Define and / or example a social contract.

And don't fret, Ibram; the idea that one can plagiarize oneself is complete bullshit. Anyone accusing you of it is full of something that makes the roses grow -- and check the color of his eyes.

I think he's more concerned about proving it is in fact himself he's plagiarizing--I mean, in theory he could plagiarize, say, something Elspode said, and when he got caught say, "No no, see, I'm Elspode!" and they may or may not believe him. By mentioning his paper he's establishing beforehand that "Ibram" is in fact "John Doe the student in Taiwan's" alias.

By definition, one cannot plagiarize oneself, but one may repeat oneself... even ad infinitum.

Yes, but UG, Clodfobble's right. I've already told my teacher and all and hes cool with it, but I'm just establishing that those ARE my words, and therefore NOT plagiarism.

Which was what I was saying, too.

Yes, but you being YOU, I had to argue.

Meanwhile, define and / or example a social contract.

read some rousseu, or voltaire, or locke. The social contract is the binding written OR nonwritten contract between the people and their government or the people and eachother; in the case of my paper, the constitution is the social contract of the US, and Bush violated it (repeatedly) by ignoring and violating the clear and binding text of both the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the part your paper must establish up front. I see little in common with the philosophies of rousseu, voltaire, etc and something written in stone - a Constitution. But then your definition of a social contract implies something vague (written or unwritten). As a contract, the two parties must be clearly defined - another definition that your paper must define up front.

Social contract is an expression to summarize ideas. But the noun is too vague; should be defined whenever or where ever it is used.

The assignment is to write about the social contract. The point is not to define the social contract; the point is to describe a current events situation in terms of the social contract.

Or YOU being you, you had to argue.

Let us be amused, and titter. :cool: <more or less throwing a dart at the smiley board>

Another example of how much George Jr (and Republican extremists who also use Hitler's propaganda techniques) so hates free markets and humanity; and so love K-street corruption and Urbane Guerrilla dictatorships. An exaggeration? Not for a minute. Cheney has always insisted that the president does not have enough power. From the NY Times of 29 Jan 2007:

This administration has decreed that every unit will have it's own politikal officer, to monitor the unit's loyalty to the Exekutive. God save us.

Sounds like the Politruks in Stalin's days....

Who are loyal supporters of George Jr? A bi-partisan senate resolution will condemn this president's denial of reality on "Mission Accomplished". Mental midget's supporters would block that vote. So who so hate America as to do that? From the NY Times of 30 Jan 2007: Susan Collins of Maine is one of the Republicans who takes centrist positions – who repeatedly demonstrates basic intelligence rather than loyalty to party liars. Why would McCain support liars?

We have the solution created by people without a political agenda. People who can think logically and who work for America rather than for wacko political extremists: the Iraq Study Group. This report was widely critical of Maliki using logic rather than a promise from god. IOW George Jr (and Cheney) lied again. ISG solution means defeat of "Mission Accomplished" might occur on George Jr's watch. George Jr's legacy is more important. Prolong the war. Lie to the nation. We are but fodder for his legacy.

"Mission Accomplished" will be completely decided by end of 2007. Also obvious is a major - a most important - point from the ISG. The only way that Iraqis can obtain peace is training. What do we know? Iraqis get almost no training despite administration (and Rush Limbaugh) lies. Where armor was required, we gave them pickup trucks. Iraqis were not even provided Chevy Suburbans. So where is all that money going? Most all weapons and equipment as provided has disappeared. Just like in Vietnam, major provider of Vietcong weapons was the United States. That was how incompetent Westmoreland was and how incompetent George Jr’s administration is today.

We have less than one year to train them and get out. After 2007, it will be even worse. Any longer and the conflict may expand into neighboring nations. If that is not obvious, well, did you hear why Turkey wants to (and may be encouraged by George Jr) to invade northern Iraq – especially Kirkuk.

We spent tens of $billions and no one knows where all that money went. Even the senate finally sees reality. But McCain and Graham demonstrate Urbane Guerrilla denial. They would even block a non-binding vote to protect a shitbag president. Maybe god talks to others besides George Jr?

Most educational institutions do not allow you to submit the same work twice for the purposes of marking, even if it's for different subjects. This may be what some might refer to as plagiarising yourself.

Funny sidebar. In the game Call of Duty, one of the missions is the Soviet retaking of Stalingrad (Leningrad?Moscow?). You start out without any weapons, and each squad has to take orders from political officers. At one point you or one of the other characters have to kill one of the political officers in order to get into position to move forward.

Normally I don't like to deliberately kill characters on my own side in games, but in this case I didn't have any problem.:apistola:

That is not why we are about to get out.
Of course they are talking about getting out of Iraq...
The law is about to pass giving us the oil and natural gas and he just got the extra troops to secure it... duh.
That was the whole reason for us being there.
Now that they got it, fuck the Iraqis.

