The impending Veto

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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?

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

For anyone tired of tw's lies, you can read what's really happening on the ground at Michael Yon's website

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:

A bloody debacle at a tiny hamlet in the Mekong Delta called Ap Bac in 1962 was a turning point. What should have been a South Vietnamese Army victory, with the help of American helicopters, became a stunning defeat when the South Vietnamese forces deliberately let a trapped Viet Cong unit escape.

For writing the truth in the face of official lies, Halberstam and the others would be denounced as defeatists, cowards, traitors.

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.

As America marched toward the invasion of Iraq late in 2002, David Halberstam, like some others who’d spent their youth in Vietnam, was questioning the Bush administration’s beating of the war drums.

“I just never thought it was going to work at all,” he said during a talk last January. “I thought that in both Vietnam and Iraq, we were going against history. My view _ and I think it was because of Vietnam _ was that the forces against us were going to be hostile, that we would not be viewed as liberators. We were going to punch our fist into the largest hornet’s nest in the world.”

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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?).

tw lies again..oh wait make that still. I've read everything Yon wrote including his book. Have you?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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. ....

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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?

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.

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.

tw keeps asking questions when tw can't answer the questions tw should be answering.

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.

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...

Originally Posted by tw

"Today Americans routinely fire heavy weapons even on innocent Iraqis".

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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"?

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Undertoad]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[Undertoad]

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

In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

Emphasis mine.