 sj |
||
|
||
BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 05:22 PM "The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey... This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep..." Not sure that I see why. Look at the ABM systems: Under SALT, the USSR and the US were allowed two each- The Soviets built them, and we started to, then dismantled them so that the ONLY option in case of attack would be all-out nuclear war. With SDIO, the basic principle is that, IN THE CASE of a LIMITED launch, caused by accident or terrorists, the side with an ABM has the OPTION of NOT throwing it's entire arsenal at the percieved enemy, and waiting until it was understood whaht happened. A 95% hit rate would mean that of 10 missles launched, there would be a 50% chance that ONE would get through. Since the alternative, without ABM, is to have a 100% chance that TEN will get through, it seems obvious that the OPTION of waiting is only there with an ABM system in place. When the choice is between MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction ( as pushed by Democratic Administrations)) and SDIO, that allows the missles to be neutralized WITHOUT destroying the attacking country, it seem that only those committed to the idea that it is better to kill the (percieved) enemy even at the cost of one's own death than to block the attack and then deal as appropriate with the ones who launched the attack, could NOT be in favor of it. If Country X launches 10 missiles at Japan, is it a better thing to a. Shoot down the missiles and have no-one killed. OR b. Have the 10 missiles hit Japan, killing millions, then remove Country X from the face of the earth with the counterstrike? And what about the fact that it might have been an error on the part of Country X's software that caused the launch in the first place? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:58 PM The problems with ABM's is that it's very difficult to convince the folks they are aimed at that these weapons cannot also be used as offensive weapons... I mean, if Russsia were to plant ABM's in Cuba the US would throw a fit, Homey... This is perhaps why Russia is trhowing a fit about the US wanted to plant them on Russia's doorstep... And for this same reason we cannot expect to produce an environment where the Iranian clerics can bring about moderation with the same sabre rattling from the US... All that sabre rattling does is prolong conflict which, in turn, does not create an positive environment for the US and Iran to find common ground... (But, Bobert, Iran did that and Iran did that!!!) Iran also helped the US defeat the Taliban... Hmmmmmm??? The US has had one opportunity after another under Bush to make inroads in Iran and has bungled them all... Now, it is apparent that Bush has so poisoned the relationship that the Iranians don't trust him and are just, like the rest of the world, waiting Bush out... Bush's legacy is allready cast in stone and there is nothing now that he can do to change it... Seems the next 12 months can't go by fast enough... This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone... This is just a sober assessment of the situation... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:41 PM 400! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 01 Jan 08 - 12:24 PM The above was by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 07 - 07:41 PM Back atcha, bruce... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 31 Dec 07 - 05:51 PM Happy New Year , ALL. May the next year see peace and joy throughout the world, and all of us safe and secure. Bruce |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Donuel Date: 31 Dec 07 - 10:13 AM I'll answer the question. Russia and Iran combined have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Iraq is 2nd by themselves but third after Russian and Iran. Its not that WE need to attack Iran as much as banking globalists can make more money on military needs, rising oil prices and investments in China. This should be enough "answer" for most people yet if you read ahead more pieces of the puzzle will fall into place. I have seen people here say they don't believe in the New World Order. Yet they are watching it unfold more every month. The term 'New World Order' is the gift of the banking and corporation funded think tanks. The exact term New World Order was first used in public addresses by President GHW Hush. What is it really? Here it is straight up with no satire or spoon feeding... It is a push to privatize everything along the lines of an extreme fundamentalist Capitalism. You might ask Everything? Beyond private property and private corporations I point out: Private (oil) Wars, private armies, private police, private legislaters, Privatized National Parks, privatized health care, privatized social security schemes...et cetera. Putting these corporate ideas of ultimate privatization into play via banking systems like the New World Bank is often called Globalization. Conentrating wealth in a handful of banks and corporation which are in turn owned by even fewer families is effective in removing the last remaing vestigal powers of labor unions and Law (laws like zoning, tax and numerous consumer safety regulations) To enhance Globalization the social safety nets of FDR are called socialist and very bad. National health care is communist and very bad. Social Security is broke and very bad. Social Spending has no place in a militarized society. With legislators becoming essentially privatized by corporate contributions the only stumbling block to most Globalization (formerly called New World Order) tactics are the courts. Perhaps you don't see as I do how the courts are under attack by Globalists. Perhaps you don't see that threats of; terror, natural disaster, disease and