Years ago, George Sr's close friend, Brent Scowcroft, was predicting how bad it would get. But no one really thought the George Jr administration was even more incompetant. If you did not notice last month, every previous Sec of State from Carter's, Reagan's, Bush Sr's, Clinton, etc have criticize Condi Rice in public testimony for not doing her job. She is criticized for doing same failures as National Security Advisor.

How deep is the denial? Another example of how much worse Iraq is compared to rosy pictures so often in the news. Remember reality - Americans are attacked as much as 3000 times every day - because the Iraqis love being liberated. From ABC News of 3 Feb 2007: As Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group stated bluntly during Congressional testimony, Maliki is useless and needs to be pressured. But how can this be? On his last trip to Iraq, George Jr said he looked into Maliki's eyes and therefore (somehow) knew. Lee Hamilton saw something completely different - by listening to what Maliki said.

From the Washington Post of 11 Feb 2007: Those with feet in reality knew how bad Iraq is just by reading the Iraq Study Group report and 79 tasks necessary to get out. That report that said "Way Forward" will not work? George Jr pretends it does not exist. He can because, well, read George Jr, Cheney, et al are as divorced from reality as Ronald Cherrycoke.

How divorced from reality are our leaders? Just like in Vietnam, ever major intelligence service said the bombing would not work. So we continued a lost war anyway - since the American soldier is something to be sacrificed. Only 22 Senators had to the balls to vote as American patriots against "Mission Accomplished". Even Hilary Clinton will not fully admit her major leadership fubar. Recently the Republicans (and Henry Reid) voted to protect this mental midget's crusade.

From The Economist of 10 Feb 2007 - and this should concern everyone: This is not a source to quibble with. The USS Eisenhower task force was surged to the Gulf recently. Now the USS Stennis is joining 'Ike' to conduct operations close to the Iranian coast.

Does that sound like a president listening to the people? Sounds just like Melvin Laird and Richard Nixon when they also claimed we had no plans to invade Cambodia. What resulted from that invasion? The Khmer Rouge and the killing fields.

Again: lessons from history. When a nation was obviously discontented with Vietnam (especially after Tet exposed the lies), then what did Nixon do? Nixon invaded Cambodia. We were only discontented. Deja vue. We are only discontented with "Mission Accomplished". So far, lessons of Vietnam strongly repeat in "Mission Accomplished". Why would a Cambodian invasion not reoccur as the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iran? After all, George Jr announced the countries he intends to fix - the axis of evil. Iran is next. You are only discontented.

How often would you ask a stranger "When do we go after bin Laden?" How often do you ask such embarrassing questions? Why not? By not doing so, we are tacitly encouraging the mental midget to expand on his legacy. He (actually Cheney) truly believe they are the good guys. Why would anyone dispute this? Even in the Cellar, the discontent is mild. Deja vue Vietnam - or why Nixon thought nothing of invading Cambodia.

"When do we go after bin Laden?"

The rhetoric has started to hype our 'big dics' into supporting more war. This Cover Story scary picture is based in current facts AND from lessons of Vietnam:

Odd
 

Strange how the US forensic experts can find serial numbers (in Microsoft Times font) on tiny fragments from explosives in Iraq which they can trace back to Iran (famous for stamping Microsoft Times font on all its illegal weapons intended for export)...

when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.

I expect they went on a refresher course between 2001 and 2007. That would explain it.

Next stop Iran
 

Ahmadinejad, being a devote follower of the Hidden Imam Mahdi, would love a US attack and prays for a "mahdaviat" every day. The more chaos the better, it'll only speed up the return of Jezus and the 15th Iman.

The only missing link, in Ahmadinejad's opinion, delaying the Mahdi’s arrival is that the world is still far too peaceful; the degrees of clash and disasters setting the chain of celestial events of "mahdaviat" have to gather speed. The recent mess in Lebanon by his proxies was a component of that uncompromising ideological fixation.

The powers to be in Iran, like Kathami, don't like this scenario and is in the, time consuming, process of deleting Ahmadinejad's power.

As usual, the present US government neither has any idea of the real power politics in Iran or has the patience to wait for that. Rummy the Great fortunately has been dismissed, so that will have a moderate influence on the decision makers, but, all or not pressured by Israel to fare another war by proxy, a stupid attack is still possible and Ahmadinejad gets his way and Kathami will be eliminated.

Aw, not this shit, again. Take it another thread. Better yet, take it to the YouTube comments section for the Loose Change video where you'll find some real insightful views.

:headshake

An intelligent leader would have recognized long ago that without 500,000 troops in Iraq and with no plans for the peace, then "Mission Accomplished" was lost long ago. Even the Iraq Study Group laid out the only possible way to reduce the scope of that loss. Instead, and because people such as Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke lie, then the mental midget president still thinks god must be telling him what to do.

