 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Watching Bush's speech
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: 282RA Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM Big shocker! Bush is committing 20,000 troops to Iraq--mostly to Baghdad with 4000 troops to Anbar province. They will be embedded in the Iraqi army. And it's going to work this time! Why? Cuz this time we're not going to just clear neighborhoods of terrorists and then leave so that they can come back. This time we're going to STAY there and make sure they don't come back. I know...it's hard to believe it's only now dawning on them that sweeping a neighborhood and then leaving is utterly pointless. How incredibly dull can one be? PLUS, we're going to go into neighborhoods where the terrorists hang out instead of ignoring them like we did last time (?????????????). Any wonder we're losing?? MOREOVER, Maliki has stated that sectarian death squads are UNACCEPTABLE. Well, gee, weren't they unacceptable the last time we boosted troops? If so, why didn't do something about it then when it might have made a difference instead only just now when it's too little too late? An American defeat, says Dubya, would offer terrorists a chance to topple legitimate govts (unlike us) and kill large numbers of people (unlike us). Gee, Dubby, isn't all that your fault? Bushie-boy says victory in Iraq will result in a democratic govt that listens to the will of its people. Hmm. Hey, Georgie! We'd like to have that here in America too. You know damned well you don't want that, Dubby, because the people there hate us and want us GONE!!! The Iraqi govt MUST take responsibility for Bush's mistakes because god knows we're not going to do it. We destroyed their country and infrastructure and the ingrates have the nerve to expect us to rebuild it? Time to do your part, you lazy no good towelheads! What is with you people?? Do we have to do everything??? Oh--and Bushie takes full responsibility for all the mistakes. Hey, Dubby! We've been blaming you for years, asshole! Thanks for FINALLY admitting that you're responsible for the war you started for no good reason. Took only 4 years and 3000+ American lives for you to finally come around to that conclusion. Those Iraqis still alive will be overjoyed, I'm sure. Will the plan work? What do you think? Of course it won't work. 20,000 troops is nothing even if they were freshly trained newbies. But they're exhausted, over-extended grunts who have no idea what the mission is or how to achieve it even if they knew what it was. Of course it will fail. 20,000 is simply not enough. Not even close. This is it for you, boy! This is it! Either this works or you're going down and you're going to hit bottom HARD, me boy! You're out of chances and you're out of troops. You have pretty exhausted the supply by taking those last 20,000. This HAS to WORK!!!! All or nothing. There's no more chances to get it right after this. This is IT! And you'll fail, Mr. Bush. Just like you've always failed. Why? Because you're an incompetent, spoiled, little rich brat who got everything he ever wanted handed to him on a silver platter. You don't know what you're doing and, even worse, you don't care. You're the decider and that's all that matters to you. Mr. Glad-handler. Mr. BMOC. Just as long as you're the dictator, right, dubby? You thought that's how life works: Georgie-boy speaks and everybody jumps. Now, you're finally learning you were living in a dream world all your own. You look like you're awakening INTO a nightmare and your dream world of rich, white privilege is fading fast and you'll never recapture it. You've lost. The U.S. has lost. When the pubs that kissed your stupid ass all these years start crossing the line on you 6 months from now when your little way forward to victory only succeeds in getting more Americans killed and worsens the violence between Shiite and Sunni, they'll desert you. They'll desert you and swear up and down that they never supported you and never agreed with you and that you just did what you wanted without checking with them so it's not their fault but yours alone--that's what they'll be saying. They're already saying now that they wouldn't have voted for the war if you hadn't lied to them--er, I mean, if they knew what they know now. You're done, asshole. You're toast! And I wish I could feel ecstatically happy about that but it scares the shit out of me. What's going to happen to us, Mr. Bush? After we run from Iraq and from Afghanistan, what is to become of us? But I doubt you've ever given that a thought, have you? Fucking stupid shithead! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Amos Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:49 PM Why are you pussyfooting on so, 282? Tell it like you really feel it, man! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Scoville at Dad's Date: 10 Jan 07 - 09:59 PM 20,000--just enough to piss the Iraqis off a little more but not enough to actually help the troops that are already there. Way to half-ass it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Date: 10 Jan 07 - 10:09 PM Hey 282RA, I know that you would absolutely love to see the armed forces of the USA whupped like you were in Vietnam. But unlike you these guys are professionals, they actuially take a pride in what they do. They were not force drafted there, they volunteered. You know what they they say - A volunteer is worth ten pressed men. Unlike you guys in Vietnam, the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in. The only people that can lose it for them is you and the likes of you. Don't worry old son, just because you and your country couldn't cut the mustard back in the 1960's and early 1970's doesn't mean that the same fate must befall your "professional" armed forces in the twenty-first century. After all 282AR undermine them and what do you have left to defend you - Let's face face it neither you, nor anyone else on this forum are going to defend anything - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: 282RA Date: 10 Jan 07 - 10:35 PM >>20,000--just enough to piss the Iraqis off a little more but not enough to actually help the troops that are already there. Way to half-ass it.