The impending Veto
 

I wish the process would move faster. Bush is going to veto it and there are not enough votes to over turn it, which puts the process squarely back into the lap of Congress to fit. If I were Bush, who we all know is going to veto it, I would be waiting at the door of the White House with a pen in hand. When they broght it to the door, I would not even let them in, sign it and send it right back so I could have my weekend off. This is like watching grass grow.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

It's all about the drama...both sides are doing great right now.

I see Bush getting hurt worse by this than the Dems and Congress. The general sentiment seems to be drastic action on Iraq, which the president seems unwilling to do. And I don't consider a troop surge to be drastic.

Which is also what you said when dead soldiers were arriving in Dover AFB.

Ha. Really? Did you get a hard-on when you said that? :D

Thats what we get for voting in lawyers...

And that is precisely why it is moving as slowly as it is. It's more effective this way. It's all about having the issue in the news cycle for as long as possible.

It is nice to see Congress deliberate instead of prostrating before the executive, looks a little like a Republic.

If Bush vetos this bill, it just proves that he doesn't support our troops.

Isn't this a comparable situation to the Clinton Impeachment? Everybody new that there wouldn't be enough votes to impeach, but the repubicans just kept pushing it through.

That would be bullshit. It proves that he is going to do what he said he would do. Not something that I really support. But for my friends who are there it sends the wrong message IMHO. Either pull out completely now or fund the troops. But don't tell them how to do their job.

Sure I guess. Everybody is going to try to spin it to their advantage.

That would be bullshit. Nothing in the bill says how they should do their jobs.

Bullshit to that. When you order a withdrawl that is telling people who have no business to do so, how to conduct a military operation. That is telling them how to do their job any way you care to spin it.

You assume the military is doing it now, the way they would without political interference .... that is bullshit.

No, they can and should withdraw by whatever means they see fit. But it is not up to the military how long it stays in any particular war. Either Congress or the President can end it whenever they want. Of course, it's harder for Congress to do it.
No, it's telling them what job to do. The military doesn't pick its jobs.

Either way, for both sides this is political posturing.

The Dems really just want us to pull out of Iraq, period. (btw I wouldn't give two shits if they did, just don't blame us for the impending genocide)

The Repubs don't want the Dems to control the timeline.

If the Dems had any balls on the issue they would drop all of the bull crap and completely show their true intentions and immediately cut all funding like Murtha wants. But of course they don't have the balls to do that.

Who's we?

Why is that?

Who will decide when America is defeated? Do we keep sacrifice another 57,000 because we cannot admit to reality - to only protect a president's legacy? TheMercenary has just posted sacrifice more rather than admit reality. That is what Nixon would do.

Those who support a mental midget president will not even answer basic Military Science 101 questions.

What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

Those with contempt of American soldiers must avoid such questions. George Jr's political agenda and legacy are more important than providing troops what is necessary - such as armor - such as a viable strategy - sufficient numbers - answers to basic MS 101 questions. Those with contempt for the soldiers will not even acknowledge those questions exist. Those with contempt for the American soldier do not demand benchmarks - just like in Nam. No benchmarks imposed on a lying president simply massacred another 30,000 American soldiers. That is blunt contempt for the soldier, for the victimized nation of Iraq, and for anyone who considered Stalin, Milosevic, Saddam, and Hitler evil.

Good people should let George Jr massacre millions only for his glory and legacy? Imposing no benchmarks is to be an accessory to that massacre. Benchmarks will protect the American soldier from George Jr. Neither George Jr nor others with contempt for everything American will even touch three simple questions.

TheMercenary is right about one thing. Democrats are being too civil with a satanic president who would massacre good Americans to only protect his legacy. Posted is so accurate that George Jr supporters - those with contempt for humanity - cannot even answer three simple Military Science 101 questions. What color is my gauntlet? It's only three simple questions. George Jr cannot even pass a pop quiz - three simple questions. We cannot restrict him enough to protect the American soldier.

Not you. The last Conspiracy Theorist to run a country like you want things done was Hitler.

Tw is not a conspiracy theorist.

Tw says nothing about NWO, 9/11 as a set up, NAU, or whatever else they think of. Tw is pointing out a big personality flaw about Bush that is killing many Americans along with Iraqis while breaking ties with many of our former allies.

Maybe, just maybe, when the Dems say they want us to pull out in a half year, that's exactly what they mean. Maybe they think that pulling out immediately would be catastrophic, but setting a timetable will allow proper planning to take place.

Oh, what am I thinking? You know better than the Democrats what their true intentions are. No point in letting them tell us what their intentions are. You are Merc, and you know all.

