, given his track record. As Deputy Secretary of Defense, Wolfowitz somehow managed to ignore the Pentagon's failure to follow competitive bidding requirements for the reconstruction of Iraq -- an omission that made Halliburton the king of American war profiteers. The Pentagon's failure to protect American taxpayers has led to an ongoing epidemic of waste and fraud, as well as huge abuses of the "Iraqi people's" oil revenues which, Wolfowitz assured the House Budget Committee before the war, would alone pay for the country's reconstruction: "If we liberate Iraq those resources will belong to the Iraqi people." Instead, billions were siphoned off by the occupational authority (CPA) to pay Halliburton and other U.S. contractors, leaving just $2.9 billion of $20.6 billion in oil-related revenues behind, . (This week Newsweek printed a photo of CPA officials ready to hand out stacks of money, with a caption that reads "Free Fraud Zone." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7306162/site/newsweek/)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

what next

Al Quida invades Normady but General Betrayus and General Traytor are afraid to wake the Commander and Chief?

You hear the current talking point that you can't run a war by commitee. What the hell do you think has been going on?
Of course it is run by the PNAC and American think tank commitees along with every damn defense contractor at the disposal of the US.

Even the Billy Graham reigious patriot machine and evangelical base are on the commitee. This war is dependent on media commitees be it Clear Channel or Fox. This war is the biggest damn commitee ever created for the expoits of petroleum and the miltary industrial defense contractors.

George's handlers are carefull to let him believe that he can micro manage the war but the most he can do is stop good ideas in favor of a perpetual war. Even Hitler believed he could micro manage the military when he opened a war on two fronts and went into Russia.


Yep Hitler was a decider all right but George knows better after he got some sense beat into him the night he supposedly choked on a pretzle into unconsciousness. That night the real deciders told him how things were going to go. That night was the night George's meager spark of conscience took its last breath and died.

The man is best influenced by anyone who plays the anti father card.
He will do anything for the delusion that that he rose to the Presidency on his own power and is totally seperate from his dad. This is Jr's demon and will destroy him and his family.

OF course this is merely my opinion. George may in fact be a prophetic genius and the defense industry may be the greatest angels of mercy and morality of all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM

The man couldn't microwave a hamburger fer keerist's sake!
G.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:00 AM

All well and good TIA, but when exactly are you going to provide the answer to a single question I have asked you, by the way could you check under the hood.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: TIA
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 08:56 AM

Well, you know what they say about "assume" Captain O&G.
Getting answers and liking answers aren't the same.
You get 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 06:07 AM

From your last post TIA, I can only assume that you are a pump attendant.

Looking back through all these specific answers that you have provided to my questions I can find none.

Your first post to this thread draws attention to "recommendations" made by the Iraq Study Group, a body with absolutely NO AUTHORITY whatsoever. None of their "recommendations" have been implemented and none are likely to be.

I drew your attention to this, in your second post to this thread maybe you could point out what specific question of mine you were answering in the contents of your post. You were asked to indicate any US oil Company that has any stake in any oilfield within the recognised boundaries of Iraq? You have still to answer that question.

Taking your last post:

"Because I provide very clear and specific answers to your questions, while you characteristically duck, bob, weave and spin when any are posed to you."

Fact is TIA you have not answered a single question, nor have you countered a single point that I have raised, or refuted any of the information that I have provided.



"- A foreign country with no access to the operation can effect what flows through pipelines over which it has no control" (Teribus)

Now remember TIA, that we are talking specifically about the Oil & Gas Industry in Iraq here, we are not talking about the general situation in Iraq.

"So, you are saying that the US has no control over what goes on in Iraq?" (TIA)

No TIA I am saying that the US has no control over what goes on in the Iraqq Oil & Gas Industry - True?

"Sounds then like we can't possibly be winning." (TIA)

Now if YOU are talking about the Iraqi Oil & Gas industry that would not be surprising as you can hardly win anything in a game that you are not involved in. The US gets very little of its daily oil requirements from Iraq.

"Why were the museums and most public institutions looted, but the oil ministry securely gaurded and untouched. Hmmm."(TIA)

Hmmm indeed, totally irrelevant, museums and public institutions, do not create the wealth of a country, while they may be targeted by looters they would hardly be targeted by terrorists hell-bent on ruining the country - That was why the oil installations and Ministry were guarded TIA, because they were a target, the museums and public institutions were not - or is that too logical for you.

