Morality
 

From ABC News of 12 Nov 2005: Carter has good reason to be critical. He earned the Nobel Peace Prize by solving what could have been a serious international crisis involving N Korea. He and Kim Jung Il developed a strategy to bring N Korea peacefully into the world with cooperation of N Korea's right wing extremists. It was a spectacular plan until an American president decided to redress the world into 'black and white' terms. George Jr put the final death spike into a peace settlement that Jimmy Carter and Kim Jung Il had so carefully crafted with cooperation of so many adjacent nations.

Recently, six way talks centered on N Korea have achieved a breakthrough in diminishing tensions. Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously. What to expect from an administration that also all but tried to get US into a war with China over a silly spy plane? Well at least they mostly undid that damage. Of course, George Jr will deny it - just like the levees. Morality means the president should have a shred of honesty. Neither did Richard Nixon - another religious and immoral man.

More questions of morality are in the thread entitled The Vote: 90 to 9. That question requires you to make a decision.

I'm not so sure W is dishonest. Well, for a politician.
I've a feeling what he spews is the truth, justice and the American way as he sees it.
Of course how he sees it is filtered through a number of self serving factions but maybe he's not dishonest....just wrong? :confused:

Honesty doesn't even enter the equasion. He just says whatever he thinks will work at the time.

I've never seen a dictator with an army he was unwilling or unmotivated to use. There is zero reason to trust a Communist to do anything but massacre and impoverish, as ninety years of uniform evidence shows.

That's not a lesson you'll ever learn, tw. That is why I don't believe any of your political ideas. Leftism keeps a man stupid. It also helps him die young.

Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously.

Some of us can identify a different sort of irony in that statement.

Hmmm... W. is highly willing and motivated to use the US Army. How many civilian casualities in Iraq so far? And just who is going to be the poorer for having to pay for a highly expensive war, plus the catastrophe of Katrina that could have been prevented had the Feds done their job in maintaining this country's infra-structure?

Right wing extremism closes a person's mind. It helps our soldiers die unnecessary deaths.

Marichiko, breaking totalitarians is always a legitimate use of an army. It's also exactly what we've been doing in every single war we've fought for some one hundred years. I never tire of reminding the deliberately slow to learn of this point. You guys are old enough to know better, yet you don't. This is why I am sure you are as defective as a cell phone that's been dropped too many times.

Defending our borders is a legitimate use of our army. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. There were no WMD's in Iraq. I'm in favor of self-sufficiency. If a people want to over throw a totalitarian ruler, let them do so themselves, just like the founding fathers of this country did.

UG, call home. :eyebrow:

I used to think that - that the only role of the military is defensive and within our borders. The problem is that the enemy doesn't play the game by these rules. The game is always on, even when we aren't playing. In fact our failure to play becomes a part of the game and our apparent principles can be played against us.

That'd be great if we were actually getting back at the slime who bombed the US, but we're preoccupied with Iraq which had nothing to do with it. And Osama bin Laden is still alive and free.

That's all logical UT, but the flip side is that we piss people off who were just sitting on the fence when we go throwing our weight around in the world.

The failed female suicide bomber in Jordan who was caught a few days ago had what she probably thought were good reasons for becoming a terrorist. All her brothers had been killed by the US in Iraq. I imagine the brothers already hated the US to some degree and when we went into Iraq they were more than happy to take up arms against the hated foreign oppressor. But it's rare for women to be getting into this action. I bet that this sister would never have strapped the bombs to her chest if we hadn't pushed her there by killing her brothers.

It's difficult to tell if we are creating more terrorists in Iraq than we are killing. It looks to me like it's very close, and it's quite likely that we are creating more than we kill. It seems to be a bottomless barrel of terrorists/insurgents in Iraq.

The analogy still fits. Iraq may have been a bad move, but that doesn't mean withdrawl from the entire board is a better one. Very few people dispute the notion that Afghanistan was a good move, and the US was not attacked by Afghanistan.

Which is not a reason to abandon them.But the organization that attacked us was based in Afghanistan, with the approval and support of the government of Afghanistan.

Of course, our principles only exist while we exist. If we are repeatedly attacked, or even threatened, our principles will change and the culture will reflect it. If a major city is nuked, all bets are off what we wind up after a week or a year or a decade.

I don't know gang. If all you do is defend, all you do is lose.

But if the bad guys get you to do their work for them, you lose worse.