impending doom actually changes the behavior of people to allow freedom itself to be traded away for huge sudden sweeping security laws and economic slavery, al in the sheeps clothing of security. Yet let me assure you that the old term 'New World Order' (which did not play well since it sounds too close to the truth) is alive and well in Globalization. A preconceived notion as to what New World Order/Globalization meant may be far from what it is. It is simply an extreme form of capitalism which relies on anti democratic and powerful media propoganda. The weakening of goverment agenices and the strengthening of private corporate agencies. Thats why there was a private beefed up Blackwater and Walmart response to Katrina while FEMA had its guts brains and balls removed by the Globalist administration. The only goverment agency to respond to Katina immediately was the Coast Guard and the Royal Canadian Mounties. People argue here all the time about various aspects of globallization as if its a red or blue issue or a democratic vs. fascist issue. The arguemnts can be anything we want it to be but Globalization ie NWO is swallowing us all as we bicker. I suppose globalist think tank pundits even have an answer for a nasty but unintended nuclear war which is usually bad for business and living things... there would be a great market for construction contracts and of course more nukes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 31 Dec 07 - 08:48 AM Homey (Dickey/Old Guy?)... I'll juts wait until I hear your answer to Barry's question before investing any more time on this topic... But have a happy new years, none the less... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 30 Dec 07 - 10:22 PM Why do you want to bother Iran, haven't we been enough of a bother to those already living in the Mid East without becoming a part of their daily life. Oh, forgot we are a part of their daily life, the part that's a nightmare. You sure are worried about them that live 6,000 miles away, how about a little concern for those that could use our help rather than them that would do just fine without it. What would you have us do about Iran Homey? The same as we've done with Iraq? "Fine mess you've gotten US into this time Ollie!" Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 30 Dec 07 - 04:22 PM Funny how Bobert can dish out the criticism but he can't take any. What should we do about Iran? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM Yeah, let's do a little review... ***C student in college but probably was closer to being a d student but rich kids get a favorable grading... ***AWOL from Texas Air National Guard... ***Given the Texas Rangers by his daddy and the team's profits went down... ***Given Harkin Energy by his daddy and he ran it into the ground right after taking $700,000 out of the kitty for himself... ***Cokehead and alcoholic ***Convicted drunk driver and... ...worst president in American history, bar none but given his record it shouldn't come as any surprise... But what I ***hope*** America has finally learned is don't let losers do the deciding... There is a reason why they are losers... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 26 Dec 07 - 12:33 PM Impeachment now Bobert would be better. But I agree short of that the world would be better off with him doing nothing. He can't seem to make one move that isn't a complete fuck up. It's the story of his life. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 26 Dec 07 - 08:59 AM Exactly the point, McG... Yes, bias is the fabric of wisdom... And that is why when I hear Bush shootin' off his mouth about Iran much the way he shot off his mouth during the mad-dash-to-Iraq, my biases kick in big time... I hate to say this but I firmly believe it but I don't trust Bush to not order up a little "Shock'n Awe" against Iran just to ***prove*** he is "relavent" (his word)... Personally, I think the best think for the world and especially the US would be if Bush would just do what his daddy did and that is put his feet up on the Oval Office desk and do nothing... I don't want Bush screwing US up anymore... He's done enough damage allready... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Dec 07 - 06:51 AM Arriving at an opinion after examining the evidence isn't "prejudice". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:38 PM I just did a little checking, and it seems that after saying "Judge not, lest ye be judged," Jesus goes on to say, basically, what the philosopher I quoted said. Go ahead and judge, but be prepared to be judged for the judgments you make. But lots of people, for reasons of their own, quote only the first part. Typical out-of-context quotation behavior. I have to agree wholeheartedly with what GUEST, TIA posted on 22 Dec 07 - 10:12 a.m. Keep up the good work! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 07 - 05:04 PM Dante said it better than I did, Don... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:30 PM "Show me a wise man who isn't biased." Can't argue with that. In Dante's Inferno, the lowest rung in Hell is reserved for those who insist on remaining "colorlessly neutral," those who make no moral or ethical distinctions, and there is no way one can do that and not favor one position or another (sometimes known as being "biased"). It has been said that one should "judge not, lest ye be judged." But a very wise philospher once said that the truly ethical person must make judgments. And be prepared to be judged for the judgments that he or she makes. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM Actually, Homey/Dickey (or is it Dickey/Homey 'er Old Guy/Dikey), I have provided my sources... No one has yet proved any of my source to be incorrect... I provided my source on Bush having knowledge that Iran had curtailed its nuclear weapons program in 2003 prior to his "WW III' or "Iran is pursuing" speeches in October... Do yu have any evidence that the Baker/Wright story was innacurate??? Well, no you don't... What you do have is another story which is not proof... You expect me to have to provide proof yet you don't hold yourself to the same standard... Normal... And, bet yer butt I'm bias... But I'm not prejudice... There's a big difference... Show me a wise man who isn't bias... You use the word bias as if there's something wrong with it when there instinctually isn't... Bias is good... Prejudice isn't... That's bout it for now, OG/H/D 'er H/OG/D.... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Dec 07 - 04:00 PM Is "GUEST, Homey" the same person as someone else who is already a member? If not, why not sign up as a member and remove all that hassle of having to type in your name every time you post? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 25 Dec 07 - 03:06 PM Again Bobert, I am not defending anything. Just pointing out that fact that you claim accuracy that does not exist and use generalizations to arrive at facts that are not correct. Your biased, objective reasoning is incorrect. When challenged you display your bias by claiming I am defending or supporting something or someone. That I am biased. I am defending free speech and logic. Got something against that? Or you are for free speech and logic only when it agrees with you and get huffy and puffy when it does not? "The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity." What is the term for not being able to tell when things are the same but you choose to react in opposite ways about each? Is it called sanity or Bias? "We can deliberately kill in the womb but convicted murderers do not deserve to die and no one should ever die in a war." Is that a sane statement? If it is sane, just say so. Back it up by stating it. Just because the comparison of death by abortion to capital punishment death during armed conflict makes you uncomfortable does not mean I can't make the comparison here. It is still as free country right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 25 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM So, if the CIA makes a biased report for political reasons that YOU agree with, that is ok, while if they make a biased one for political reasons that YOU disagree with they should be held accountable? Are you SURE you are not related to Bush? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 07:33 PM Well, bb, seein' as Bush rolled the CIA under the bus over ***his*** stupid decision to invade Iraq, I reckon there is a high level of paranoia in Langley... Do you blame them??? I don't... Bush would roll his own mother under the bus... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM Washington Post: Subverting Bush at Langley Outrage over the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes is but one element of the distress Republican intelligence watchdogs in Congress feel about the agency. "It is acting as though it is autonomous, not accountable to anyone," Rep. Peter Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, told me. That is his mildest language about the CIA. In carefully selected adjectives, Hoekstra calls it "incompetent, arrogant and political." Chairman Silvestre Reyes and other Democrats on the intelligence committee join Hoekstra in demanding investigation into the tape destruction in the face of the administration's resistance, but the Republicans stand alone in protesting the CIA's defiant undermining of President Bush. In its clean bill of health for Iran on nuclear weapons development, the agency acted as an independent policymaker rather than an adviser. It has withheld from nearly all members of Congress information on the Israeli bombing of Syria in September. The U.S. intelligence community is deciding on its own what information the public shall learn. Intelligence agencies, from Nazi Germany to present-day Pakistan, for better or for ill, have tended to break away from their governments. The Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's World War II predecessor, was infiltrated by communists. While CIA tactics were under liberal assault in Congress during the Watergate era, current accusations of a rogue agency come from Republicans who see a conscious undermining of Bush at Langley. The CIA's contempt for the president was demonstrated during his 2004 reelection campaign when a senior intelligence officer, Paul R. Pillar, made off-the-record speeches around the country criticizing the invasion of Iraq. On Sept. 24, 2004, three days before my column exposed Pillar's activity, former representative Porter Goss arrived at Langley as Bush's handpicked director of central intelligence. Goss had resigned from Congress to accept Bush's mandate to clean up the CIA. But the president eventually buckled under fire from the old boys at Langley and their Democratic supporters in Congress, and Goss was sacked in May 2006. Goss's successor, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, restored the status quo at the CIA and nurtured relations with congressional Democrats in preparation for their coming majority status. Hayden, an active-duty four-star Air Force general, first antagonized Hoekstra by telling Reyes what the Democrats wanted to hear about the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. There is no partisan divide on congressional outrage over the CIA's destruction of tapes showing interrogation of detainees suspected of terrorism. Hoekstra agrees with Reyes that the Bush administration has made a big mistake refusing to let officials testify in the impending investigation. Republicans also complain that the National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran has shut down its nuclear weapons program was a case of the CIA flying solo, not part of the administration team. Donald M. Kerr, principal deputy director of national intelligence, said on Dec. 3 that the intelligence community "took responsibility for what portions of the NIE Key Judgments were to be declassified." In a Dec. 10 column for the Wall Street Journal, Hoekstra and Democratic Rep. Jane Harman, a senior member of the intelligence committee, wrote that the new NIE "does not explain why the 2005 NIE came to the opposite conclusion or what factors could drive Iran to 'restart' its nuclear-weapons program." (Six days later on "Fox News Sunday," Harman called the NIE "the best work product they've produced.") Hoekstra is also at odds with Hayden over the CIA's refusal to reveal what it knows about the Sept. 6 Israeli bombing of Syria's nuclear complex. Only chairmen and ranking minority members of the intelligence committees, plus members of the congressional leadership, have been briefed. Other members of Congress, including those on the intelligence committees, were excluded. The intelligence authorization bill, passed by the House and awaiting final action in the Senate, blocks most of the CIA's funding "until each member of the Congressional Intelligence committees has been fully informed with respect to intelligence" about the Syria bombing. In a June 21 address to the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations, Hayden unveiled the "CIA's social contract with the American people." Hoekstra's explanation: "The CIA is rejecting accountability to the administration or Congress, saying it can go straight to the people." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:30 PM Yes, there is quite a bit of difference between "Iran" and colonial America, Dickey/Homey... Not so with Iraq, however... BTW, Dickey/Homey... Your abortion argument has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about failed foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, Bush's sabre rattling with Iran or the price of tea in China... Might of fact, it has a *desperate* ring to it??? Hey, look, D/H... I am sorry that you have hunkered down in defending what sane people see as insane acts by Bush and his boyz... At any time you, being annonymous, can reinvent yourself as a sane thinking person and come back here with an new world view that isn't so utterly partisan and/or narrow minded... But until then, please expalin why the US's occupation of Iraq is much different than when the Brits occupied the colonies??? Oh, an a follow-up question, por favor... Given that the Bush foreign policy is about whackin' 'n occupyin' folks who he might *think* (ha, that's an oximoron) one day might like to take a shot at US, what other countries are you in favor of W-and-O'n??? And just a follow up to that question, again por favor... Who is going to pay for the W-'n-O'n binge??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 03:05 PM The failure to distinguish between things which are actually different is the keynote of insanity. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 02:42 PM Please explain how I am pushing a pro war/occupation agenda. That is your biased knee jerk reaction. And I don't see how you can separate the killing of innocent people from abortion except that abortion is deliberate and collateral damage is not. And I am not defending collateral damage either. Being anti-war and pro-abortion would be insane? Or it can not be justified or what? There is quite a bit of difference between Iran and colonial America. I think the money is flowing in a different direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 07 - 01:06 PM There's a past thread on abortion, address tht topic in it's proper thread. You must be playing in the outfield. Stick to what's on the plate! Homely "Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either" You certainly present an argument pushing a pro war/occupation agenda or are you just playing a devil's advocate, in which case you're trolling. As far as abortion, I don't care what you think, maybe in a different thread. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:45 PM Sorry, Dickey... I mean, Homey... But I didn't ***predict*** 56,000 death in Iraq in that quote... As for the occupation, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... Think about it this way, if you will... The year, 1776... The colonies were being occupied, taxed and bossed around by a colonial power much the way that Iraq is being occupied by the US... I guess the only difference is that the US isn't taxing them... Just strikling deals with Big Oil... There's really not much diffrence between the two situation... You have Torie Malaki and you have the Whig insurgents... And like 1776, both colonial powers had/have the biggest and baddest militaries which were/are really of no particular value in "winning" a war where an entire population had to be ***governed***... This is why the Iraq War is and has been lost for along time... It cannot be won any more than the Vietnam War could have been won... You see, colonialism is a failed concept when the oppressor has no real interst, knowledge, comapassion, understanding of those it oppresses... How can the oppressor *** govern*** such a people... The US has enough trouble trying to govern it ownself, Dickey, ahhhh, Homey... It's not up to the task from a cultural standpoint... Oh sure, we hear the Bush folks saying stuff like, "The Iraqi governemnt will do this or that"... Fine... Let them do this or that but they can't do this or that while being occupied and oppressed by a colonial power... There will be no legitamcy of the Iraqi goverment until it is free to find it's own way, solve its own conflicts, provide its own security and services... Think 1776 real hard and then maybe, just maybe, you will get it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Don Firth Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:38 PM "If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave." Oh, really!!??? I'd be quite interested in seeing that put to the test. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Amos Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM Homey: The question, to put it bluntly, is insane. No answer would serve. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:03 PM So is the war in Iraq your excuse for abortions? Notice I have not said I am pro war or anti abortion so don't accuse me of either. I just want to know how anybody can be both but questions seem to anger you. And I did Quote the entire thing on Date: 19 Dec 07 - 11:34 PM I am not bragging about my wisdom and accuracy like you but merely pointing out how you use the same tactics you accuse GWB of using except you are ***justified*** If Iraq is being occupied, all the government there has to do is ask us to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:56 AM Oh, so abortion clinics are the excuse de jour for US attacking and occupying Iraq??? I'm with Barry on this one, Homey, Dickey or whoever you are... Take yer butt down to the recruiting office... I'm growing a little tired of you tired excuses for not only invading a sovergn nation but continuing to occupy it... They have become like old dead fish... A little smellier every day... Oh, BTW, if yer ready to put ***your*** life where your ***mouth*** is I have a friend who can expedite things and have your blowhard self righteous butt in Iraq in 90 days... That's my Christmas present to you... B~ And for the record, I never actaully predicted 56,000 American deaths in Iraq... If you are going to quote me or state that I said this or that, quote it in the context of of the way it was written... In other words... The quote with the ***entire paragraph*** with it... Now, go pack your bags while I make the call... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 24 Dec 07 - 08:37 AM Ever been to an abortion clinic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 24 Dec 07 - 12:37 AM Are you for real??? People, & they are people are still dying, doesn't matter if less died today than yesterday! They are still dying , there's no reverseal on death! You arer still offering the same added on excuses that we've been hearing since day one "worldwide Islamic extremism", give me a break & please give it a rest. First it was WMD's, the some shit about democracy, oil, freedom, regime change. This isthe crusades with a new & improve cause, nothing more nothing less. You want this to continue, yo go over & die but don't preach this shit so that others can go & die, undeservingly in your place. Let the bastard that failed to show up for his own war die there & that'll put an end to this insane blood letting. There was no honor dying in Viet Nam & there'll be no honor dying here either. The shame falls on all those in government hat continues to allow this war to go on under it's so many excuses. If the US & their allies had kept their collective noses out of the mid east for the past century there would be no anti-western feeling coming from that area of the world. God forbid they'd probably be our friends. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:57 PM The Washington Post Saturday, December 8, 2007; Page A17 Pete Hegseth, executive director of Vets for Freedom, has coauthored an op-ed with Major General John Batiste. Batiste is the formerly "antiwar" general who spoke out against Donald Rumsfeld, and who, until recently, was a Board Member of VoteVets.org (the antiwar MoveOn.org vets front group. "First, the United States must be successful in the fight against worldwide Islamic extremism. We have seen this ruthless enemy firsthand, and its global ambitions are undeniable. This struggle, the Long War, will probably take decades to prosecute. Failure is not an option. Second, whether or not we like it, Iraq is central to that fight. We cannot walk away from our strategic interests in the region. Iraq cannot become a staging ground for Islamic extremism or be dominated by other powers in the region, such as Iran and Syria. A premature or precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, without the requisite stability and security, is likely to cause the violence there -- which has decreased substantially but is still present -- to cascade into an even larger humanitarian crisis. Third, the counterinsurgency campaign led by Gen. David Petraeus is the correct approach in Iraq. It is showing promise of success and, if continued, will provide the Iraqi government the opportunities it desperately needs to stabilize its country." There are two stories here: 1) A formerly anti-war general flips on supporting the war, and now believes Petraeus has the right strategy; and 2) Batiste has left VoteVets.org, and the antiwar movement, and joined up with the pro-troop, pro-surge, pro-victory Vets for Freedom. The antiwar movement has lost one of its most powerful voices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:40 PM Yeah, the smug pot calls the kettle black. In your big head you think everybody follows somebody. Unlike you, some people can actually think for themselves. Your crap that you cobbled together does not even rise to the level of circumstantial evidence. Your reasoning runs like this: People usually have bacon and eggs for breakfast so it has purdy much been proven that he had bacon and eggs for breakfast and that is the truth. All hail the great thinker and revealer of the truth. And the great predictor: "A brief look at it the scorecard is about all anyone needs to see to see that the "Surge" is