Iraq is an American defeat. That was becoming obvious to anyone (but the most ignorant) by reading posts even here in the Cellar. Also noted in those posts: if we don't do something about Afghanistan, then even that war is lost. In fact, we may be down to our last year to do anything productive in Afghanistan. Logic says Afghanistan should have been lost years ago.

Cellar dwellers were reading that here more than a year ago when posted was that about one-half of Afghanistan was had been retaken by the Taliban. Yes, NATO is in so much trouble that, last year, the British commander only got from Tony Blair one-tenth the number of troops he requested.

Well Afghanistan is so much worse than reported in the press that the president demands NATO countries put more troops into Afghanistan. Wait? What nation spent one half trillion dollars and did not ... well this question is asked repeatedly only by those who have posting nothing but respect for reality: When do we go after bin Laden?

Why does the scumbag president chastise NATO when the mental midget does everything to empower the Taliban? Who is one of the Taliban's greatest enemies? Iran. Who would be more willing than anyone else in the world to attack and destroy the Taliban? Who did the most after September 2001 to help America destroy the Taliban? Iran. Who does the mental midget condemn without even knowing where the country was? Answer obvious.

And so we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban only because the American president is that dumb. So the dumb president chastises NATO for not doing enough to attack the Taliban? Why did the scumbag president (also called Cheney) attack Saddam? And when do we go after bin Laden?

He's certainly not going to take advice from you, tw. Your antipatriotism has been clear from the moment I rejoined the Cellar.

Instead he's taken advice from great chickenhawk patriots like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith.

The majority of the US population is against the Iraq war, are these all communists?

From the NY Times of 20 Mar 2007: George Jr’s legacy is safe. US can no longer respond to an emergency let alone fight a second war. Both were once considered essential to protect America. But George Jr is making America safer – for his legacy.

He is a classic 'big dic'. If the Army had the resources, then our 'big dic' administration would be starting another war. That is their political agenda as defined by Project for a New American Century.

A few years ago was a debate: whether US military doctrine (two simultaneous wars) still existed. George Jr so destroyed US military readiness as to quash that "2nd war" ability years ago. Of course mental midget's Rumsfeld and Cheney denied this. Well that debate is now moot. (Even US Eighth Army in Korea would have serious shortages of equipment and material ... and no backup; should you wonder why America suddenly wants to negotiate with N Korea). US military is now so massively diminished that even a Division Ready Brigade no longer exists.

A Division Ready Brigade is active for 18 weeks in Fort Bragg to deploy with only 18 hours notice out of Pope Air Force Base. Within hours of landing, they are expected to enter combat. This was once considered essential to American security. Even that ability is now gone.

What is necessary as "Mission Accomplished" continues well beyond 2010? Yes, George Jr's administration has already declared that "Mission Accomplished" will continue well beyond 2010. As George Jr said yesterday, "this war is still in the beginning phase". "Mission Accomplished". He was referring to the surge – is what we are expected to think.

How long has so much contempt existed for the American soldier? Well, remember Jessica Lynch and her 507th Maintenance Company? Did you read the entire story? George Jr's people made sure you did not. Col Teddy Spain needed all 20 MP Companies to provide escort for units such as Jessica's. Jessica’s unit was equipped and trained assuming MP assets would be provided. Administration mental midgets took away 17 of Col Spain’s 20 companies as being unnecessary. 507th had no heavy weapons training, no GPS, no radios, no night vision, and no escort. 27 of 33 soldiers were lost.

George Jr hopes you never learn why the 507th drove directly into an ambush in Nasiriyah. They were denied protection and escort that military planning deemed necessary. Protection denied on orders from George Jr's people. Orders came from that high.

Tom and Ray from NPR’s ‘Car Talk’ took a call from Baghdad. The caller was asking for a solution to Humvee bearing problems. Attached armor is destroying wheel bearings every three weeks. Humvees sent to Iraq were never capable of supporting that amour. Is this an isolated event? Of course not. "Making of a Quagmire". Change the details and Vietnam is now "Mission Accomplished". But you don’t need to know these 2005 realities.

Like a spread sheet, each lurker is just learning of “ 2005 Mission Accomplished”. How bad will "Mission Accomplished" be in late 2007? We will finally learn in 2010. Even US Eight Army in Korea is now at risk. The US military is so depleted by George Jr and his 'big dics' that America has even lost our firemen – “Division Ready Brigade”.

Same opinions today existed in 1968 after Tet. If history repeats, then 1968 to 1975 ... we will be massacring American soldiers uselessly until 2014. People were angry but did nothing more in 1968 as Nixon massacred another 30,000 Americans to protect his legacy.

3,000 dead Americans. 23,000 seriously wounded. So little money left that a soldier lying in his own urine could not have sheets for his bed. History says these are the good times; it will get worse.

History also says younger Cellar dwellers will be in my position in 30 years. Don’t forget how so few were posting realities and facts in 2002. You will need that experience in 2040 when a new generation of ‘big dics’ take power to massacre the American soldier for a political agenda – the ‘big dic’ mentality.

