The impending Veto

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

100% tw accuracy, suck my big dic.

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".

[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 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.

[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.