Wolf, not true. Defending doesn’t mean staying put and repelling attacks. It also includes counterattacks, going after the attackers no matter how far they flee. But that doesn’t mean attacking everyone along the way, you don’t like, when they’re not involved with the attackers.

Afghanistan was a logical target and would have rounded up Bin Laden if it weren’t bungled by politicians that wouldn’t commit the forces necessary to seal the borders before rounding them up.

Attacking Iraq just because they were the baddest army in the middle east (except Israel), to put the fear of Bush in the rest, is just plain aggression. The thing we claim to be against. :eyebrow:

That's the problem. We are not even actually defending ourselves. The real culprit, Bin Laden, is still frisking around out there somewhere, and, meantime, we have become bogged down in a major war against a nation that was NOT responsible for 9/11. All we are doing is proving that we can't engage with our REAL enemy. Self defense is not involved here. Its about time that it is. :eyebrow:

We had 'em dead to rights on aiding and abetting.

The justification for war is the smoking gun. Smoking gun clearly existed in Pearl Harbor, the invasion of Kuwait, and 11 September. It never existed in Vietnam, Somalia, or Iraq. In each 'smoking gun' case, no doubt, both in America and among all American allies, that war was justified. The invasion of Afghanistan was so justified that most every nation in the world would have sent troops.

But back then, American principles garnered respect. Back then, in each case, America had a leader with sufficient intelligence rather than only political extremist rhetoric. Today America has even undermined world support for war in Afghanistan. Our leader is that "immoral" - a word defined from military principles rather than from a religious perspective. If that was true, then the withdrawal from Somalia was just as bad for exact same reasons. If that was true, then the American withdrawal from Vietnam caused massacres and a holocaust. That was the reasoning by war hawks who would have America still fighting the Vietnam war? Of course they were wrong. They failed to comprehend even the basic purpose of war.

UT must learn what is the fundamental purpose of war: to create a settlement at the political negotiation table. That is what happened in WWII. That is what happened in Vietnam. That is what happened in Korea. That is what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Serbia with results far beyond what anyone expected. That is necessary in Iraq.

Victory - at the negotiation table - is not possible when your president did not even know what countries bordered Israel. To fight a war on some mythical idea that we will destroy the insurgency is bogus - rubbish - the mentality of military types who never even learned basic military doctrine - also found in Vietnam victories measured by body counts. An Iraqi insurgency created by America because, again, wacko extremists in the White House masking as military smart have no idea of another concept even taught in a primer on war: Said another way, 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Management who would continue war in Iraq for the next ten years chasing a mythical victory. Under current strategy as even defined in a most simplistic primer of war, America will be fighting in Iraq for at least one decade - until someone has enough balls to say "enough".

Currently the destiny of America is another defeat - in Iraq. The insurgency has at least doubled in only one year. The number of terrorist attacks is now about 50 per day. An Iraqi army of 20,000 built by Americans could only field 1500 troops. And now that number decreased to 500 troops. Whole Iraqi battalions deserted when deployed in Falluja, et al. Recently, the 2000th American died. Now the number is over 2,100 and growing faster every month - just like Vietnam. This is what the mental midget president calls victory? How did we turn "Mission Accomplished" into a 'bleeding to death' war. America is losing the war in Iraq as defined in Sun Tzu lessons on how to defeat a militarily superior force.

I asked this question before. I said "enough" in The Vote: 90 to 9. Amazed how many in the Cellar would not touch "enough". How can one so hate America as to not be decisive? Do we continue to waste best Americans in a war that can only be won by deploying 0.5 million or more troops? As demonstrated by history so many times, either we go in, win the war decisively (as in WWII, Kuwait, the Balkans, and Korea) or we get out (as in Somolia). Those are the only winning options in Iraq. Up front, UT - do you have a solution? Let's here it.

Meanwhile, who will address this concept of "morality"? Who will have mental fortitude to commit themselves to one of the only two winning options?

The settlement in Afghanistan was what?

Taliban be gone?

I beg to differ on WW II, TW.
No negotiation table, unconditional surrender. :eyebrow:

Unconditional surrender were conditions before talks at a WWII negotiation table could start. Even with unconditional surrender, negotiations included who is to be jailed for trial, guidelines for how occupation is conducted, placement of the conquered army, the future status of an emperor, and much 'nation building' that George Jr insisted America must not do. All wars end in negotiations no matter how one sided those negotiations might be.