<< That's all we have. We've used up our last contingent of combat-ready troops. This is it. This time is HAS to work. This is Bush's last chance to finally do something right. >>Hey 282RA, I know that you would absolutely love to see the armed forces of the USA whupped like you were in Vietnam. But unlike you these guys are professionals, they actuially take a pride in what they do. They were not force drafted there, they volunteered. You know what they they say - A volunteer is worth ten pressed men.<< Don't praise em too much. I was also a volunteer who went to the Middle East. And no I don't take pride in getting my ass shot up trying to bail out an egomaniac's insane scheme for free oil. >>Unlike you guys in Vietnam, the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in. The only people that can lose it for them is you and the likes of you.<< If they had a chance of winning, they'd have won by now. No, there's no chance of winning. And pub shills like you can't blame the democrats or the liberals or the leftists or the media. You had a republican president, a republican congress and a republican Pentagon. From March 2003 to November 2006, they had a chance to win this thing and even declared MISSION ASCCOMPLISHED (remember that?). And all they've done is botch it. And they cannot blame anyone but themselves. There was nobody standing in their way, nobody to stop them, nobody to conduct any oversight. And even so, they couldn't win. And if something doesn't change drastically in the next 6 months, this new Congress (both dems and pubs) will yank the plug. And it's going to be too bad for your buddy. >>Don't worry old son,<< Oh, but I am worried. I'm very worried. This is our last gasp. The American occupation of Iraq has now officially entered its last throes. You're damn right I'm worried. >>just because you and your country couldn't cut the mustard back in the 1960's and early 1970's doesn't mean that the same fate must befall your "professional" armed forces in the twenty-first century.<< And you think we'd learn just how incompetent we really are to fight wars AND we were in much better shape then and still lost. We think we're SO bad and we just look stupid. So what do you think is going to happen now? I know asking you to think is a big demand but try it just this once and you'll see what I'm saying. >>After all 282AR undermine them and what do you have left to defend you - Let's face face it neither you, nor anyone else on this forum are going to defend anything - True?<< The only left to defend is the Constitution and it must be defended from the likes of George W. Bush. That is pretty much all we have left. He's pissed away everything else. He trashed our economy and squandered our surpllus. We're in hock to Red China!!!!! RED CHINA!!! I'm scared. I'm not gloating at Bush's failure--shit I saw that coming the day afer we invaded--I'm just plain scared. It scares me the same way global warming does. It's too late to turn back the clock and we can do nothing at all about what is coming. And there's nowhere to run. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:43 PM Countries that "pre-empitively" and illegally invade other, smaller countries for completely spurious reasons always end up finding out there's nowhere left to run....eventually. Sometimes it takes quite a long time, though. And their true loyalists here and there never give up, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how unpopular their cause. I have a friend whose uncle was a retired SS colonel from WWII, living in Canada. When he'd get drunk, he'd rampage around yelling "Ve vill rise again!" and showing off his Nazi tattoos to the dumfounded and often outraged people in the bar. (What a great way of making new friends, eh?...ha! ha!) Like I said, some loyalists of this or that bloody great conquering empire never give up...no matter how bankrupt their case has become to most of the other people in the world. We'll hear a few like that, long after this debacle is over, still saying that it was weaklings like us war critics who "couldn't cut the mustard", and that caused the defeat in Iraq. Yup, uh-huh. Righty-ho! Have another beer, Herr Koronel... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 10 Jan 07 - 11:50 PM "Sectarian death squads are unacceptable" says Maliki. I'm from Missouri. Do you by some chance know what that means, Teribus. If not, you should find out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:01 AM What in the world are you saying to Teribus, Ron????? What do you mean about being "from Missouri"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:06 AM Missouri is the "Show Me" state, i.e. prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Al Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:08 AM I fell asleep watching this speech. He was so heavily scripted. Not one phrase from the heart. What a phony this guy is. Al |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Ron Davies Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:14 AM Aw, Cat, you gave it away. I wanted to know how au courant Teribus was with US political slang. Especially since he claims to know better what to do in Iraq than probably most Americans. I envisioned some brilliant remarks from Teribus about how soldiers from Missouri are upholding the honor of the US, contrary to Mudcatters--or something equally perceptive. Now we'll just have to hear his usual drivel. Oh well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Barry Finn Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:06 AM So it was "WE" who lost the great & rightous war in Viet Nam & is it "WE" who'll again lose the war in Iraq T? Are you saying that this is a justified war like Viet Nam? Sounds like it. Didn't we get apologies the last time "WE" had to end the war & bring our soldiers home? Don't you think that this will repeat it's self again? You cannot win a war when it becomes unpopular at home & it's against a nation invaded whose citizens are hell bent to drive out the hated occupier. Didn't we learn that the last time around? About 40 years ago I fought to bring my brother home from one war, I don't want to fight again to bring my son back. He's 17, over my dead body will I give him up for Bush. You can lose yours but "I'd rather live in Hackensack" or somewhere in the South Pacific. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,Englishman Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:08 AM Nice variant on "Yanks go home". Yanks go to Iraq. Our boys come home. You can carry the can for your invasion. Oh, by the way, when you find out how to make it work, can we borrow you to pacify Ireland? We "conquered" it (now that was, nakedly, an attempt at territorial acquisition, but that was life in those days) before the Armada (I know that's a long time ago by your standards) - and you spent recent history saying the terrorists bombing civilians to drive us out of there were "freedom fighters". But for some reason you don't apply the same logic to Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Captain Ginger Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:33 AM I wouldn't put too much store on Teribus riding to the rescue of the USA - our Terry makes much of his services background as a matelot in the Royal Navy, but it's clear from the tenor of his posts that much of his career was spent polishing the ample seat of his trousers while copying out files for his superiors; large files full of things that he clearly couldn't quite grasp. It's left him with a certain pomposity and willingness to pronounce on weighty issues without quite understanding them and a tendency to tug the forelock and doff his cap to anyone with a bit of scrambled egg. As such his opinions are received rather than arrived at by experience. It would be quite interesting to see what his FIBUA experience is, for example (as it would have been called in his day). Terry is not the one one on this message board who has done his bit to serve and to protect, and some here have actually experienced the sharp end rather than shining their overfilled seats. His comments on Vietnam are insulting and wide of the mark. There's not a huge difference between the men of then and now (except that now they take longer to get fit when recruited). And sadly I fear that yet again the stupidity of commanders is going to result in a lot of those young men dying needlessly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:24 AM "...the forces you now have operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have got an excellent chance in winning the conflicts that they are engaged in..." Teribus, on what do you base that rather surprising statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Jan 07 - 05:37 AM Defiance and delusion (GUARDIAN leader about Bush speech) In opting for a troop surge, Mr Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:06 AM Paul from Hull, a number of questions for you: - How many provinces make up the present day country of Iraq? - Scanning the internet and the media, insurgent attacks on MNF/Iraqi forces occur in how many of those provinces on anything that you could refer to as a regular basis? - When was the last time Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq carried out an attack in Iraq? They used to be quite vocal about the atrocities they committed. Since the death of their leader they have been strangely silent. - The stated purpose of the insurgency is to drive the MNF out of Iraq. Why then have the insurgents switched their attacks to the civilian population? - If the insurgency was gaining strength, according to Giap's theories attacks against the MNF would by now be intensifying in scale and effectiveness. Why then are the attacks against the MNF diminishing in scale and becoming less and less effective? - What happened to the forecasted upsurge in insurgent violence in the wake of Saddam's execution? - Afghanistan scan the internet and the media sources. Tell us how many attacks the Taleban, or Al-Qaeda, have carried out in the last week. - Afghanistan scan the internet and the media sources. Tell us how many operations against the Taleban have been mounted with successful results (Most recent I can recall was Operation Clay) - Afghanistan, where is the fighting reported? How many provinces make up Afghanistan? How many are peaceful? - Afghanistan, in 2006 some 4000 people were killed. 