New wheel bearings every three weeks. About 10 hours of helicoprter maintenance for every 1 hour of flying. Don’t worry. We’re rich. And they are only soldiers – sacrificial soldiers. After all, they signed up for this. More important – protect George Jr’s legacy. Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Urbane Guerrilla will thank you.

From the Kalleej Times in Dubai of 2 Apr 2007: His exact words (boldface mine) were: That's right. It is an occupation - not liberation. This from a closest George Jr friend?

From the Jerusalem Post of 2 Apr 2007:
Clear is an entire region rejecting (apparently as irrelevant) George Jr and his wacko extremists. Jordan and Saudi Arabia, considered America's closest Arab allies, have literally backhandedly slapped George Jr's face - and done so publicly so that you know it. Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan both cancel dinners? No way around it. That is a direct snub of the scumbag president who has zero credibility in the world.

But it gets worse. Up in Poland, a very pro-American defense minister Radek Sikorski has lost his job. From the Economist of 31 Mar 2007: George Jr policy was to 'not do as Clinton'. Clinton's Arab/Israeli shuttle diplomacy, et al were condemned, as George Jr people repeatedly said, because Clinton did it. Suddenly Rice is trying to rescue concepts once called the Oslo Accords by doing what? Shuttle diplomacy. Suddenly talks with N Korea are being conducted just as Clinton did ten years earlier - a new treaty almost exactly like one originally negotiated by Carter and vocally rejected by neocons from Project for a New American Century. Suddenly what Clinton was doing is now acceptable?

Too little too late. From the Associated Press of 1 Apr 2007: Why is Pelosi doing Shuttle diplomacy? Israel also has little faith in what Rice had to say. The region was ripe for peace when 'big dics' decided to fix things with preemption. Never forget what a Norwegian foreign minister predicted in the first months of the George Jr administration: George Jr would undermine the Oslo Accords. And, of course, that is exactly what the mental midget did.

Why use Pelosi as the negotiator? She is the closest thing Israel can find to an American honest broker; someone who wants peace? Why couldn't Olmert have done same with Condi Rice who was just there last week? George Jr would not know peace if it bit him in the nose he once used for cocaine.

What is the White House response? White House mental midgets tell Pelosi to not convey any message from Israel to Syria. Why is the White House so fearful of peace?

Do not expect anything good to come of events here. A message about 'stopping terrorism' is only a message of 'maybe we can talk'. Nothing more. But the backhanded face slaps of George Jr by Arab leaders is long overdue. Both King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan canceled visits with one of America's greatest 'worst president'.

Meanwhile, 15 British hostages are now caught up in America's 'big dic' threats - war games conducted in the Persian Gulf off Iran's coast. As Martha Raddatz of ABC News noted: Military operations intentionally created upon White House orders - as if a classic 'big dic' response would solve anything. Military threats made it more difficult for moderate Iranians to gain the upper hand and end an undesirable hostage standoff.

What has now arrived in the Gulf? More US Navy ships including aircraft carriers USS Bataan (of New Orleans / Katrina fame) and her sister ship USS Boxer. Why Marine assault ships and so many mine sweepers? 'Big dic' neocons believe in preemption rather than intelligent negotiation. Even Poland - once most trusting and supportive of any thing American now say Americans cannot be trusted. But you cannot tell that even to 'big dic' advocates in the Cellar. Their response is akin to something about jealousy of Americans or some hidden agenda. The only thing hidden is intelligence among George Jr supporters. When only Pelosi is trusted enough to deliver a message? When even Kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are *publicly* too busy for a state dinner?

They found both. In DC they cleaned it up and PA decided not to disturb it except clean up what's on the ground surface.

Munitions are usually designed with small hard parts,extra shrapnel you know. Commercial planes are not, and they can still identify an amazing number of tiny scraps and know exactly where they came from.

So your contention is that no airplane crashed in the ground in Penn or the Pentagon!?!?! :eek: :bonk:

Ok, answer me this... not a very hard question so just try to stick to answering this one very simple thing, ok?


Where are they hiding all of those people who were on the airplane manifest's???? They have them hold up in a camp in the hills? Was it a conspiracy among the funneral directors to have a bunch of false funnerals so they could make some money? Wait, wait, no I got it... it was a conspiracy from the air plane manufactures because those two planes were old and they wanted to remove them from the inventory so they just made them invisable on the radar and flew them to some secret location and all those people are really just hanging out down in Mexico on the beach sipping fruity drinks... THAT's it! Isn't it!?!?!?

Well? Help me out here. :blunt:

The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one. I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC are pretty much busted by real engineers along with most of the other main critiques but you can't prove that the US didn't have anything to do with it.

And IMHO you can't prove any of them.

You can prove them but the ones you can prove most likely never happened for obvious reasons.

If the US was involved in 9/11, I am 99% sure we would never find out or couldn't prove it but you technically could prove it. You can never prove that they didn't though.