Meanwhile, UT, there is no end of the war in Afghanistan - as indicated by no negotiations, continued conflict, etc. The purpose of war is to take the conflict back to the negotiation table. Nothing new about that long and well understood principle. And that is my point. If one does not even understand a most basic concepts, then how is one suppose to even understand what justifies war?

Since the Iraq war was entered without any 'smoking gun' and without a strategic objective, then the Iraq war also has no exit strategy and no benchmark to work toward. Classic mistake also made by Westmoreland in Vietnam. The exit strategy was to surrender Vietnam back to the Vietnamese complete with talks at a negotiation table. As Iraqi insurgency doubles about every year, then the American involvement may continue until Americans sue for peace - ask for a negotiation table - just like in Vietnam.

There is clearly and obviously no war in Afghanistan right now. When the facts don't suit you, do you just invent them?

The Iraq war suffers from an adminstration that doesn't lead, and can't state its objectives to save itself. The actual strategic objective of the war is to replace the US bases lost in Saudi Arabia, create a pro-US state in the middle of the middle east, and to create a Democratic example for the rest of the Arab world as a basis for reform. But you can't state those objectives up front, you have to come up with something palatable to everyone.

The exit strategy, stated hundreds of times but ignored here, is "as the Iraqis stand up we will stand down." The Iraqi forces have been improving but reporting on this matter is weak and mistakenly claims they are not. There is buzz that the stand-down will start in January, following the next election. You can tell it's imminent by how the politicians are now fighting to be the ones who thought of the idea. The Ds are demanding it so that when it happens they can say they thought of it, and won their point. The Rs will do it because the public wants it and will spin it as victory. The truth will not be evident for years.

Nobody seems to give a crap about actual victory. Even the pols who said there weren't enough troops to do it correctly, never demanded more troops.

I hear you but I have a hard time calling dictated terms, "negotiations". I wonder if the troops over there know that? When the Administration was battling the Pentagon over staffing before the invasion, what politician in his right mind would call for sending more men and boys off to war? Even if they felt it would be better for the military it would look bad to the mothers and wives.;)

Perhaps, but at least there was someone on the other side of the table, who could speak for their side, being dictated to.

Where did you discover these objectives? Do you have an inside scoop from the pentagon or something? I would tend to agree with you that this is why we are really there, but the phoney excuses given for the current engagement are hardly palatable, either.

We are going to have to re-instate the draft to ahieve the agenda you outlined. I don't know where you get the idea that things are so rosey in Iraq, either. Casualties continue to mount and many of our soldiers are now on their third tour of duty over there. Moral amongst our troops is way down.

My friend Lisa's husband is going to be deployed over there on Monday and among his group of soldiers 16 have gone AWOL, including one E7 with 17 years in the military. 36 came up positive for drugs. They'll be going anyhow.

The stated reasons for being in Iraq are obviously becoming unpalatable to our troops, along with everyone else.

Exactly how much authority do you believe Congress has once they give the President the opportunity to start a war? They can, in theory, cut off funding and stop a war, but they cannot force the deployment of more troops. Certainly the Democrats, as a minority party, could not effect any change. The only chance would have been if a significant number of Republicans would add their voice, and noone was sure that this was the wrong decision since the 'professionals' seemed to go along with it.

In the end, the buck stops at the Joint Chiefs and the Commander-in-Chief. If they plan badly, or worse, allow a good plan to be compromised, then everyone suffers. In the Army's case, the troop total was reduced at the insistence of the White House, who thought they could occupy on the cheap. Almost every single one of their predictions was wrong, including the restoration of an oil economy to pay for the reconstruction.

Now we all pay.

Uh,...make that, someone on the other side of the table, who could listen for their side. :)

That's the original neo-con take on it. Even before W was elected, the PNAC encouraged the idea of permanent US bases in the ME, and placed Iraq at the top of their to-do list. I also like denBeste's strategic overview, which I've pointed to several times. W's pre-war speech to the AEI referenced some of these things as well, but it was not sound-bitten by the media very much.

Well, I read the numbers about Iraqi troop readiness, and agreed with the bloggers that covered it, that the media got head-faked by one number and ignored the important numbers that show that the Iraqis are coming along. Very uneven, but making progress.

I understand that the Iraqis themselves were the first line of defense during the October constitutional election, for most polling places. A day that saw almost no violence.

Yesterday there was interest in a meeting between the Iraqi government and insurgent leaders. Wow.