Again, TheMercenary must post a strawman - Conspiracy Theorist - to avoid answering three simple questions based in Military Science 101.

What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

Simple questions. Those with contempt for the troops must avidly avoid those questions. What do the troops need more than anything else? Answers to three questions. Only way American soldiers will get what they need from an extremist president? Benchmarks as required by law.

Democrats who are demanding such benchmarks are clearly supporting the troops - as we should have in Nam. Three simple questions. Sen. McCarthy would be proud that extremism - "enemies are everywhere" - is alive and well in America. Where is the Michigan Milita when we need them most?

Clearly with more and bigger guns, then we need not answer three simple Military Science 101 questions. Might even makes right. Those who massacre Americans for a politcal agenda must avoid those questions and therefore cannot see the inevitable defeat - deja vue Nam. It’s patriotic to massacre American soldiers to no purpose? Of course when we avoid answering three simple questions. So TheMercenary spins reality into conspiracy myths - to avoid three simple questions.

OK, for those who say that Bush doesn't support our troops:

By vetoing the war spending plan, he is finishing what he started. You know how your mommy always told you to clean up your mess? And to always keep your promises? For once, someone is listening to what their mommy told them.

Bush is 1) not backing out when the going gets rough, and cleaning up for the mess we made over there, and 2) keeping his promise to the Iraqis, the American public, and the world when he said that we were waging a war on terror and that we would eliminate our target.

The Democrats in congress are setting Iraq up to become another Vietnam. They are trying to legislate the rules of engagement, and then trying to force our troops out before the job is done. My history teacher has a saying: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

BTW - Mercenary, didn't you steal that one guy's air conditioner in Kosovo?

Americans need to quit playing around and decide the direction of America and not worry about who out maneuvers who.

Just an opinion.

God help me; I agree with tw and like what he's saying. I think I need to get a brain scan, or a lobotomy. I can't decide which.

Is that so they can plan for the genocide better or just so they can nug things out and finally set up the government they are all so fighting over??


You are glatt, and you think you know all about Merc.

No, the Democrats are saying shit or get off the pot, to Bush and Iraq. They don't want another Viet Nam that goes on and on and on. Stop this endless wheel spinning and decide how you are going to fix what's broken, and DO IT.

They are aware that much of the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq has been the meddling of Bush and his pals in how the military does the job. Telling the pentagon what troop strength and equipment they'll use and giving them no goal past invading. The impossible situation the troops face is not their fault, it's the guys sitting around the oval office playing "Battleship".

Bush wants to leave this mess for the next President to clean up.What on Earth does that mean? We're stuck in Iraq until "terror" is eliminated?Example?Please define what it means for the job to be done.

I never got the "war on terror" saying anyways.

Sounds like the "war on drugs", just a catch phrase that has no meaning behind it.

Yeah, both wars are futile and never-ending.

Drugs are bad, terrorism is bad, wars are bad: bad at least enough of the time that avoiding them all the time is a pretty good idea.

The catch phrase is GEE-WATT or GWOT. It has much meaning. It means that where ever you are, we reserve the right to come and kick your ass and put you in prison forever. Pretty clear if I do say so myself.

So clear, and yet you're mystified at the disappearance of the goodwill the United States used to enjoy, having been recklessly squandered by this administration. : puzzled :

Ah...I remember back in the day when the US had goodwill with most of the world...it seems so long ago...

Usually it just means you are Arab or Muslim whether or not you are a terrorists or not.

Well how the fuck about that.... Don't say we didn't tell ya so.. the blood will be on the hands of the Dems who pull us out before the job is done. I pity those poor people...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...raq.scenarios/

What I was posting four years ago is still these same questions today. Why opposition then and agreement now?

My point as it was posted four years ago remains in three simple questions that every war monger in the Cellar has refused to answer. TheMercenary also avoids three questions that would expose his political agenda.

What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

What does the American solider need? Three simple answers that lover of George Jr (also called anti-Americans) would not provide.

TheMercenary will never answer those questions because he cannot and never could. His blind support for George Jr is not based in logic or a simple grasp of military science. That's what makes 'big dic' thinking so dangerous. They automatically know - just don't know why. His conclusions are based what a patriotic American does to support the troops. So TheMercenary pretends those questions do not exist.

Governments are now unstable where association to George Jr is accused. Yushenko's government in Ukraine is under attack, in part, due to connections to and support from George Jr. Islamic fundamentalism is growing rapidly in all Arab nations due to a crusade mentality created by George Jr, Cheney, and the other wacko extremists.