"A foreign country whose oil companies are not represented as partners or operators can influence production in oilfields over which they have no control." (Teribus)

Again with the "No control"? If you don't think that big-oil campaign money has any effect on how the US government formulates and implements its foreign affairs, you are hoplessly naive.

WHATEVER US Government is in power, IRRESPECTIVE of how much big-oil campaign money was pumped into the election fund that got them elected, they have NO CONTROL over the internal affairs of an independent sovereign state, as can be seen from the fact that not a single major American Oil Company is involved in the Iraqi Oil & Gas Industry. Not a single pipeline is owned or operated by an American company in Iraq. So TIA tell us exactly how the Government of the United States of America CONTROLS Iraq's oil & gas industry. Just for once do what you have stated that you have already done - answer my questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM

You are Mr. 34 years in the industry. I can't possibly have a resume that competes with yours.

And again I laugh

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Because I provide very clear and specific answers to your questions, while you characteristically duck, bob, weave and spin when any are posed to you. (See the Maliki thread if you can take time away from you important oil industry duties).

So now here goes, I will answer you points. And you will not reciprocate.

"- A foreign country with no access to the operation can effect what flows through pipelines over which it has no control"

So, you are saying that the US has no control over what goes on in Iraq? Sounds then like we can't possibly be winning. Why were the museums and most public institutions looted, but the oil ministry securely gaurded and untouched. Hmmm.

- A foreign country whose oil companies are not represented as partners or operators can influence production in oilfields over which they have no control.

Again with the "No control"? If you don't think that big-oil campaign money has any effect on how the US government formulates and implements its foreign affairs, you are hoplessly naive.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 05:57 AM

Well TIA you work in oil industry - as a pump attendant? But anyone who thinks that Iraq does not own the oil under it's territory is in cloud cuckoo land. Anyone who implies that they have a knowledge of the oil & gas industry yet does not know how exploration and field operations are negotiated and handled, to such a degree that they think that:
- A foreign country with no access to the operation can effect what flows through pipelines over which it has no control.
- A foreign country whose oil companies are not represented as partners or operators can influence production in oilfields over which they have no control.

Laugh all you want TIA, but when you have finished what about addressing some of the points made.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 05:43 PM

"...TIA the guy writing it, like you understands very little about the world's oil & gas industry"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - again!

Teribus lad, what industry does TIA work in? Any idea? OMG. You are certainly willing to spout from ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:13 PM

Fine post Diana but much too ethereal for Teribus, who prefers to dredge the mud for that "killer fact"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:10 PM

Thanks for the link to the LA Times article TIA the guy writing it, like you understands very little about the world's oil & gas industry works, I have worked in it for the past 34 years.

Following realities still stand, irrespective of what the Iran Study Group "Recommends".

The Republic of Iraq is an independent sovereign state.

The Republic of Iraq has an internationally recognised Government elected by the people of Iraq

ALL natural resources existing within Iraq's internationally recognised boundaries are the sole property of the Republic of Iraq

ALL pipelines used to transport oil or gas are owned by Iraq's National Oil Company

The following Iraqi Oilfields are owned by Iraq's National Oil Company and Operated by the following Companies:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkish, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian)
Tawke 1 (DNO AS - Norwegian)

Production levels are currently running at about pre-war levels.

Now once you have stopped laughing, please point out where all the American oil companies are in that list.

The US plays no part in the running of Iraq's oil and gas industry.

The US has no say in anything to do with Iraqi oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:04 PM

It doesn't matter much which one of those damn parties wins an election. The wars go on. Still, you might think that anything was better than Bush/Cheney, mightn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 03:55 PM

re: oil - lets not forget Wolfowitzs prediction that the war will pay for itself - thanks to Iraqi oil reserves.

(of course that prediction to use one of Wolfowitz's own comments regarding Shinsekis estimate that 2-300 thousand troops will be required to secure Iraq - was 'WILDLY OFF THE MARK')

and pretty much everything else that the Bush administration had predicted as well was wrong.

its quite possible Bush realizes the failure and is trying to force the Dems into being antimilitary again - so the Republicans have a chance at the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:47 PM

"when its time has come will the United States of America have a "Commonwealth of Nations" type organisation like Great Britain has?"

