The impending Veto

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

2) That film is fictional, asshole!

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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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.

[TheMercenary]

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/

[Undertoad]

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.

[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.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Do I want to turn the Cellar into a cesspool of UG profanities?

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

All those fuckers.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.