Even Turkey, once one of America's strongest supporters throughout the world, is rapidly promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Hate even for what America did to Turkish soldiers and shown in a highest grossing movie in Turkey:
Valley of the Wolves Iraq

Islamic fundamentalism and a new contempt for secularism is how young Muslims now openly advocate their distaste for George Jr's religious crusade against them. Even in Syria, a budding human-rights movement has been quashed with a five year prison sentence for that nation's best known human rights advocate.

It does not stop there. America is now increasingly unpopular in most South American nations. Curious. That also happened when Nixon was a Vice President on a trip to South America.

In Somalia, an insurgency mostly composed of the Hawiye people and other nationalists has been rebranded by an extremist American government as Al Qaeda. Again, The Economist Get what you wish for. An Islamic government rebranded by our extremist government as Al Qaeda; then Al Qaeda will easily find recruits again evil Americans.

The world's sixth largest oil exporter in the world - Africa's biggest nation by population - is even becoming unglued as corruption has clearly perverted presidential elections. Those who live and profit by such corruption are considered America's friends since America so condones and participates in the corruption at the highest levels of government. In southern Nigeria, distinguishing between government, gangsters, and insurgents is said to be almost impossible because lawlessness and violence is most often in the oil rich areas. Where are which foreigners?

Nations where Americans were once so welcomed are now even becoming dangerous for Americans. There is only one reason why democracy, once so popular during and after Clinton, is now suffering setbacks. Why would anyone in the world do what George Jr advocates? The man only promotes opposition to democratic principles based upon his 'Crusade' mentality. Democratic reforms in Iran are being rolled back. Democracy in Iraq is failing as Maliki is losing support.

It’s not just America that is becoming less popular. Now the principles that America advocates are also becoming unpopular - in some places despised.

1) You missed the not one but two separate million+ Turk marches against fundamentalism that took place over the last three weeks, one in Ankara, one in Istanbul.

The peaceful rally delivered many messages to the Islamist leaders of AKP, such as "Turkey is laic [secular] and will stay laic"; "NO Mullahs, no imams and no Gul in Cankaya"; "Cankaya is closed to Shari'a"; "We are all Mustafa Kemal's soldiers"; "Come Tayyip[Erdogan] and see us - come and count us".

2) That film is fictional, asshole!

Let them take up unproductive ways, such as nationalizing every critical industry in the country. That way they can fail on their own.

That film is based on real world events as reported by numerous news services. 'Asshole'? UT - you are the one who complained about a Cellar attitude change. You demonstrate why that attitude has changed. Your proof that the world loves everything America is childish insults?

UT, on this topic, tw is 100% correct making UT the 'asshole'. Why? Because UT posted personal insults in conjunction with his wayward claims. You of all people should not be doing what xoxoxoBruce does. You should be acting as the adult you want everyone else to become. That Turkish movie - about what Americans did - was accurately characterized by tw. It demonstrates how much George Jr has destroyed a respect that took generations to build. Accurately noted in that movie is how unpopular things American have become because of George Jr wacko extremism.

Yes there were Turk demonstrations against fundamentalism. That was never new. Once, no large fundamentalism movement existed in Turkey. Even in the most secular Muslim nation - Turkey - fundamentalism is now popular, in part, because Americans want to save the world using 'big dice' agendas. That was the point.

Did you notice that the new Turk president may be a fundamentalist? Islamic fundamentalism now popular even in Turkey because of American (George Jr) contempt for the world.

Somewhere in the back of my mind, it was the American 173 regiment from Italy that abused those Turkish soldiers as demonstrated in the movie. So why do you post like Urbane Guerrilla or xoxoxoBruce? Why do you now post like a child adult? Why do you even deny reality?

The US has made American style democracy so unpopular that even Venezuelans would condone nationalizing banks. You blame the sudden unpopularity of things American on Venezuela? There is only one reason why so many nations are rejecting things that feel too American. George Jr, his boss Cheney, and the new 'big dic' solutions to everything in the world - also called pre-emption. Why, UT, do you have a problem with this reality? And why do you want to turn the Cellar into a cesspool of Urbane Guerrilla profanities?

The movie Valley of the Wolves Iraq would only exist and be so popular in Turkey (once an American closest ally) only because of pre-emption by George Jr. America is losing friends everywhere. UT would deny it - and with profanity?

That film is based on real world events as reported by numerous news services.

"Based on real world events" and it had, amongst other things, US soldiers trafficking in human organs. Got any news stories that cite THAT? I thought not. Do YOU believe it?

Do I want to turn the Cellar into a cesspool of UG profanities? I would FAR rather have that, than have it turn into your knee-jerk anti-US cesspool of bullshit only in the mind of tw.