Sure, Teribus. Its time already came...beginning with the Spanish-American War and on from there. Now its time is running out. They don't call it a "Commonwealth of Nations". They call it something else instead. They already have such a system in place and have been practicing economic colonialism over the whole western hemisphere for a long, long time. The reason they hate Cuba so much is that Castro opted out of that system. Ditto for Chavez. Such nonconformists can expect little mercy from the great colonial power in El Norte.

My country is one of the most fortunate American colonies. We used to be a colony of Great Britain once. Now we are a colony of the USA, and we have not been attacked by it in modern times. I call that fortunate. It's because we cooperate so nicely, and it helps that we speak English too (for the most part).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:44 PM

"The US therefore plays no part in the running of Iraq's oil and gas industry."

"The US has no say in anything to do with Iraqi oil."


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

LA Times, today.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

Teribus, you say, "Now should they lose in Iraq just because the politicians and a section of the population are not prepared to support them then the US will not recover from that defeat."

If the politicians and a section of the population (a very large section of the population, including people world-wide), do not support the U.S. presence in Iraq - they shouldn't be there.

I precict it is you who will not recover from the defeat.

Most of the world would look at it as a victory for the people of the U.S. In fact, I believe the world believes that it is only the people of the U.S. that can stop this madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 01:13 PM

Doesn't matter whether Iraq is a member of OPEC or not? OPEC are the organisation that sit down together regularly and agree between themselves what their production quotas will be. There is a built in latitude but not much, the organisation exists to look after the interests of the oil producing member states.

What exactly does "If they were a US client" mean?

Transportation infrastructure (pipelines and terminals) in Iraq belong to the Iraqi Government or to the Iraqi National Oil Company, which if memory serves me correctly is split into two divisions, North and South Operators.

No Field Operating Licences are held by any American Company.

The US therefore plays no part in the running of Iraq's oil and gas industry. How then can they dump Iraqi oil on the market? Iraq can and never has produced the volume of oil to significantly effect anything. It has vast reserves, but not the infrastructure at present to bring it to the surface. The US has no say in anything to do with Iraqi oil.

The USA charity buys roughly 500,000 barrels of Iraqi oil a day out of its actual requirement of 10.5 million barrels per day.

Little Hawk when its time has come will the United States of America have a "Commonwealth of Nations" type organisation like Great Britain has?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 02:42 AM

That's right. And this is a colonial war. So was Vietnam. So is Afghanistan. The Russians tried colonizing Afghanistan...they failed. Now the Americans, British, and Canadians are trying it. They too will fail. Eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:58 PM

you didnt get it.
doesnt matter whether Iraq is part of opec, if they were a US client they have the next largest reserves after Saudi Arabia and could easily affect world prices by dumping oil on the market - thereby making Opec irrelevant. (Just like the Saudis did in the mid 80s, which had major repercussions on the Russian economy that was dependent on hard currency from their oil - as well as Texas and Alberta oil for that matter)

I suppose the order to secure the oil ministry while all the other govt bldgs were being looted was pure coincidence.

- in any colonial war - eventually the colonialists have to go home.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:19 PM

"by the way the US didnot go in for oil, at least not directly.
but a non-opec oil nation with reserves the size of Iraq could dump lots of oil on the market and thus make OPEC irrelevant. that would be good for the US, although one wonders if the money spent on the Iraq war and the estimated cost ($2-3trillion) to the US were better spent on energy independence." - GUEST,Petr - 11 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

Eh? Petr, thought you might want to have a look at the following taken from OPEC's website:

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent, intergovernmental Organization, created at the BAGHDAD Conference on September 10–14, 1960, by Iran, IRAQ, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973–1992); Gabon (1975–1994) and Angola (2007). OPEC had its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, in the first five years of its existence. This was moved to Vienna, Austria, on September 1, 1965."

The US did not go in for Oil period. And that can be clearly shown by the US's own daily oil import figures and by detailed lists of field operators in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,Petr
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

its not a question of a section of the population and politicians not
'supporting the troops' -
the troops no matter how professional were doomed from the start.
There werent enough of them to provide security. At least a 100,000 more were required.
And those that were present stood by while hospitals and important public services like water filtration facilities were looted and destroyed.
NOT their fault - it was incompetent planning , arrogance, overconfidence. What does one expect from a president who didnt know there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite 3months before the invasion?