And now there will be a trial of Hussein AND another election, and hopefully the country will crystallize around all that as well.

Oops, AP reports the White House is spinning to say they were the first with a troop reduction plan.

Heh. But I meant speak, as in "we agree to all of your terms", and their people would accept it.

WWI ended with both sides negotiating an end to the war. In WWII, Churchill and FDR in the White House decided negotiation at war's end would be different. A lesson they took from history. Churchill and FDR stated quite bluntly the purpose of WWII - the strategic objective: unconditional surrender.

When negotiations break down, then war starts, only because both sides could not come to agreement. When the war is ended, both sides are now (hopefully) taking from all new perspectives. War is only to change those perspectives.

In WWI, both sides were ready to sue for peace - the Germans moreso. Negotiations were conducted with all parties in 'changed mindsets'.

In Vietnam, Paris negotiations eventually were about abandoning S Vietnam to the North without letting lesser informed Americans know we had lost. We lost because we went to war on lies - without a strategic objective and without a smoking gun justification.

In WWII, negotiations were more one sided - the allies dictating all major (but not all) terms.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is far from ended. The country is so dangerous that literally half of Afghanistan cannot be visited even by the Red Crescent. The country is so dangerous that most all NATO troops remain in the large cities - green zones. Posted was an example of a safer place in Afghanistan entitled Understanding terrorism on 20 Jul 2005: Zabal is a safer part of Afghanistan. Red Cresent aid workers can travel in Zabal. So when did this war end?

Similar to what happened in Vietnam when most Americans never really understood the purpose of war - the reason for a strategic objective - the reason why leaders should be learning about the world instead of boozing - the reason why your leader should know the names of adjacent nations instead of taking an 18 month crash course from Wolfovitz and Rice - the reason why George Jr starts wars without exit strategy which is the Vietnam mistake all over again.

There is this thing called morality which we have not even discussed. Morality is not about ethics. But another concept that demonstrates why these hawks advocate wars for reasons not based in military doctrine and lessons of history. Too many hawks just know that bombs cause damage and therefore would have won the Vietnam war. These paper hawks never bothered to first learn even that N Vietnam had almost no useful targets. And yet these hawk also know that if we beat the crap out of their forces or capture more insurgents, then we will win the war. Body counts and captives prove victory? Not from lessons taught in war colleges.

A victory strategy was being conducted by the 101st Airborne in Mosul when its commander, Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus as demonstrated in 101st Airborne Scores Success in Reconstruction of Northern Iraq. Meanwhile someone without first learning from history, Paul Bremer, was conducting a campaign to lose the war. Unfortunately, too many have not learned military doctrine and therefore did not understand Petraeus' warnings and why Bremer literally threw away a military victory.

Recently US claims to have captured hundred of insurgents in a latest military sweep in Iraq. Sounds more like 'search and destroy' which only killed or captured mostly innocent civilians making insurgent recruiting productive.

Amazing how many so quickly advocated war in Iraq without even learning from a basic military primer; without learning the purpose of war. For example, notice blaring silence from Urbane Guerilla. Suddenly we are discussing things taught in war college. Things that a leader should have learned long before god tells him to be president.

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

We pretty much have scoured the country and captured, interrogated, in some cases possibly tortured, tens of thousands of prisoners. Considering the importance of WMD's in justifying the war, if any were found, we would have heard about it.

This is why, when you listen to any GWB speech on Iraq, the phrase 'establishing democracy' has replaced 'removing WMD's'.

It was the US that kicked out the inspectors before the war. The inspectors were saying they couldn't find anything, but they were willing to keep looking.

That's not to say Saddam was happy they were there, or that he didn't enjoy making things difficult for them.

Yes. I said that right after the invasion because;
1- Saddam knows he can't beat us with his army.
2- His only shot is world intervention before or after the invasion.
3- If he had 'em and used them against our invasion he'd still lose.
4- With many months warning he had plenty of time to hide or export them,
hoping when they weren't found, world opinion would vindicate him and we'd have to leave with him still in control.

I'm wasn't saying that happened, just expounding on possibilities.
Now I think there wasn't any at all. :(

It’s just not possible to have all those weapons or even many of them without being detected. Our spies (the ones that really did accurate spying) were from countries adjacent to Iraq. Countries that had far more to fear if they got it wrong. Those sources kept reporting no more WMDs which is why no nation adjacent to Iraq wanted to be involved in the Iraq invasion.