It is basically like the "is there a god" debate. If a god shows itself then, yes, it is proven but that will really never happen so you can't really prove that god exists unless that happens. It also goes both ways with you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

Hence the basis of all conspiracy theory. Voids that allow others to fill in and make connections that do not exist. But because there is enough mistrust among all governments or controlling organizations there are people out there that will believe anything. Well that is until you point out the GLARING idiocy in their thinking, hence my example above about the airplanes in Penn and the Pentagon.

From looking through different conspiracies I have found two similarities. First, everyone one of them want the conspiracies to be true and they all think they are seeing things that everyone else is missing, making them to try to further see things that aren't there.

There are some very good questions regarding the 9/11 conspiracy (the fact that Bush needed 9/11 to do just about everything he has done so far) but that isn't proof by any means.

From The Washington Post of 11 Apr 2007: Nothing new in a report that confirms what the generals have long been saying quietly. This has long been a problem for George Jr and especially under Rumsfeld. An administration that overtly mocked even basic military doctrine is still dominated by the same wacko mental midgets.

No accident that the administration had to reach way down to Lt Gen Sanchez to find a commander for "Mission Accomplished". Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.

Meanwhile, why a Czar for "Mission Accomplished" and Afghanistan? That is the job of Central Command's commander? Or is this Admiral not able to run both Central Command wars? Why another layer of bureacracy? Or must Central Command prepare for a third war? Who would an Admiral conduct attacks against?

Since 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management, then why would anyone work for an administration with so much contempt for the American soldier? Why would the administration need another general - another level of bureacracy? The obvious part is why so many generals don't want to work for George Jr's administration - where contempt for basic military doctrine is so extensive.

maybe this should go in the "politics" thread... but oh well
 

All politicians are corrupt. In order to attain that level of power, one must be willing to give up one's soul. There's no hope for this system or any other system of government that takes the power out of the direct control of the people. And until people can regulate themselves without chaos, there's no hope for that either.

Well, the administration has a pretty narrow candidate profile- someone smart enough to make it to 4 star general and dumb enough to take the job.

Since so many soldiers are already being recruited from the ranks of non-citizens, maybe they'll offer the job to a general from Mexico or South America. I'm sure Cheney probably has some friends from the old military junta days in Chile. He should ask one of them.

Who would want to take the job knowing that the White House will put it's own agenda above dealing with the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention (and blame) away from themselves onto whoever fills the slot. In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.

Between this and the EPA debacle in the supreme court, it appears that the administration wants the power, but not when it comes with responsibility and accountability.

I just read a great quote from Lee Iacocca's new book, Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

Tell it Lee!

Bombs? What bombs? You probably believe that a missle struck the pentagon too?

Do a little a research on the pentagon, and read the interviews with the two firefighters that were there at the helicopter landing pad. (In one of the photos taken that day, you can see a burning fire truck.) They will tell you it was PLANE they saw. And have the burns on their backs from running away!

What was always more important? Early in 2003, the White House had White House spokesmen assigned to Central Command public information offices just so the message was correct. Realities are secondary when MBAs and lawyers make the decisions. (Same people who said global warming does not exist and that Man to Mars will advance science.)

Humvees had no armor. Why? "Mission Accomplished". If we sent armor kits, then that would be an admission that "Mission Accomplished" had not happened. The message was more important than realities. Therefore soldiers died.

A soldier asks Rumsfeld why so few armored humvees. Rumsfeld said the armor was being delivered as fast as possible. Again, a message was more important than reality. Company that made those armor kits said they could increase production by something like 400 per month - but Rumsfeld would not order it. Why? The message was “Mission Accomplished”. Therefore more soldiers died.

Message said evil Baathists must be removed. Where did military doctrine even from 500 BC (Art of War) ever appear in that message? Therefore Baathists, teachers, electric utility workers, government officials, police, military, .... all were fired because of the message. Therefore 'the message' created an insurgency.

The message said Saddam has WMDs everywhere. Better to leave those ammo dumps alone. Message was more important than reality. Therefore the country remains chock full of munitions to arm an insurgency.

Col Spain needed his twenty MP companies to perform his job. He got three. Why? The message was that the Iraqis would welcome occupation forces. When that did not happen, then the 507th Maintenance Company (Jessica Lynch) was virtually wiped out. They were deployed with no radios, no GPS, and without the MP escorts they were equipped to expect and that would have provided protection. Message was that Jessica Lynch was shot and captured while firing her weapon. More lies because the message is always more important than reality.

The message was “There’s no question but that in those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute”. Wolfowitz repeated the same message on Capitol Hill: “remnant of the old regime”; that resistance was almost eliminated. Therefore reality - a massive American created insurgency was growing and killing Americans in increasing numbers. An insurgency created by Bremer and the George Jr administration then was renamed Al Qaeda. Again the message was more important than reality. Label them as bogeymen rather than angry Iraqis who wanted Americans gone.