just a bad joke being played on our troops, the Iraqis and the world in general... This war was never winable... B~ Washington Post: the Surge is Working Sunday, October 14, 2007 "A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 — down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. During the first 12 days of October the death rates of Iraqis and Americans fell still further. So far during the Muslim month of Ramadan, which began Sept. 13 and ends this weekend, 36 U.S. soldiers have been reported as killed in hostile actions. That is remarkable given that the surge has deployed more American troops in more dangerous places and that in the past al-Qaeda has staged major offensives during Ramadan. Last year, at least 97 American troops died in combat during Ramadan. Al-Qaeda tried to step up attacks this year, U.S. commanders say — so far, with stunningly little success." When are we going to reach that 56,000 mark you predicted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:53 AM Not just fools but blind followers of fools who themselves are incapable of independent critical thought... Huxley was right... Einstien was also right in observing that insanity is repeating a bevavior expecting different results... The Bush foriegn policy is by that definaition "insane"... Every time he has had an opportunity to do the right thing his "cowboy" mentality has led him to do the opposite... I just hope that if he orders up a bombing of Iran that the Joint Chiefs will refuse... I have heard from a couple of my retired career military friends who still have contacts in the Pentagon that such rumblings are prevailent... And no, Homey, you can't have their names becuase this was told me in confidence... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 11:31 AM "begin by telling us what we should do about Iran?" That's simple, shouldn't be hard though I guess you haven't thought it through much, have you! Iran is again no threat to US! Leave Iran to the Iranians & leave the US to US! Why do we need to involove ourselves with Iran? Why did we need to involove ourselves with Iraq? Is this nation growing fools for crops? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 09:50 AM I guess you'd rather be a follower of a self righteous coke-head, Homey??? Now things seem a little clearer about your thinking processes... As for proving that Bush knew??? Hey, I'll stick with my sources, my knowledge of the way things really work in governemnt and the arguments I've made... Perhaps you would like to prove that the Dec. 4th Washington Post article, which BTW the BUsh administartion never challenged, is wrong??? And lastly, you got the wrong guy... Im not the one who has built up a tidal wave of lies... All I have done is observe yer guy in action... Ain't rocket surgery... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:45 AM That sounds real cool and tough Bobert. Can you explain how the President knew in August the conclusions of a report whose preliminary conclusions were only presented on 15th November to Vice President Cheney, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and other senior officials. And whose final conclusions were only reached on 27th November? As asked by T. After that one Bob, you can explain how the economy has crashed. I was sliding into a recession when Bush took over from BJ Clinton. Bush turned it around despite 9/11 which was the result of BL Clinton's regime also and you have prospered as never before Under the Bush adminstration. At least in your posts you brag about economic gain. Notice I said ***After*** you answer the first question so you don't change the subject which always you is you first method to avoid answering a question, you just dish up some more inaccurate information like A lot of people were busy outin' Valerie Plame" well which one did it? You think that big tidal wave of "lies, half-lies and fantasies" you have built up over the years prove something. You think that repetition and volume can overcome logic and fact so you never stop to reason anything out. If you did that big balloon of truth you think you have starts loosing air. The fact is that Bush could not have known what was in the report when he made the speech. The article from the reporter of a newspaper that has been loosing readership is speculation designed to sell newspapers to gullible people that want to hear such things. These people are objectively looking for something to reinforce their prejudiced opinions rather than subjective looking for the truth. And lastly I don't need to need told by some self righteous pothead, what to do when. This is still a free country until jerks that think they know what everybody else do, change it. If you think you are particularly qualified to tell people what to do, begin by telling us what we should do about Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 23 Dec 07 - 08:05 AM You've hit the nail on the head, Barry... The real costs of this war cannot easily be measured... Every empire in history was brought down by over reaching... I'm not confident that the US hasn't set in motion a chain on events that will bring it to its knee... The working class is just about there now... I just think of the set of domestic priorities that faced our country in 2003 and just how much further along our country would be if Bush had turned his attention toward them... Now that opportunity is lost... The next administartion is going to have to have the balls to clean this crap up and it ain't going to be pretty... What really bugs me is that none of the candidates for president are offering a holistic plan for cleaning up the mess... Okay, Dennis Kucinich, is close but he doesn't get any microphone time so no one really hears his vision... The rest, Ron Paul and my guy, Obama, aren't articulating their views of the big-clean-up-picture which, of course, will have to happen before we can talk about big ticket things such as nationalized health care and energy independence... Yes, the cost of this war can't be measured strickly by how much we spent in dollars to invade and occupy Iraq... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 02:18 AM & further more we ain't seen nothin' yet. What we've seen from this administration so far, Iraq was just the peeble in the pond, we'll be reeling from the shock waves for many years to come, our grandchildren will feel the effects of the past 7 yrs. A bankrupt nation borrowing at a rate that well exceed the present lending scandle Disable vets without benifits or sufficent health care Homelessness, including the poor, the mentally disabled, & war vets Uneducated & undereducated working poor & middle classes Unhealthy middle & poor classes An inability to create new job markets or to supply intelligent workers for the markets that can be made A national defense system that can't keep it's military ranks filled & on a payroll & will have to surfice with outside contractors A VA health system that's become overwhelmed with in need of medically care vets A world ready to implode under the green & energy policies that we've choosen to lead the world in A drug, insurance & weapon's industries that govern the everyday choices of the major portion of our population A system of choosing leaders where soon only a rich idiot will run for office & where only a rich idiot will get in nd that's only the tip of the shit, wait till we get down into the bowl We are so are down the slippery slope with no insight as how to stop or even the inclination to stop that by the time we hit the bottom we won't be able to see the top anymore, we'll be putting of scuba gear just to see & catch our breath. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Dec 07 - 01:48 AM McGrath Many folks predicted &/or knew it would be a bad outcome, a very bad outcome & spoke up about it too. But no one & I mean no one could've imagined how bad Bush could've fucked up & how deep in the shit he'd put us, there was no scale at the time capuable of that type of measurement. God didn't even realize what a disaster this guy turned out to be. God didn't think he made any human this base. Actually he may not have created him at all. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 23 Dec 07 - 12:34 AM ...it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted." - McGrath Thats right. Bush wanted to believe it. He didn't question any of it because he wanted a war and he played the Christianity card by calling it a crusade. He instilled fear in the American public and manipulated that fear by creating hatred for Muslims. He should be prosecuted for hate crimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 09:11 PM Exactly, McG... These crooks have used up all the punches in their credibility punch card... Game over for the current batch of liars... Bring on the next batch... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:07 PM The question being essentially, "why shouldn't people believe the story that has been put out about how the President was kept in the dark about all this because the intelligence people were keeping schtum until they had dotted all the i's and crossed all theg t's/" And the simple answer is "Why should anyone believe a word that comes out of this administation about anything?" Or "Would you buy a used war from these people?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 07:01 PM Listen, Home-ster... T has asked my 2,378 questions over the years... Exactly which one of them has you so interested??? I'll be more than happy to answer it as I'd hate to ruin yer Christmas, 'er yer whatever... As for Val Plame, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people were purdy busy outin' her... What we know is that Cheney did... Rove did... Libby did and then lied about it and that's why he's doin' time... As for Bobert handlers... I don't need 'um... I'm on the correct side of the story, Homey, and on the correct side of history... The only folks who need handlers are screw-ups like your guy, Bush... Now, Home, be a good home boy, and go out and do some Christmas shoppin' so Bush won't have to expalin why the economy has crashed under his administration... And, oh yeah... ...Ho, ho, ho... Bobert Claus & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: GUEST,Homey Date: 22 Dec 07 - 06:35 PM *** Outing Valerie Plame??? Ahhhh Richard Amritage outed Valery Plame. At least according to him and Novack. Does any of Bobert's handlers want to jump in and clean that up? And Bobert still has not answered T's very sober question except with personal attacks and rhetoric. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: Bobert Date: 22 Dec 07 - 05:52 PM Freudian slip, Barry... We ain't invaded "Iran"... ...yet!!! But give Bush and his buds here in Mudville time and they will concoct some dumbass arguement to ivade, or at least bomb, Iran... Yeah, TIA... Seeems I do have a way of gettin' under the knotheads' skin... Ask me just how much that bothers me??? LOL... Ho, ho, ho... Bobert & the WGSR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: WMDs, Iran and Bush From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Dec 07 - 02:57 PM But none saw it as bad as it would eventually turn out to be. There were one, maybe two million, on the streets of London on the eve of the invasion who might disagree with that. The common practice in this kind of situation is for those respopnsible to talk about "the wisdom of hindsight", and "nobody could have predicted". But all too often it's a matter of culpable lack of foresight about things that were very definitely predicted. |