100% tw accuracy, suck my big dic.

Since you insist on dragging me into this with your childish whining;
What real world events?
What does based on mean?
If the name of the country is the same it can be called, "based on". But you know that's a, "clear as mud but covers the ground", statement.
How are you lie this FICTIONAL movie into real history? Because if you don't, everything you predicated on it becomes bullshit, too.
Feet of clay, tw, feet of clay dissolving.

Er... UG annoys me as much as the next guy, but I think you mean TheMercenary?

All those fuckers.

Undertoad - do not read this. It is about reality and not relevant to you. Don't read it.

The point: US integrity is now so bad throughout the world that a film based upon what US troops did to NATO allies in Iraq is a most popular movie in Turkey. It's no accident because US integrity - thanks to George Jr and Cheney - is that despicable. Why can a movie that even includes Americans selling body part be so popular in Turkey? Why in Turkey that was once one of America's strongest supporters? Because George Jr has made every American equivalent to 'body snatchers' in so many eyes.

Why does that film have so much credibility? Because Americans even torture, imprison people without judicial review, international kidnapping, secret prisons, lies to promote a political agenda, and even "Pearl Harbor" a sovereign nation. Worse, when caught and exposed doing it, then America denies it anyway or blames others for their plight.

So embarrassing these days to be an American. Something like 30% of American troops now regard torture as normal and necessary. When did we see numbers like this? When American troops were being intentionally massacred in Nam to protect Nixon's legacy. Anyone with intelligence also knew that war was also lost. Johnson even acknowledged it before retiring as president. And yet we still massacred another 30,000+ Americans?

In the first year of "Mission Accomplished", bodies would be found all chewed up and unidentifiable alone roads in southern Iraq. American convoys would routinely fire heavy weapons at anyone they considered too close - most being innocent victims. This was standard long before any serious insurgency existed. This long before Abu Ghriad. This is the new America where TheMercenary's attitude of 'might makes right' means anyone can be killed - justified by 'Spanish Inquisition' justification. "They must be evil".

Are those troops evil? Welcome to lessons of Nam where again, troops were put into an unwinnable situation. Massacres were not limited to My Lai.

Why do so many Turks believe a movie that would even associate Americans with selling body parts? UT has difficulty acknowledging this reality. Long before that movie was released, America's once golden reputation had been tarnished - severely. Americans are now considered that evil in more parts of the world where once America was associated with goodness. But worse, Americans remain in widespread denial.

UT wants to argue with profanity when denying realities created by a wacko extremist American government. Profanity means he is chock full of emotion - maybe due to frustration with realities posted by tw.Valley of the Wolves Iraq demonstrates what our allies now think of America.

When America was respected, then Turks would have rejected story lines in that movie. Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis - a 'big dic' response to a problem created by Americans ... just like in Nam. Americans would even fire at Vietnamese farmers in fields with 50 cal weapons only because they were bored or angry. Good Morning, Iraq where troops are also there because American leaders are liars.

Believable throughout the world is that Americans would even kill 'evil foreigners' just for body parts. Even torture is an acceptable practice by all Americans. You may not think so. But what you think is no longer relevant. That is commonly accepted among a growing worldwide community.

America that openly advocates international kidnapping and imprisonment without judicial review - as TheMercenary advocates - will only make life difficult for American friends. American friends and those who advocate secular American principles are now increasingly unpopular in Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Morocco, South America, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, .... it's a long list and getting longer. Even Chaves in Venezuela has credibility only because 'he smells sulfur where George Jr has stood'. Why would anyone take such comments seriously? Look at what TheMercenary calls acceptable. That explains why the world is increasingly more sympathetic to Chaves.

Why is the movie Valley of the Wolves Iraq so popular in what was once a closest American ally? Why did a capture of Turkish soldiers by Americans complete with blindfolds, imprisonment, and suicide become so popular in Turkey? TheMercenary who even approves of imprisonment without judicial review and LA cops beating up reporters. Stealing body parts is routine by a nation that routinely tortures.

Deja vue what? 30 years ago, will it be Deja Vue "Mission Accomplished"? History says many here will witness "Mission Accomplished" and the 'big dic' rationalizations 30 years from now.

Some will post profanity sound bytes. Others, to deal with reality, post longer. Sorry. Reality is never found among those who know everything from expressions such as "fuck you".

Reputation bad, fine, but is it earned?

Again, the questions:

1) "Based on real world events" and it had, amongst other things, US soldiers trafficking in human organs. Got any news stories that cite that?




2) Do you believe it?