After October 2003, Americans were being attacked 1500 and 3000 times every day. The message from Rumsfeld was, "We're in a low intensity war that needs to be won, and we intend to win it." Over 1000 attacks every day is low intensity? But reality was contrary to the message. So many Americans had so much contempt for the troops as to believe the message.

By mid-October, the insurgency was obviously spiking. Instead US commanders were planning for troop reductions to 100,000 the next summer and something like 40,000 by next year. Why? The message was Iraqis were happy to be liberated - when their lives had never been worse. But again, the message is more important than reality.

By this point, after obviously lying about WMD, one might say, “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.” Instead, majority of American were believing the message; ignoring reality; blaming the press for being too negative.

"Mission Accomplished" was never justified by a smoking gun. It has no strategic objective. Therefore it has no exit strategy. All this is now being demanded by Congress that wants milestones. George Jr is fighting and obstructing what the military needs. No strategic objective means victory is not possible - Vietnam deja vue complete with contempt for the troops.

Wait... wait... I think I see light at the end of the tunnel. No. That's someone looking for electricity in Baghdad. Why would anyone with intelligence want to work for an administration enchanted by their own message? Why would they want to accept blame when so many Americans would not even see through “the message” from a compulsive liar?

A “Mission Accomplished” Czar must ignore reality to promote the President Cheney message.

Uh TW, it's really a small point but my post read:

You quoted me as: (I added the underlines)

I don't mind anyone snipping sections from posts. Even doing what reviewers do with the "It was a great book......great summer read" is ok.

The meaning wasn't altered significantly, and I realize that my original sentence was in danger of becoming a run-on sentence. However, I really don't want anyone acting as my editor here. Parsing quotes is fine. Actually changing words and sentences, even if the result is an improvement, is not a good idea.

I really do enjoy your input and I am very happy that you quoted me, so I hope that you will not take this as a rebuke but rather as a minor correction.

When in my post did I say I believe in the 9/11 conspiracy?

The actual quote you quoted me from says "I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC is busted" meaning that I don't believe in it and have evidence that supports my opinion. Don't quote me and accuse me of saying one thing when my post clearly says the other.

I did not realize I had perverted the quote. Don't know how it happened but my mistake is not relevant to the topic. I have no idea either how or why I would have perverted that quote so massively.

Points posted were facts related to your original post. Irrelevant is whether it contradicts or confirms what you posted. The situation: why so many generals have proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" as wrong for various reasons - including every general that served in Iraq and has since retired .... that fact remains.

Facts posted are the reality of our current history and therefore current situation. Because same mental midgets remain and continue to lie to us, then why would any general want to work for people whose "message" is more important than reality? Military professionals even list examples of dead soldiers because the "message" had no basis in reality. Specific examples of dead soldiers directly attributed to *the message*.

Everyone here should have long learned those lessons; be it from W E Deming's concepts (ie "Out of Crisis") or from Vietnam. Tactical victories are wasted efforts when conducted without a strategic objective. Quality control inspectors mean no quality. In each case, doing a better job means no victory; no accomplishment. - because the bigger picture is bogus; a lie.

Even if the enlisted man believes he is doing so much good, his perspective hides a reality: his good intentions are wasted when not contributing to a viable strategic objective. So many 2003 soldiers insisted they were doing so much good when reality was opposite. It was only creating an insurgency. They would not know - they could not see the bigger picture - the strategic objective that did not exist.

A general who fails to understand why the "message" has no basis in reality would take that Czar job. That job is a no win situation because a political agenda - wacko extremist bias - is subverting realities. No strategic objective is a well proven formula for defeat.

Vietnam is the classic example of why a war could not be won - why propaganda - the message - a political agenda - will only create more dead troops. The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington is a tribute to so many killed watefully because our leaders were so self serving and stupid - did not have the courage and intelligence to acknowledge reality. Vietnam dead because the president’s legacy was more important than 30,000 American lives.

Why would anyone want to work for people with so little intelligence, so little grasp, so little courage, and massive, self serving political agendas? Yes, what George Jr is doing borders on treason; with so much contempt for the American soldier.

As an MBA, then what is his solution? Another layer of bureaucracy? George Jr, an MBA without 'dirt under his fingernails', has a long history of solving problems with more bureaucracy and increased spending. He even denies our only viable solution - the Iraq Study Group.

A Czar will somehow accomplish what is supposed to be the job of Central Command? No. But then we have leaders so short on intelligence as to even increase a subordinates pay from $130,000 to about $195,000 per year just for sex (that is not considered as despicable bad as 'nappy headed ho'?). Just another example of how wacko the entire George Jr administration really is.

Why would any General want to work for people with so much contempt of the American soldier, American principles, and Americans? No wonder religious right extremists are so in love with these *leaders*.

WTF is this referring to?

Wolfowitz put his girlfriend on the fast track in the World Bank. More than that- she got raises well past the limit.