We knew this. After 1996, Saddam gave up on his WMDs. Suddenly the UN Inspectors could find no more evidence of these WMDs. Saddam's son-in-laws had defected and told all.

Always analyze a situation by looking at it from 'His' perspective. Look at Saddam's quandary. It was posted here before the Iraq war began. Saddam cannot let you nor anyone else know he is toothless. Saddam has numerous enemies - including Muslim Brotherhood (ie Osama bin Laden) and especially Iran. So Saddam must feed the rumor mill. He tells his generals that they don't have WMDs, but that the adjacent general does. No one in Iraq's military knew how toothless Saddam really was. Perfect for Saddam's personal security.

Saddam no longer had ambitions on his neighbors. He had no weapons to win an invasion. His latest hobby was authoring two great novels. In Saddam style, he attempted to become one of the world's great authors.

Of course those who really knew this stuff were left without a voice. The George Jr administration had decided they must correct a mistake they made in the George Sr administration. They were 'drinking champagne' (an exaggeration) when they should have been defining conditions for surrender. Swartzkopf had to invent the terms of surrender because those political types in Washington never learned some of what has been posted above - ie purpose of war.

Therefore silence from those who really had a 'feel' for what was happening in Iraq. This was accomplished by repeated challenges to those who said Saddam does not have this or that weapon system. It was just too difficult to report things accurately.

American spies learned how profitable lying could be. The administration had decreed that Saddam had WMDs - and was only seeking proof of their decrees. Spies such as Curveball literally distorted or invented stories that George Jr et al reported as fact.

Most damning were reports from the 'Rockstars' who said Saddam and his sons would be in Dora Farms that became the target of 'shock and awe'. The CIA station chief, Tim, personally entered that crater in Dora Farm that was supposed to be Saddam's bunker. There was no bunker. But the spies reported what the administration wanted to hear. Why? $1million weighs 44 pounds. Facts that CIA agents learned because a 44 pound bag was dropped onto a person in Iraq to buy guns and munitions - this done to multiple people multiple times. Numerous 44 pound bags were dropped throughout northern Iraq. In some places, a cup of coffee sold for $100 because no one could make change. This is how badly the administration wanted to prove that Saddam had WMDs.

Senior administration officials had at stake in personal reputations because these George Jr and George Sr administration officials would otherwise be historically recorded for never learning basic military doctrine - the purpose of war. They celebrated rather than provide Swartzkopf with political conditions for surrender. They thought war was only about destroying an enemy. They had to fix their mistake - inventing, if necessary, Saddam's WMDs.

Are the George Jr administration officials that bad? Well one need only look at where the USS Bataan sat for 5 days as people starved and died in New Orleans. Did you know about the Bataan? Did you know about the 'Rockstars'? Facts that determine whether the administration could lie - and you would have to believe them. Unfortunately too many people knew Saddam must have had WMDs only because George Jr lied about it.

This posted so that you can understand how George Jr could manipulate the spin and lies so thoroughly.

What means did the administration use to drop these bags? Do they have an Air Force or an Intelligence Agency?

I'll resist saying "Black Helicopters".
Hmmm.... no I won't. :cool:

I don't know about the bags, but one of the first things they did after 9-11 was set up their own intelligence agency that answered to Rumsfeld.

You know, Ted Koppel retired because tw didn't answer this question.

Speaking of Morality...
 

Did anyone see a clip of this? I watched the final bit about torture last night. Poor Donald did not hold up very well.

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cf...SFELD-11-30-05

For a very twisted view of an ugly current reality, it was pretty funny.http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/lol.gif Pace very quietly and gently corrected Rumsfeld, as if Rumsfeld was a little slow. For a moment it looked like a scene from "Of Mice and Men".

It will be interesting to see how long Gen. Pace keeps his job. He's certainly got the balls for it.

:lol2:

Money dropped by CIA human hands. Why ask a question so irrelevant when the important point is about CIA spending massive funds seeking information and buying guns. 44 pounds is relevant because the money had to be carried in; many hundreds of pounds of money.

Anyone who could supply information on WMDs could get rich. Truth being irrelevant. CIA bought stories that the administration wanted. It was an agent’s dream job. Almost unlimited cash; total independence. Reality? Where in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is there any requirement for reality? A preordained political agenda defined what information would be bought. Same philosophy that also demands loyalty to the administration rather than to the nation. Just like in the Nixon administration.