For anyone tired of tw's lies, you can read what's really happening on the ground at Michael Yon's website.
You know, from somebody that's there instead of reading about it in the press. Someone that's not rah rah for, or rah rah against, just honest reporting of how things are being done, up close and personal.

When you're done come back and read tw's bullshit for a laugh.

It does not matter whether details are accurate just as it is not relevant whether details (embellishments) in the movie Jaws were relevant (and BTW, I kayaked the creek where "Jaws" happened). Benchmarks such as what Americans did to Turkish soldiers AND poor American credibility is accurate. Americans (government) are now considered such liars that an accurate story about what Americans did to Turkish soldiers only contributes to "evil is America".

It does not matter whether we dispute one story line - as I have been posting repeatedly. What matters to the world is what the world believes. Since Americans (George Jr) lie so often even about torturing people, extraordinary rendition, secret prisons, wiretapping, the farce called Saddam's trial, reasons for war, WMDs, Orange alerts, separation of church and state (and other secular principles), the looting that "was not happening", judicial review, .... my god (quoting Rumsfeld) ... We even imprison many of their own citizens for years in Guantanamo on what is known to be lies. At what point does it matter what you think? It does not. Americans (government) now have the credibility of a John Bolton UN statement.

Front page of Le Monde once said "We are all Americans Now". How massively must we have insulted even the French with our actions and contempt? We did not do it only to the French. When the entire world was as pro-American as possible - we insulted them all with outright lies, deception, hate, torture, and just about anything once considered unAmerican. We might have well preached from the bible to our secular allies.

In America, ignorance is so widespread as to not even understand that both Mexico and Canada have been aggressively critical.


What is the greatest long term threat to America? I believe it to be Pakistan. Why? America has even made Musharraf’s survival difficult. Worse, if Musharraf is gone, then nuclear weapons are probably in extremist Islamic hands. We (our attitude) have made it almost impossible for Pakistani moderates to achieve power. Not just due to total mismanagement in Afghanistan. Because of what Americans do in Iraq - routinely justified by lies such as this mythical and monolithic Al Qaeda. No one with a grasp believes George Jr's "Al Qaeda" exists. Certainly not Turks. Again - American credibility.

Where does America have sufficient credibility as to even make fictional embellishment in a movie appear to be a lie? Since America now lies so often, that embellishment attached to an accurate story must be true. Again, it does not matter how many times UT challenges one story line. Who should they believe? The movie or George Jr? Why is the movie so popular? Once close American friends now believe the movie.

If Saddam was such a threat, then why did Turks not fear? View from a Turkish perspective. Saddam is a threat only in American propaganda. Saddam was never a threat to Turkey or any other adjacent nation. They knew it. Someone is lying - guess who? America even denied what was done to Turkish soldiers. Clearly the movie – not America – is honest.


How much worse can American credibility fall? We cannot even answer three simplest questions:
What is the smoking gun that justifies "Mission Accomplished"?

What is the strategic objective?

What is the exit strategy defined by that strategic objective?

We cannot even answer three simple questions that are required for any war ... even in 500 BC? In a world when honesty would have made other liars look dishonest, George Jr has made everything in Valley of the Wolves Iraq appear credible. In a world of only ‘good and evil’, George Jr is clearly evil. Again, what is their perspective? No wonder that movie is so highly regarded in Turkey. Just another example of how many ‘good friends’ America has alienated because George Jr - god's chosen president - is a liar.

He cannot answer three simple questions that every American soldier desperately needs answered ... which brings us right back to the subject of this thread. That president lies so much that troops do not even have a strategic objective – Deja vue Nam. That president lies so much that even the movie Valley of the Wolves Iraq is wildly popular among a nation that was once a closest American friend.

Both questions are answered in great detail with references to credibility and perspective - and why that movie is so popular.

OK Bruce. You read it. Tell us what the strategic objective is?

Meanwhile, Bruce, did you bother to read what Yon said about Halberstam? Did you notice he posted about Halberstam as I have been saying here for years now - even before this post?
4/26/2005: Agent Orange victim .

What xoxoxoBruce somehow forgot to read: Why did Charlie escape? What was that strategic objective? I repeatedly cited David Halberstam's "Making of a Quagmire" as essential reading to understand "Mission Accomplished" - especially its strategic objective. Thank you, Bruce for doing two things.

First, demonstrating that you don't read (or understood) your own citation (again - what is that strategic objective?).