Remember who Wolfowitz is. He originated and campaigned extensively for "Mission Accomplished". An agenda still strongly advocated by this administration's neocons in direct opposition to the Iraq Study Group. Wolfowitz today was caught again lying; this time about his letter to a Vice President for Human Resources. Of course. He is completely representative of those who believe "the message" justifies the means. Or as was argued back in Nam: the ends justifies the means.

Lying to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to protect 'your' oil: acceptable. Lying to have the World Bank pay another $50,000 per year for Wolfowitz's sex: also acceptable especially when it is 'your' World Bank. Lying about a free and consensual blow job if you are a Democrat? Impeachable.

As so many military analysts have noted, 'the message' has even resulted in American soldier deaths. But then another righteous administration also had same contempt for 30,000 American soldiers in Nam.

Notice what constitutes 'morality' - a direct snub in the face of anyone who calls themselves religious and yet remains silent about these so moral administration officials - both recent and current.

I don't believe in morality. I believe those who advocate morality are the reason why the World Bank was paying an additional $50,000 per year for Wolfowitz's "nappy headed ho".

So where did they move her? Protected in the State Department to work for Wolfowitz's 'moral' peers. Why are the religious among us so silent? After all, Wolfwitz is what we once called the 'moral majority'.

Clinton did not pay for his sex. Wolfowitz did with the bank's money. Clinton confronts impeachment? Then Wolfowitz should be facing capital punishment. Oh. Wolfowitz is from the moral party. Therefore he should be punished less severely than Don Imus?

Funny. Don Imus exercised his 1st Amendment rights and gets punished far more severely. Wolfowitz's even overtly lied to kill hundred of thousands and make refugees of 4 million. Therefore he may not even suffer punishment as severe as Imus'? Justice has a double standard? Yes as long as your supporters are so 'moral'.

Moral to me is how the most hateful people justify their own crimes and protect their own at the expense of mankind. $50,000 annually to buy sex for Wolfowitz. As moral as a pedophile Catholic priest. Double standard.

It's not just that Wolfowitz exercised questionable activities for the benefit of his 'nappy headed ho'. He also lied repeatedly about doing these things.

Shaha Riza would see her income rise from $130,000 to $244,000 which his $20,000 higher than the maximum for her pay grade. But then having a moral boss can be so profitable.

Wolfowitz Dictated Girlfriend's Pay Deal
World Bank Board Weighs Its Options
Just too many details to summarize anything here. Read the long list of 'moral' decisions from a founding member of Project for a New American Century.

In hip hop, it is acceptable to 'have a ho in every state'. Clearly when a bank president has only one ho in Washington, well, that's good and moral? Same double standard also justified Wolfowitz's lies about Saddam's WMDs. Clearly he is more moral this time because he only had one ho and the bank - not he - paid for her.

In Vietnam, tw, the end was to prevent the grip of the bad religion, Communism, from tightening around the throat of the Vietnamese. This is an end of most excellent nobility and humanity, no?

You, of course, complain of how many Communist cultists die to achieve this end.

That is why you suck so very bad. You wanted and want the bad religion to misrule our world.

Reality was obvious in 2004 when insurgents (that myth promoters called Al Qaeda) could spend all morning adjusting their mortars with a transit in a neighborhood adjacent to Abu Ghriad. Why? Because no Iraqis would report the insurgents or their planned attack on Abu Ghriad. Those who 'assumed' Americans were so welcome as liberators had to completely ignore these so obvious details. Insurgents could spend all morning setting up for an attack while MPs in Abu Ghriad never knew an attack was coming. Everyone else knew it because Americans were not welcome - despite American domestic propaganda.

Again, the details are damning. This sounds too much like Vietnam. From the NY Times of 16 Apr 2007: Deja vue Nam.

As the president declared we were winning, attacks on American increased - in Nam. They tell us the surge is working. Well, protection measures have now been increased even in the Green Zone - only place in Baghdad considered save for Americans. From ABC News of 9 May 2007:

Almost one in three Americans still support a mental midget and his "Mission Accomplished". Every general who served in Iraq and since retired has spoken out against his war. The Iraq Study Group defined an effective solution to minimize a resulting defeat – as the Wise Men did in Vietnam when we also ignored them to massacre 30,000 more American soldiers.

Generals are doing what any patriotic America would do: tell the truth. Necessary to protect American troops. From ABC News of 9 May 2007: Remember George Jr is a fool who promotes a mythical worldwide terror organization that he calls Al Qaeda. Terrorist cells led by bin Laden are conjugating even in Cherry Hill NJ. Oh. These terrorists could not even discover that their automatic weapons would not work?

So why did George Jr make no effort to go after bin Laden? He even eliminated the Alec Station whose only function was to get bin Laden. Better for George Jr, politically, to have bin Laden alive. Reality - only threat to Americans in Iraq is ... George Jr. Phony threats such as Al Qaeda will keep the naive from learning reality.