1000 of them were civilians, most of whom were killed by the Taleban, the remaining 3000 were either NATO, ISAF, Afghan Army/Police and Taleban. NATO, ISAF, Afghan Army/Police have taken relatively few casualties (UK 44 of whom 21 died in non-combat related accidents), so the bulk of the dead are made up of Taleban. Does that sound as though the Taleban are winning? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:34 AM Listening to my President, I was proud. Proud to be an American in the 21st century where we know we can kick the livin' shit out of anybody if we just send the right numbers of people and weapons to do the job. I was proud to see that President Bush realizes that Iraq is no Vietnam, that the desert is not the jungle, and that even if he can't find either one on a map he knows that killing more people on all sides is the answer. I was proud to hear my President speak in clear terms and without emotion about the situation we now face. He is so cool and calm and detached it is almost as if he were simply reading a text with many words he didn't understand. His plan makes me proud to see that the United States will be a stand out country in the eyes of the world for many years to come. Spaw, Proud Super Patriot |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:52 AM It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle. Do what is right, not what you think the high headquarters wants or what you think will make you look good. Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy. The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it. When placed in command -- take charge. -- All by H. Norman Schwartzkopf, whose comments about Saddam Hussein I find apply equally well to GWB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Alba Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:01 AM I could not even bring myself to listen, let alone watch, this man tell a Nation that more cannon fodder was required to feed a War that was started by lies and continues based on even more lies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Charley Noble Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM Captain Ginger- Thanks for your post about Teribus above. I've been wondering how someone can achieve such a warped view of the world, and be so hurtful and insulting to others. Of course, he's not alone but what he says adds perspective to threads such as these, and drives people such as me right up the wall! LOL If history teaches us anything, and I sometimes doubt that it does, then there is no way in hell that Bush and his co-belligerents can put the pieces of Iraq back together again. They squandered that opportunity years ago, shortly after they proclaimed "Mission Accomplished!" And I for one won't feel sorry when the last war profiteer gets his fingers blown off turning out the lights as he tries to leave. What a sorry mess! I'm proud that my state's two Republican senators (Snowe and Collins) are still opposed to the Bush "surge." I missed the speech. My banjo needed re-tuning. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:18 AM This was running through my head the whole time I watched the speech, especially the bolded section: Here's to the Bush administration |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:40 AM He is neither a strategist nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general. Other than that he's a great military man. Norman Schwartzkopf, US general and gulf war commander, describing Saddam Hussein of Iraq, 1991 (and me, describing GWB). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: kendall Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM I couldn't watch or listen. This is the first president in my life that I have detested. Anyway, consider this: We now have an all volunteer military. Are they in the military to stay at their present rank? Take a Major, for instance, or a Colonel, or a one star General. How do they get to be a higher rank? WAR, that's how! Mechanics must find problems to fix on your car, and career military types must have war to advance in rank. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Greg B Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:09 AM Kendall, it's not war but TIME that leads to greater military rank, just as in most government jobs. Before you say, 'but it will get top-heavy' take a look at the retirement system. One can do very well in the peace-time military, with the added benefit of not getting shot at. But what really bothers me about this whole thing is not Bush---he was a given--- What bothers me are Democrats, like Biden, who are now back-pedaling at doing what it takes to end this thing and bring the troops home, now that they have the power to do so. Biden was on NPR day before yesterday, all but ruling out witholding funds to pursue the war. Using words like "he's the commander-in-chief" blah blah blah. I didn't get out and vote for the Democrats so that they could 'cut and run' from their position of doing whatever it takes to bring the troops home. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM JeremyC, did you write that? Well-done! Spaw, drippingly brill! Greg, that's not what I heard on npr, today: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, says that President Bush's speech on Iraq offered nothing new. Levin tells Renee Montagne that the president's rhetoric doesn't match the reality on the ground in Iraq. He said a lot more than that. Here's a LINK to the audio. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Bill D Date: 11 Jan 07 - 11:31 AM "war"?? what "war"? No one even pretended to declare a "war". You can't 'win' in a situation where you can't even identify the 'enemy' if he walks down the street beside your tank! We don't HAVE an 'enemy', we have a bunch of guys who don't like us almost as much as they dislike various other guys of different religious sects! WE are just in the way as they try to get control of the area to suit themselves, and they can continue to snipe at us like this for years. We (meaning Bush and his idiot advisors) have a lot to answer for when they were warned by experts how this 'incursion' would likely turn out. Bush used to say- about every two days...."the world is better off with Saddam gone". Uh-huh...right....does it LOOK better off? Bad intelligence, bad planning, bad reasons, bad organization, ......the only thing they were good at was lying to themselves about what they wanted and how they might get it! And when those in power get good at lying to themselves, lying to the rest of us is child's play. I hope Congress finds some way to curtail this latest buildup....lots more Iraqis are going to die before the situation settles down, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO....but it is not necessary that we spend billions more to ensure that a lot more or OUR soldiers die there also! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:01 PM Katlaughing, It's my revision/pastiche/theft of the Phil Ochs song "Here's to the State of Mississippi," plus the updated version that Eddie Vedder sang on VH1, because I thought the update was junk. So all I did was use as much of Phil Ochs' original as I could, fit in a couple of elements of the revision (the one or two good parts), and then add what made the most sense to me. So in accordance with tradition, it's by Phil Ochs/arr. me. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Amos Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:03 PM War accelerates promotion for those involved in it. But in general the ratio of staff outside the range of a conflict to those involved in any kind of hot action is about 100 : .5 or something of the sort. For the rest, it's time in grade, PR, and occasionally doing something energetic or smart (or, rarely, both). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Date: 11 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM Maybe it's just me, but I was also thinking of Nixon, Vietnam, and four more years of war. The parallels seem stunning, but then, I'm 30, so I didn't live through it. Can any of you old fogies offer some insights? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:07 PM Yeah. I did live through it (and Unky, not only was I and both my brothers in it, my nephews are in it right now -- how about you? Got any kids in? Or yourself?). And yeah, Jeremy C., it reminds me of LBJ and Vietnam "...and while there really isn't war We're sending fifty thousand more To help save Vietnam from Vietnamese." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: kendall Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:09 PM Clearly the democrats have a tiger by the tail here. They can only end the war by cutting off the money, and that would look like they are not supporting the troops. Promotions in peace time are slow. There is nothing like having the guy one rank above you get killed to advance your advance. Besides, in peace time, we don't need near as many officers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM Friend of mine has just made Air Force Colonel -- IF he can find a slot. There are 52 people waiting for an anticipated 16 openings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM That's what Bush wants. What does Congress say? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Wesley S Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:32 PM With apologies to Peter Townsend: "Meet the new plan; Same as the old plan" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: JeremyC Date: 11 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM Most of the Democrats in Congress are infuriatingly full of themselves (Obama didn't seem to be, which was nice, but Durbin was especially obnoxious), and after watching all the speechifying, I wasn't sure which party to be more pissed off at. But predictably enough, they were disagreeing and hoping to block the move. I mean, I don't like Bush any more than the Democrats do, but I've gotten to the point where I think both groups are largely a bunch of assholes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: GUEST,282RA Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM >>282RA: Does RA mean Real A**hole?<< Ah, it's Teribus, posing as a guest. >>You should do your civic duty and sign up for military service if you are physically fit and young enough.<< I told you already that I DID volunteer and I DID serve in the Middle East. You're not paying attention. >>If not, you should encourage others to join.<< HAHAHAHA! That's a good one, Terry! >>Otherwise just keep whining crying, sucking snot and wallowing around in your role as a victim.<< I'd rather do that than to have to defend Bush time after time against his own actions and behavior. >>I know it is difficult to take on the winner mentality because there are so many people with the victim mentality trying to pull you down to their level but it is possible.