Second, posting how Yon, Halberstam, and I all agree. Bruce, didn't I predict civil disorder if we were perceived as conquerors or stayed too long? Do you remember posts from Tobias that exampled how we were losing the peace. Notice that Michael Yon only echos what Halberstam said. Who did I often cite in my often lonely and accurate criticism of George Jr's Crusade? Halberstam.

xoxoxoBruce - this is like your claims that Global Warming does not exist. This time you somehow know - and did not even read your own citation. Again - what is the strategic objective defined by your own Yon citation?

Your own citation only repeats what I have been saying for years. But then, xoxoxoBruce - what is the strategic objective as demonstrated by Yon's post? Did you read enough to learn? What is that strategic objective? And yes, you are being mocked because you posted profanities. What is that strategic objective? Show us how one who posts repeated profanities has an informed grasp of the world. What is that strategic objective?

Or maybe you would like to answer those three simple questions? Maybe those would be easier since, as an avid reader of Yon, then you have all the answers? But again I mock one whose only response will be profanity.

tw lies again..oh wait make that still. I've read everything Yon wrote including his book. Have you?
tw cherry picks one item that he agrees with and makes it sound like they are the three musketeers. Yet in all his previous posts he is in direct disagreement with the man in Iraq is saying. The sad part is tw thinks he's fooling everyone and making himself look good when he's the laughing stock. tw, what a joke.
Oh, here we go with the look a birdie routine again. By lying about what I said on another topic tw hopes I'll be too bust defending myself from his lies on that subject to pursue this one. what tw doesn't realize is I don't have to do that because everyone knows tw lies.
Fuck you tw. Do you really think everyone has forgotten your statement. "Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis".A statement that's a blatant lie but tw thinks he can make derogatory lies about the men and women serving in Iraq, with impunity. tw thinks so little of the people here in the Cellar, tw thinks he can lie at will.tw wants me to answer his questions when he only responds to questions with personal attacks, condescension and lies. I think I'll let tw go first.

As predicted, xoxoxoBruce replied with profanity. After reading so much of Michael Yon, Bruce still cannot define a strategic objective? Bruce restorts to more profanity?

xoxoxoBruce neither comprehends that Yon citation nor appreciates the significance of Yon's summary from Halberstam. Therefore Bruce still cannot define the strategic objective - cannot even answer that simple question.

Halberstam discusses the strategic objective. Having done so, then Halberstam also makes a ‘Deja vue Nam’ type statement. Did xoxoxoBruce grasp that? Or was xoxoxoBruce too busy searching for more four letter words in a dictionary? Ahh, but then I only mock. I never really expected Bruce to know what a strategic objective is.

Shorter tw: the most rampant and horrible and false anti-Americanism is justified because Bush sucks.

Y'know, I've posted this strategic overview from 2003 at least four times. But it's long, and tw cannot read. It doesn't matter anyway; tw's approach is not to debate credibly, to share facts and information and opinions so we all come away smarter. It's to harangue and lecture us so he feels good about himself.

No matter that he gets caught in mistakes time and time again such as "Jenin massacre" and "Hezbollah is not in Beruit" and "The Baghdad museum was looted" and etc.; if he can define the agenda, he can demand that only his view is valid. He can say that only his questions are important and also that only his answers are reasonable. It's a parlor trick, benefitting no-one.

It seems very obvious to me that the big #1 overall strategic objective is to win the global war on terror, which is politically correct shorthand for preventing Islamic fundamentalists from destroying large sectors of civilization.

But I notice that some people don't believe in a global war on terror. Which in turn is weird, because it's directly in their face. Bush may be incompetent but unlike his detractors he has not forgotten what the long game is. If part of his incompetency is not reminding you or not communicating effectively enough, you're on the hook to figure it out for yourself. Work hard at it, it's important. Here's a nice big hint from our friends in London.

http://cellar.org/2007/behead_those_...sult_islam.jpg

Again tw demonstrates his pompous condescending attitude with more lies and false accusations. tw confuses my not allowing tw to dictate questions that must be answered with not knowing answers. tw keeps asking questions when tw can't answer the questions tw should be answering.tw mocks because the economist hasn't provided tw with the answers to the simple questions he was asked. Having no original thought, or even an educated guess, handicaps tw into just repeating rhetoric. Dumb fuck tw thinks we'll forget he said... But we won't now, will we.
Hmmm, maybe it's time to start an "Outrageous Lies by tw", thread just to keep track of them all.

UT, that clearly is not a strategic objective. That is a good outline of principles upon which a strategic objective might be constructed. Remember that book that UG repeatedly claimed he would read? That also did not define a strategic objective. And yet it was even far more comprehensive in defining how to construct a strategic objective.

Let's take the Liberation of Kuwait as example. What was the strategic objective? Well I believe the UN may have defined it. In simple terms, Iraq was to be removed from Kuwait AND the region was to be made stable for the protection of Kuwait.