An obvious reality exists as even demonstrated by Cellar Dwellers in The impending Veto. The United States has no smoking gun to justify "Mission Accomplished", has no strategic objective, and has no exit strategy. Confronted by this reality, supporters of George Jr cannot deny it. US no longer even has a Division Ready Brigade.

Hearsay according to those who support the troops. Irrelevant to ‘big dic’ thinkers who only see things in terms of military explosions such as ‘shock and awe’ (as if that had any strategic significance). Latter cannot see the difference between a tactical objective and a strategic one. After all, ‘shock and awe’ was big explosion. Therefore it must have accomplished something strategic.

This missing strategic objective was defined even four years ago here in The Cellar. How many dwellers noticed that reality back then?

Four years later and wacko extremists still cannot find an objective? Five years later and still no attempt to get bin Laden? Still they promote this mythical worldwide Al Qaeda lurking everywhere to kill us all? Yes - because it serves George Jr to lie. One in three have so much contempt for the America soldier as to ignore reality. More important is George Jr’s legacy.

Tonight on PBS News Hour, Sen Olympia Snow (R-Maine) even defines the problem. Every commander in Iraq that she talked to – everyone – said that a military victory cannot win this war. Of course. So obvious even from Sze Tzu’s book of 2500 years ago. What Senator Snow says is doctrine from Military Science 101.

Condi Rice was on Charlie Rose recently. Charlie pressed her constantly on their alternative plan should the Maliki government fail (and it is slowly losing supporters). Finally, Rice conceded that George Jr's administration had no alternative plan because their plan was to not fail. "Mission Accomplished". That was Charlie Rose on 7 May 2007.

Any war - including "Mission Accomplished" - is a defeat without a strategic objective. Even Gen Patraeus admits his effort is only a tactical objective intended to give Maliki time to establish a viable government. IOW Americans cannot win "Mission Accomplished". No strategic objective. Americans can only stall for time. Therefore the war will not be lost on George Jr's watch. Why is this obvious? What is the strategic objective? Crickets.

Moderate (intelligent) Republicans are realizing reality. A consensus is building in Congress among moderates (intelligent) and Democrats that September should be the cutoff date. Screw Condi Rice who never had a plan - even when warned repeatedly of terrorist threats in 2001. The legacy of George Jr – America’s worst president in 100 years. At least Nixon was smart enough to know he was lying. What should we expect when President Cheney tells him what to think?

What is a strategic objective? This basic military / political concept is demonstrated using a well known historical event in The impending Veto .

It looks like the GOP finally had an intervention.

Of course, some people just don't get it. On Scarborough Country tonight, Michael Reagan criticized generals who criticized the war saying that they shouldn't criticize unless they can come up with something other than 'cut and run'.

That is an amazingly stupid argument. It's like saying you can't stop a truck driver from driving drunk unless you can show that you know how to drive his truck. If the only two choices are leaving or brining back the draft and sending in 500,000 troops, is that what the generals have to propose?

Meanwhile...

And: . . .

And what doesn't have much to do with post #536, so it's post #537: the Democratic Party is in this unseemly hurry to lose a war with non-democrats, a/k/a fascists, the Ba'ath-Fascist connection starting with the WW2-era Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and continuing since -- and thus the Democratic Party gives the most profound lie to even its name.

The problem is chronic. Was it or was it not a Democratic-controlled Congress that cut off munitions funds to South Vietnam, guaranteeing thereby the Communist North's victory and the hellish conditions that anyone with half an eye could see coming as a direct result of the Communist victory? Is it or is it not a Democratic-controlled Congress trying to get the war lost, again by defunding, just as rapidly as may be? These people do not have the Republic's interest either in mind or at heart, and do not deserve any American's support. To support these despot-loving boobs, you must be stupider even than they.

Guess who's not that stupid.

The only Democrats presently worth a damn are the registered Democrats in uniform. These and only these Democrats are acting in the Republic's interest.

Urbane, you talk as if we haven't already lost the war.

It may be an uncomfortable truth, and one you don't want to admit, but that doesn't change it. Look at basic facts. Our troops live on a heavily fortified base. When we leave the base we are attacked. We go out into Iraq, perform a mission, and then return to the base to sleep. When we return to the base, it's as if we hadn't gone out into the country at all, because the insurgency comes right back as soon as we leave. We have no long term impact on the situation outside the base. If we were making progress, it would be a different story. Please point to any progress we have made in Iraq.

I know you are afraid to admit it, but we lost this one. The longer we take to admit what is obvious, the more troops will die. The more men will come home on gurneys to shattered lives. How many lives would you destroy for nothing?

The timing of the Democrats is horrible. They should have opposed this war before it started. They were spineless wimps for not standing up to Bush back then. But it's better late than never.

That sounds familiar.

I've been paying attention to all this (The Iraq part of the war), and ALWAYS wondered why, exactly, we were fighting in the first place.