And the incompetence continued.. billions of Iraq funds earmarked for reconstruction unaccounted for, much of it went to corrupt US contractors (eg. instead of replacing water filtration pipes they simply polish them and charge half a million).

the best comment came from Michael Fleischer who got his CPA job through his brother Ari Fleischer - who said without apparent irony
"we'll be teaching the IRaqis how to conduct business as in America, all they know is cronyism"

of course most of the people that went to work for the CPA werent hired for Middle East experience they were hired on the basis of loyalty. Kids whose only experience was driving an icecream cart - got jobs distributing millions for Iraqi reconstruction - only cause they posted their resumes on conservative websites.

by the way the US didnot go in for oil, at least not directly.
but a non-opec oil nation with reserves the size of Iraq could dump lots of oil on the market and thus make OPEC irrelevant. that would be good for the US, although one wonders if the money spent on the Iraq war and the estimated cost ($2-3trillion) to the US were better spent on energy independence.

Adding 20,000 troops will not make any difference now. (Its doubtful that even a 100,000 would.) Iraq will split up into two or possibly 3 states but it wont be the end of the world.

Bushs lectures to the Maliki govt are almost comical. As if the Maliki govt could do something, if it wanted to. Most of the army (at least the ones not on paper only) are Shia. Shia and Sunni will not serve together. Sadr has his 60,000 militia which hes not about to disband.
And most of the trained professional class have left long ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:14 PM

Great link, Eb. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:37 PM

What would losing the Iraq War look like, anyway, T-Bird???

Since you and yer buds haven't yet been able to define what winning would look like then I'm real curious what the converse would look like...

And I'm not playin' here but ***dead*** serious...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:59 PM

It is not yet a done deal. Not only the Democratic bigwigs but some Repubs are objecting to the plan.

Some Are Digging in Their Heels

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:21 PM

The guy hasn't changed at all! He talks about a new course and then orders something that's already been done at least twice before and hasn't worked. He says it will different this time but it won't be. He is going to have to seal off the borders if he wants any chance to get a handle on it. He can't do that without substantially more troops, which he doesn't have.

He's basically giving a lot of lip service to changing course but then turns around and offers more stay the course.

Still Congress is going to have to let it have a shot just to prove it won't work and then they will have to shut the production down. So more people will die needlessly between now August or so when I estimate that Congress will be forced to close the door on an Iraq victory.

And they'd better get busy concentrating on Afghanistan or they will lose that too.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:05 PM

Bush couldn't micro manage a blowjob at a cocksuckers' convention let alone micro manage the Iraq War. The man is an ass.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM

Aggressors who launch unjustified and unnecessary wars on the basis of lies do not particularly deserve to recover from their defeats.

It's India and China who are looking forward to their place in the sun at this point, not the USA. The USA is playing out its dwindling destiny by clinging to ancient political mythology that has become largely unviable. I don't see that changing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:35 PM

Interesting link Amos, but I'm not sure that tells the whole story.

I'm sure per capita spending power will be higher in the US than it is in the Russia for a while, perhaps forever, perhaps not. But what we are talking about is the Russian State playing the captialist west at it's own game. It has no expensive wars to drain its economy, and has massive energy reserves that it can use to great effect in almost as an instrument of foreign policy - especially in it's own local vicinity. And this is bad news - we all know our societies can't control themselves when it comes to curbing our capitalist urges, even in the face of massive climate upheavel nobody does sod all because we all love our cheap air travel and SUV's so much. This makes us ripe for exploitation by any shrewd entrepeneur - individual or state.

Whilst the US has been stomping around trying to make everyone see it's point of view from the end of barrel of a gun, Russia and China are emerging as world trading nations, and soon we're going to be playing by their rules - and these are not pretty (ask the Chechnyans and Tibetans).

It's a shame monkey-boy and the poodle can't see beyond the end of their own stubby noses and see the real threat to their own twisted versions of democracy.