Gotta love these characters -the ideal lurker.

Oh, you said the Administration and it was actually the CIA. But wait, wasn't it the Dep't of Energy intelligence that disagreed on the dreaded aluminum tubes? Aren't they a cabinet-level part of the Administration too? Did somebody forget to drop money on them or something?

UT - we all get old. Find your glasses.

There's always a little something slightly more depressing than the last...

See, sometimes I get it right:

Rumsfeld Announces Reduction in Iraq Troop Level

The reduction is possible because of the growing strength and capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, the secretary said. In the coming months, he added, more and more Iraqi army and police units will take over battlespace from coalition forces. Iraqi brigades and divisions are standing up, Rumsfeld said, and American trainers will continue to work with Iraqi units.

Which is pretty good considering the surprises the administration has thrown at us. :thumb:

Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and Gen George Casey are rumored to have been calling for an exit strategy from Iraq that may even call for a fixed withdrawal date. Obviously, putting a date on that withdrawal would completely undermine Iraq's growing insurgency. But George Jr has no interest in that solution. Options were posted previously. Either 500,000 troops for one year to end the insurgency, or a complete withdrawal which would undermine the insurgency. Leaving too few troops or taking out another 7000 is only a losing strategy.

However it is not about winning in Iraq. It is all about the popularity of George Jr. Iraq has always been secondary to George Jr who is more concerned with his legacy - ie. his Kennedy like 'Mission to Mars' and a place alongside Reagan.

UT would have you believe 7000 troops out of Iraq is some kind of winning solution. How easy he is deceived by propaganda. Leaving 100,000+ American troops only causes the insurgency (once called Al Qaeda by a lying president for self serving political reasons) causes this insurgency to grow exponentially. Too few troops only makes Iraq less stable; increases a probability of civil war.

Senators Biden and Graham, while in Iraq, suggested a solution that is thought to be what Casey and Khalizad, et al have been advocating. However it requires George Jr to grasp reality (instead of a political agenda), show some intelligence, and have some balls. George Jr has demonstrated none - even hiding about the country making no decisions on 11 September 2001. Instead complementing a totally incompetent Brownie.

The US without any significant military, instead and in only 4 years, trained, deployed on most every continent, and then won multiple campaigns all over the world. It was called World War II. Iraq cannot form and domestically deploy more than one battalion in 3 years? This is the George Jr plan. If Iraqis are going to make it, then *they* must do the work - as Biden and Graham suggest. After three years, if Iraqis cannot run their own country, then it will never happen. America should announce a complete withdrawal by July 2006. This is rumored to be what intelligent Americans (with 'dirt under their fingernails') have been recommending. This would undermine the Iraqi insurgency. This is too complicated for George Jr who will need Iraqi bases for an invasion of Iran.

Rumors say Khalizad and Casey have long been suggesting a strategic objective that provides an exit strategy. George Jr has no exit strategy - still has none. Nor, say some, does he want one. Meanwhlle, UT would have you believe a few thousand troop removal means the mental midget president was right. Instead it only demonstrates how desperately UT wants to believe George Jr propaganda.

What Khalizad and Casey are rumored to be suggesting is not yet what George Jr wants. More Americans calling this president a liar would get the troops what they need – as strategic objective and an exit strategy. George Jr is only interested in his popularity which is why the only two viable options (500,000 troops deployed, or a complete withdrawal) are too complicated for George Jr to comprehend.

Meanwhile, even the National Review called for Rumsfeld's resignation due to incompetence. Insiders have suggested Rumsfeld's replacement: Sen Lieberman (D-CT).

Well, George Jr is so pig headed against change (You're doing a good job Brownie?). Rumsfeld would have to resign. George Jr needs a major senior level shakeup. But it will not happen until Americans demand it by calling the president what even The Economist did - incompetent.

It would be a terrible loss to depose of a man who could do much useful work elsewhere. As poor as he has been as Sec of Defense, George Jr should transfer Rumsfeld - not lose him. The question remains where will Rumsfeld be transferred? Where would Rumsfeld do better?

UT did not get it right. The only reason that Casey and Khalizad are even being heard: superior Americans called George Jr things such as liar, mental midget, incompetent, uninformed, naive, and self serving. Good Americans booed the president loudly a few weeks ago in Philadelphia. George Jr is only announcing insignificant troop reductions because George Jr's is worried about his popularity. Until even UT admits George Jr is a mental midget, then George Jr would not listen to what is rumored to be a Casey and Khalizad exit strategy.