Step one was military. Swartzkopf's plan played out brilliantly because he said exactly what he needed and George Sr (despite opposition from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) gave Swartzkopf everything he needed - 7th Corp.

Because the strategic objective was clear and universally supported, then Europe (and most other world nations) bent over backwards to get those military forces out of Europe and to that battlefield. I cannot say enough about the cooperation America got from all its allies. Moreso, the United States paid nearly nothing to liberate Kuwait because George Sr was honest, the military objective was cleanly defined, and all recognized a clear and present danger.

Second part of that strategic objective was conditions for the peace. As noted repeatedly, military action does not win a war. It only moves the conflict to a negotiation table. And so the 101st Airborne need only one more day to get into position. French Airborne had already closed one door. Swartzkopf begged for that 'one more day'. He needed it to completely trap those 3 or 4? Republican Guard divisions.

What were conditions for Saddam's surrender? It should have included defanging of Saddam's Republican Guards (putting many of their weapons in stasis). But Cheney, Wolfowitz, etc failed to perform their job. Therefore Saddam was left with everything to even massacre maybe 20,000 Iraqis in Basra as the US Army only sat and watched five miles away.

Many foolishly said we should have moved on to Baghdad. That would have been foolish for so many reasons. Number one - it was not part of the strategic objective. Number two - we did not have to go to Baghdad to dethrone Saddam. Had Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc done their job, then Saddam would have fallen without the Republican Guard. As a result of not doing their jobs, eventually, America had to maintain no-fly zones in both north and south Iraq to protect Kurds and Shia from Saddam.

Meanwhile, UN did their job as required by the strategic objective. UN defanged Saddam of his WMDs by 1996.

I specifically remember George Sr's comments. He noted how everyone was so flamboyant after the military victory. And yet George Sr said he kept having this nagging feeling that something had been left undone. I have always wondered if George Sr suspected those strategic objectives had been left unfulfilled by his staff - not been accomplished. They failed to plan for the peace. Mistakes were made in Washington by members of George Sr's staff who failed to understand simple military principles such as that strategic objective.

UT - demonstrated is a strategic objective. Your citation is not a strategic objective. Using your citation, tell us: what is the strategic objective in "Mission Accomplished?

Is this obnoxious, blunt, politically incorrect, offensive, insulting, or condescending? No adult cares. It states facts and it demands basic technical answers. It is posted as any adult would who is honest, factually straight forward, without personal attacks, and who need not worry about a child’s emotions. It's not my job to worry about your emotions. So don't waste bandwidth posting them. Provided is an example of a strategic objective. Demonstrated is a strategic objective AND why a military victory was undermined by those who did not understand such basic concepts. Using the outline in your citation, construct what you believe is the strategic objective in "Mission Accomplished". What is the strategic objective of "Mission Accomplished"?

Not bad, not bad, that didn't hurt now, did it.

From my post (three up):

It seems very obvious to me that the big #1 overall strategic objective is to win the global war on terror, which is politically correct shorthand for preventing Islamic fundamentalists from destroying large sectors of civilization.

Uh... yeah. It's right there in the middle of my post. I guess you didn't read that, or didn't want to address it, for some reason. (Picking what you want to address is controlling the agenda; it's part of your little game.)

The den Beste piece (strategic overview) explains the thinking (although mistaken, it was thinking, it was a strategy) around why Iraq was part of that objective ("part of the war on terror", even if bin Laden was not directly connected to Iraq).

--

Talking about it using the phrase "Mission Accomplished" indicates a lack of intellectual honesty, to introduce bias into the question before it's asked. Mixing a event from a single phase with the notion of "strategic objective" is not exactly critical thinking, either. It needlessly muddles the question.

Nevertheless, the Mission of the fine folks onboard that aircraft carrier was the military overthrow of Saddam's government, and it was Accomplished well, with minimum US casualties, minimum Iraqi civilian casualties, and the desertion of most of the Iraqi army. It was rightly celebrated. In fact some say the phase went TOO easy, because the real enemy did not actually personally witness much "shock and awe", and thus was not strongly deterred by the idea that resistance would result in a 1000-lb bomb precisely guided onto their head.

The Frontline piece you like so well kind of begins the day after that mission was accomplished, doesn't it? That's lost time that can never be recovered.

But simply because "mistakes were made" doesn't mean there is no overall strategic objective; just because you can't see it (or aren't privy to it, or it's communicated to you poorly, or you don't believe it, or you fail to understand it) doesn't mean there isn't one.

tw is the ultimate conspiracy theorist. All evils in the world are "George Jr.'s" fault. Give me a frigging break.