<< It's hard to take on a winner mentality when you're not winning. In fact, it's idiotic. >>You have my best wishes for your prosperity and well being but do not have my sympathy for your self inflicted state of mind.<< Good, I don't want your sympathy and don't need it and you apparently agree. Thanks, T. >>Uncle Sam<< So now we're American, are we? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: katlaughing Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:33 PM JeremyC, I should have recognise Ochs'...I still like your redo! Thansk, again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM One of the people in the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority), headquartered in Saddam's imperial palace in the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, who was given an assignment, then tried to carry out that assignment, found that the support and back-up from the Bush administration was all but non-existent. His situation was typical. He told Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post), "I am a neoconservative who has just been mugged by reality." Perhaps Teribus needs to be mugged by reality. Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City : Inside Iraq's Green Zone, is fascinating. I challenge Teribus to read it (which he won't, of course, because he is already so stuffed with "knowledge" that he hasn't room for any more). It describes what the agents of the Bush administration are actually doing to try to "win the war" in Iraq and set up a democratic government. If one were to write a treatment for a movie starring a combination of Steve Martin, Jim Carrey, Buster Keaton, the Keystone Kops, and the Three Stooges, it might come close to depicting the incredible combination of ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence that's actually been going on there. When they dissolved the Iraqi army (implemented by "There will be no discussion on this!" Bremer), they rendered next to impossibile control of any insurgency that was bound to arise. A stupid decision, and one of the first of many. Well worth reading if you want to know where your tax dollars are going. It would be absolutely hilarious were it not so freakin' pathetic! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 07 - 04:26 PM That should read ". . . control of any insurgency. . . ." Don Firth
fixed it for ya |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:17 PM Teribus, I'm not going to go to the trouble of responding point-by-point to your post...for one thing, I havent the time to check each one, nor could be sure that everything I might Google would be accurate at this present moment. The overall perception of how things are going in both Iraq & Afghanistan is that we are not 'winning', nor is it that a 'win' is imminent....can you dispute that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Teribus Date: 11 Jan 07 - 07:56 PM "GUEST,282RA - PM Date: 11 Jan 07 - 02:09 PM >>282RA: Does RA mean Real A**hole?<< Ah, it's Teribus, posing as a guest." MOST DEFINITELY NOT, and Joe Clone can confirm that if you ask him, he can do that without breaching any confidence. Thanks Paul from Hull, although that is the answer I was sort of expecting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:20 PM Back in the days of the American Revolution, the British soldiers, dressed in red coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. That was the way wars were fought. The problem was that the uncultured and unschooled Colonists, who had never learned how to fight a proper war, didn't line up in ranks—in plain sight—and fire in relays. They dressed in greens and browns, making them hard to see as they hid in the underbrush and behind trees, and fired, not in volleys, but individually, when they spotted a likely target: someone standing in plain sight, made very visible by his red coat, and providing a handy white "X" in the middle of his chest to aim at. Damned un-British, those Colonists! Fighting a war like that just wasn't—well—cricket! Harumph! And furthermore, pshaw!! You can't fight a bunch of guerillas—or terrorists—or insurgents—by going after them with a regular army, even if your army no longer looks like it belongs on a chess board. Obviously, we didn't learn that lesson in Vietnam. And we're not learning it again in Iraq. At least the Commander-in-Chief (who has never fought any kind of war), and his minions, and the Pentagon, haven't learned it. But it would appear that a lot of the American public, along with a fair number of senators and representatives, including a lot of Republicans, are beginning to get the clue. I think that on this one, Bush just run into a brick wall with a mighty SPLAT!! Wile E. Coyote used to do that a lot. Don Firth P. S. And Teribus, the United States will recover just fine, after we get out of that mess that the current batch of crooks and idiots in Washington. D. C. got the country into, and then purge said crooks and idiots. Granted, we're liable to get a whole different batch of crooks and idiots, but that can't help but be an improvement! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Paul from Hull Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:20 PM Well, Teribus, I watch the News, any Documentaries on the subject (there was an interesting Channel 4 'Dispatches' repeated tonight, for instance) and take note of 'news' on the interweb. It doesnt look like its 'winnable', in any meaningful sense of the word, to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Peace Date: 11 Jan 07 - 08:29 PM 1) People often 'see' war in terms of winning or losing and don't understand what the terms means when viewed from the perspective of tactical vs strategic objectives. The two are not necessarily the same thing. Winning may have a completely different meaning in Washington in the minds of the politicians who got the US into the war. To them, until it lands in their laps in lost votes, deaths and injuries mean little. 