The strategy that would get America out of Iraq, stop making America a terrorist target, and completely undermine the Iraqi insurgency (that is not Al Qaeda) would be an American withdrawal announced and completed by July 2006. It is one of only two viable strategies.

Too many Americans still so hate America as to not boo this president – force this president to select a viable Iraq strategy. You get this president to think when you grab him by his balls - also known as his popularity. That is where Goerge Jr does his thinking. George Jr's Iraqi speeches are only about fixing George Jr's popularity. Grab him by what does his thinking - his popularity - and maybe then he will listen to Casey and Khalizad.

44lb for a million bucks. Would that be singles, double sawbucks, or Benjamins? :D :D :D Tw, you're still a crank, and no, you're not remotely fair to Republicans. You need either a life or a woman, unless your taste in partners runs more to mike18.com, in which case you need one of those, only more grown up.

You and yours aren't recognizably patriots, either. That dog not only won't hunt -- it's in the advanced stages of decay.

How do we know that won't make the Iraquis think the Insurgency is winning and will be the power in contol, therefore the side to join, before the pullout? :confused:

The insurgency is fueled only by one thing - American occupation. Conditions being so unstable that Iraq must even import oil. Conditions that will only worsen. This American occupation has made even more central Iraqi cities unsafe for Americans every year. It will only worsen as history demonstrated - be it Vietnam, Lebanon, or Somalia. Even noted by a BBC reporter who could not give his 'year end' summary report from an Iraqi city he could visit one year previous.

Once Americans leave, a serious question is whether Iraqis unite to build a country and government, or will infight. Civil War remains a possibility. And yet honest politicians from Powell, Scowcroft, McCain, Biden, and Graham suggest Iraq must undertake that risk sooner or later. They disagree on when. But that risk must occur before the insurgency gets too strong. Like Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, or the Balkans, outsiders cannot create a solution. Iraq must create a solution. They must risk to earn a government or suffer consequences. Three years and they cannot field enough army or police? Time to sink or swim.

Unfortunately, all this is moot. America is rumored to be doing what was easily predicted by an agenda from Project For A New American Century. Rumors continue of somewhere between 14 and 20+ permanent American bases in Iraq. Clearly George Jr is doing nothing to dispel this - especially since Iran is next on the 'axis of evil' list; an attack that is justified by a George Jr policy of pre-emption. What we should do will not happen because of an extremist Republican agenda to fix the world - whether they want it or not.

Do we stay many more years? If we are needed for many years, then now is the time to make that decision and deploy 500,000 troops - to end the insurgency. Unfortunately we are doing what America also did in Vietnam. Philosophies of William Westmoreland are alive and well among extremists in the Republican Party. Somehow we were going to pervail in Vietnam even as the insurgency only grew. Somehow, just like in Vietnam, people insist this time it is different.

America cannot enforce upon a people what they can only do themselves. And yet George Jr insists we must prevail. Don't forget all those elections that occured in S Vietnam to prove back then we were winning the war.

Speaking of morality....
 

From here.

How's that for affecting US interests? A prominent US citizen is saying that if you listen to the United States, G-d will smite you.


It's not scary that there is a crazy nut like this running around, what's scary is the million people who he claims as listeners nodding their heads to this stuff.

Obviously, I had to go check out that link. How is that place possibly legal?

For those of you who don't want to visit, it's twink pr0n -- baaaaarely 18 (if that) boys. I can't wait for the cops to show up. They'll have such a good time going through my internet cache. From goatse to Jessica Alba beach shots to scat to twinks. And all from discussion board threads. They'll hardly be able to identify just what kind of pervert I am.... :ninja:

This should teach you that where UG leads, only idiots follow. If these are the kind of bookmarks he has on his computer, what's on his speedial?http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/eek.gif

Thanks for the heads up, Noodle! I've got enough problems with homeland security as it is. Do you suppose UG found this place by doing a Google on "porn" and was led here by the "This is not porn" thread? It would explain much! :rolleyes:

I think it's equal parts malice and stupidity. "Yeah, well, you're gay." Neener-neerner. Just another insult.

Belongs really in the Quote of the Day thread, but I collected this bit of wisdom many years ago, and have since lost the proper attribution. It applies here.

"I've been called worse by better."

And then I continue unfazed. Also, "Consider the source" -- my Dad. Together they settle the issue for me.