Naw, all evils in the world are the fault of "George Jr." and TheMercenary.

Oh, and UG too, don't forget him.

Wait, I forgot Cheney.

Oh come now. There is no monolithic worldwide terror organization that also requires the “Man from U.N.C.L.E.”. Where is James Bond when we need him most? Again you are posting wacko extremist rhetoric. ‘War on terror’ is spin and myth to even justify more "Pearl Harbor" attacks on other nations. No wonder the PNAC included references to American that might even unilaterally attack India, Germany, or Russia. UT- you are promoting those myths.

Islam fundamentalism was never a problem until Christian Crusaders decided to invade their nations. Did you even learn from history? Did you learn from another post why even Secular Turkey is now moving towards fundamentalism? Or did you automatically assume 'might makes right'?

Do you now say the strategic objective in Iraq is terrorism? No wonder America created the Iraqi insurgency. We needed to create an enemy so that we could then have a strategic objective?

Why was the strategic objective also a "military overthrow of Saddam's government"? UT completely confuses 'shock and awe' with strategic significance. UT, there was zero strategic significance to 'shock and awe'. And if every Iraqi everywhere in the world witnesssed it live, still, it has zero strategic significance. However you are saying exactly what my most extremist friends are saying. "If we show them big muscles, then they will be our friends".

Which is it UT? Why do you post two completely different topics as if both are strategic objectives AND both are a same thing? Or do you – exactly like George Jr – change “the message” when convenient?

“The message” is a "political agenda" justified by extremist political agendas such as “America does not do nation building”. Which is it UT? Do you advocate for America? Or do you push the "political agenda" of extremism? They are mutally exclusive. Do you promote for America (and demand a strategic objective) or do you promote a political agenda (ie ‘war on terror’ and 'no nation building')?

A war without nation building is a defeat no matter how good the military is. But again - this should be common knowledge to those not dumb enough to believe George Jr. Those who promote for America demand a strategic objective. If necessary, impose benchmarks on a scumbag lying president.

So what is the strategic objective? First UT invents a fictional enemy to create a “war on terror”. Later, UT defined the objective as a military overthrow – as if military operations alone can win a war. (For those who don’t understand by now, military operations alone don’t win wars). UT, where does a political agenda and a limited tactical objective combine to become a strategic objective? It does not. The scumbag president has you spinning because you don’t even know what the troops need – a strategic objective. Deja vue Vietnam.

UT, you were asked to provide a strategic objective for “Mission Accomlished”. You posted a war against a mythical enemy – as if a war without a definition of victory is an objective.

No wonder the troops need Democrats to impose benchmarks on George Jr. Even UT cannot define a strategic objective. Those are sound byte myths. Spin to rally the wackos like Don Quixote conquering windmills. If ‘war on terror’ is a strategic objective, then no strategic objective exists, and no exit strategy exists. No wonder troops were too few, could not stop massive and predicted looting, and why Rumsfeld even lied about armor being delivered. Every problem created by 'the message' from a political agenda - and no strategic objective.

And its one two three; what are we fighting for? I don't give a damn. Next stop is ....
Another war where a missing strategic objective was replaced by political agenda lies.

So there can't be a war on bowling because there are thousands of leagues not connect to each other, even though they are all bent on bowling?

Yeah, those damn crusaders messing with Moslems in 1095 AD, have hamstrung us from morally preventing retaliation 900 years later.

We'll use strategic objective and strategic significance, interchangeably even though they're different animals.

It's so nice to have all these terrifically complex matters distilled down to two choices. What a wonderful service.

The Marshall plan (nation building) made everyone think this is normal and required. While successful, it was an aberration, markedly different from the treatment of defeated, captured territory and populations in the past.

Bowling is not mythical just because it's not monolithic. It just takes balls.

I'm so far ahead of you, I anticipate your reaction and discuss it before you post it.

Just because you can't see it (or aren't privy to it, or it's communicated to you poorly, or you don't believe it, or you fail to understand it) doesn't mean there isn't one.

Emphasis mine.

Yep, there is no monolithic worldwide terror organization.

Unfortunately.

There is only an entire set of people, from London (where the above poster-holder picture was shot) to Paris (which is under riot alert tonight) to Moscow to Pakistan to Indonesia and every country in between, who agree on the organized use of terror and the Islamist reasons behind it, and use it all the time to kill innocent people.

Here's the map of this since 9/11.

Of course, al Queda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri disagrees; he sees it as pretty much one organization, which he is vice-president of:

Brian Ross today on new al Queda tape

Emphasis mine.