2) What began as a 'war' with ill-defined objectives has now become a police action. Quoting a line from MASH: If this is a police action--then referring to Korea--then why didn't they send cops? Asking soldiers to be cops is stupid. They are not. The roles of cops and soldiers are very different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Don Firth Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:09 PM ". . . why didn't they send cops?" Exactly so, Peace. That's what they should have done right from the start. The folks who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were not associated with any particular nation, although most of them were Saudis. They undoubtedly regard themselves as "freedom fighters" or something like that, as angry at their own government as they were at us, and it was not that their motivation was that they "hate our way of life." For an idea of what they really hated, see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins. If we were going to treat them as the criminals that they were (no matter how justified they may have felt, murdering innocent civilians is a crime), we should have made use of the combined resources of various nations' intelligence services and gone after them in surgical strikes—i.e., we should have sent in the cops. Declaring a "War on Terror" is sort of like declaring a "War on Hemorrhoids." The illegal invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 just provided a handy excuse for the neo-cons in the Bush administration to do what they wanted to do anyway: try to solidify the United States as the world's only superpower by gaining geopolitical control over Iraq's oil resources. The hand on the tap gets to chose who gets the oil—and, perhaps more importantly—who doesn't. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Arne Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:42 PM Charley Noble: I missed the speech. My banjo needed re-tuning. You tune your banjo?!?!? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:06 PM Don, your little essay on the fighting in the revolutionary war tends to repeat an oft-repeated myth or at least partial myth about the fighting that took place in that war. You said: "Back in the days of the American Revolution, the British soldiers, dressed in red coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. That was the way wars were fought." Yes. Indeed it was. That was how you fought a large battle in the open. And most of the larger and more significant battles in that war were fought by American regular troops who dressed in blue coats with white bandoliers across their chests, lined up in ranks, one standing, and another in front of them, kneeling. They would fire and reload alternately. ;-) They were damn near as easy to shoot at as the British. The French regulars dressed in white uniforms and did the same thing. Very noticeable. And they also fought the British in the traditional fashion most of the time. Add to that the fact that the British made heavy used of Indian warbands, Indians being the consumate masters of wilderness warfare, to fight the revolutionary forces, and you will see that the old "we won because we could fight in the woods and the British couldn't" is mostly a popular myth that has been perpetuated by a nation understandably in love with its coonskin cap brigade of heroes. Both sides had troops who could fight very effectively in the woods...and did. Both sides had large numbers of uniformed regulars who fought in large, rigid formations out in the open, using artillery and entrenchments...as in Europe. They ALL lined up and blasted away at each other in volleys in that case. I just mention it because I'm fond of history. ;-) Other than that, I agree with your general position in this debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Rapparee Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:13 PM King's Mountain, LH. But yes, the Rebels (and their allies) did use massed unit fire as much as the British (and their allies). The uniforms were not, however, either red or blue. Some were green, some brown, and a variety of other colors (including black). The Rebels might wear "blue and buff" but that was towards the end -- lots of times they wore whatever they could get. The riflemen of the British, as well as their Jaeger Hessian allies, wore green, possibly with red piping. Quite confusing, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Watching Bush's speech From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Jan 07 - 10:20 PM Right on, Rapaire. You are absolutely correct in supplying those additional colorful details about the Revolutionary War. Kind of like the Civil War...there were a bewildering variety of different uniforms worn on both sides in that one too, the most garish being those that belonged to the Zouaves (both Yankee and Confederate versions). I think what finally beat the British was not their uniforms or their tactics, but a number of much more significant political, psychological, and social factors...we've talked about it a good deal on other threads in the past. |