I'm afraid your Commander in Chief doesn't have the wit to recognise his own considerable shortcomings, let alone to manage the Iraq situation, and if at this stage anyone is stupid enough to follow him then they get what they deserve. Their inability to understand the consequences of their actions with regards to the lives of the people on the ground at best makes them cretins, at worst complicit in the deaths of thousands of people, and therefore below contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:13 PM

If "Little Bush" (@ S Hussein) can drive, get him into an Abrams and let him get on with it, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:57 AM

As of 2003 the Russian purchasing power parity was $9300 per capita. The purchasing power parity per capita of the United States was $37,600.

As of 2000 the GNP of Russia was $252 billion ($2 per capita) compared the U.S. $10,533 billion ($38 per capita).

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/gnp.html

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Stu
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:04 AM

"Which country has prospered more since Viet Nam, the USA or the USSR?"

Ever heard of Gazprom? If you're from the US possibly not, but do yourself a favour and google it - the outside world is coming to you whether you like it or not, and they're already here in Europe.

Gazprom, a state-owned energy multinational now controls much of the gas Europe, east and west rely on as their own reserves run low. They are already holding some states to ramsom by threatening to cut off gas supplies. They are interested in buying Centrica, which used to be British Gas (and state-owned before the Tories sold it off - nice one), which raise the possibility of the gas supply to our homes in the British Isles being controlled even more from Moscow.

Someone is having the last laugh, and it ain't anyone this side of the Russian border.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:27 AM

Right now Ebbie, with oil at the price it is per barrel, Russia, as a major exporter of oil looks to be in pretty good shape. Russia's long term financial planning relies on the price of oil being somewhere around $22 per barrel, it has been way, way above that for a long, long time.

The US did recover from it's defeat in Vietnam - only just, and it took you damn near twenty years to do it. But in those days you had conscripted armed forces, today you do not, they're volunteer professionals. Now should they lose in Iraq just because the politicians and a section of the population are not prepared to support them then the US will not recover from that defeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:48 PM

Bush is going to micromanage the war? Good! That's what Hitler did too. Like Hitler, Bush will lose this unjustified war a good deal sooner by applying his unique powers of command to the problem. Bravo. Go for it, George W. I can hardly wait. I love seeing mighty empires and their irresponsible leaders brought down by their own hubris.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:35 PM

"...the United States of America got whupped good and proper, you were sent back home with your tails between your legs and the USSR laughed all the way to the bank." Ivan the Teribus

Your premise does not hold. Which country has prospered more since Viet Nam, the USA or the USSR?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:32 PM

OK then guys, you lost in Vietnam, the might and power of the United States of America got whupped good and proper, you were sent back home with your tails between your legs and the USSR laughed all the way to the bank. Now you tell me what will be the consequnces if you lose in Iraq, irrespective of who micromananages what, I will predict that the outcome will not be good for those of you who live in the good old US of A. Now convince me otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: michaelr
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 07:39 PM

He has said all along he won't quit until the mission is accomplished. Well, it isn't yet, because...











...Iraq's oil hasn't been secured yet for American oil companies. Simple as that.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 06:46 PM

He called the Democratic leaders in today to give them a 'preview'. Senator Reid says that there was no chance to comment...it is just gonna be announced. We shall see.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: wysiwyg
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 06:40 PM

Look, I'm happy to bash Bush with a couple hundred of my closest friends most anytime, but it's been pre-reporting on this yet-to-happen Bush "news" all damn day. Couldn't we put our attention on what's in the here and now for a bit, and get around to George later after he actually speaks ands gives us a more accurate picture of how dumb he is?

I guess, OTOH, with an approval rating as low as his, his "news" becomes "newsworthy" progressively earlier as his credibility slides south.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 06:37 PM

With all the talk of victory, we should get more description of what victory would be.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Peace
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 06:32 PM

Yeah. Like he understands the major differences between tactics and strategy. The man is an ass.

Subject: BS: Bush to micromanage Iraq War???
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 06:24 PM

Well, well, well...

From all the early indications, Chickenhawk in Chief, has decided that the career military folks don't know jack about winning a war and so, after firing Don Rumsfeld for screwin' up the micromanging of the Iraq War, Bush is now ready to give it a try himself...

Okay, he hasn't made the speech yet but has sent out enough press to let folks know that is exactly what he ahs in mind...

All I can say is the man is completely dilusional if he thinks that escelating the conflict is going to de-escalate it...

Like what can the man be thinking???

("Thinking", Bobert???)

Nevermind