Formerly titled: Rummy’s A Dummy
edited by miltownkid
The mind-boggling incompetence would tend to indicate that Rumsfeld and Bush are actually trying to lose the war.
Or trying to keep a smaller foot print like we did in Afghanistan which many now attribute to the successful effort there. I think that once the elections are over we should substantially draw down our troops to 90K and let the Iraqis take over more of the security. If they cannot, well then they will have to start learning how. The less we are involved in the day-to-day policing the better. Then, we can try to hit 50K eventually. If we need to bulk up again for the yearend elections then let’s do so but with the proviso that they will be drawn right back down again.
Freddie boy, am still trying to control my laughter on your post, a smaller footprint being the reason for success, 
the reason for the smaller footprint as you call it is that large sections of the country, have not and still are not under anything other than local warlord control. You do not need a large footprint as you only have to cover a small area.
The smaller footprint, which allowed OBL to continue laughing at us from his hidey-holes. OBL’s releasing more videos than Ali-G these days. Brilliant. Now 1/3 of Afghanistan belongs to the Taliban again, and the “no-go” zones is pretty much everything outside the presidential compound in Kabul.
Well there is Afghanistan where we were successful with far fewer troops. Then there is Iraq where I do not think the number of troops will make a difference. This has to be an Iraqi effort. Then there are past efforts in oh say Bosnia and Kosovo. How many troops do the Europeans STILL have there? Any transfer of power? Any timetable for leaving soon? Hmmm? How’re the French doing in Cote d’Ivoire? so let’s not pretend that all these other UN efforts and Euro efforts are going hunky dory and considering how successful Afghanistan was, I think we may be able to get a good running start for Iraq.
Remember it was not that Afghanistan would be pacified. The bar has since been raised repeatedly from the following:
- The Taliban will never be overthrown.
- The various Afghan factions will turn on each other and there will be civil war.
- It will be the graveyard of the US empire.
- The elections will never be held because of logistical problems.
- The elections will never be held because no one is registered.
- The elections will never be held because of violence.
- The elections will never be held because no one will agree on the framework.
- No one will recognize the elections.
- The various factions will fight. No one will work with Karzai.
Whoops. Wanna go for double the trouble with predictions regarding Iraq? Hmmm?
Please show me anything where this has been stated. I just read an article last week that the Taliban was in disarray and might collapse as a force. What have you been smoking, er, that is reading?
Please show me anything where this has been stated. I just read an article last week that the Taliban was in disarray and might collapse as a force. What have you been smoking, er, that is reading?[/quote]
Fred, if it was an article produced by or come from the US intelligence services then i suggest you rethink your reading material.
That or I can spend hours or maybe even days explaining the differences between US and Pakistani intelligence. US (two letters a U and an S) Pakistani a very different word. Try not to get them confused again. haha
Fred, what are you smoking today, i was referring o the article you had read the previous week as mentioned in your post before mine, what has this got to do with the Pakistani report that you mentioned earlier in the thread, now you are only confusing yourself and not others. 
When it comes to Fred’s posts today, I think that’s about the only reaction: 
Fred,
Looking at the situation as it actually exists – the occupation/liberation forces have arrived (I do the slash thing simply to demonstrate two of many possible definitions of the Coalition forces in place) and have toppled Saddam. No wmd’s have been found but many, including you, feel there was sufficient reason to suspect they would be there.
Now whether or not one agrees that the war is a success, whether one feels that the invasion was jusitified, whether one believes that the Bush administration had sufficient reasons to see Iraq as an imminent threat to America’s national security…
The bolded portion of your post is troubling.
Iraq seems to be in tatters. Casualties are mounting and though some portion of the population is moving towards democratic elections, at least some percentage is engaged in a resistance, perhaps even a jihad against the Coalition forces.
So, to simply say, they should secure the country so that elections can take place and then reduce our troop presence downwards until the eventual exit, seems to indicate that (for you) the goal now is for elections to take place and once that occurs, it may finally, truly be a “mission accomplished.”
I don’t know. This reads to me like an almost arbitrary cap on this mess. A sort of “we got them to the elections so now we can leave. Whatever happens next is up to them.” I realize many people do not want to see a sustained Coalition occupation but to think that merely securing an election in a place that is still very much in the heat of a war is anything either than the latest in the ever-moving goalpost game of 'how are we going to get out of this mess" seems wrong.
The forces went in. They gave their reasons. They’ve changed and redefined their reasons as they went along. Now, I think the Coalition owes the Iraqis something more than “well, we gave you a democratic election”!
. . . and then reduce our troop presence downwards until the eventual exit . . . [/quote]
Rooftop,
Might I suggest that you read the fineprint of the Neocon Manifesto more carefully.
The Devil is, as they say, in the fineprint.
[quote=“spook”]Rooftop,
Might I suggest that you read the fineprint of the Neocon Manifesto more carefully. The Devil is, as they say, in the fineprint.[/quote]
I was interested to find this “Neocon Manifesto” that spook suggests provides so many answers, so I looked on Amazon.com. Amazon didn’t carry a book of that name, but linked to a number of websites (mostly the same ones you get if you google “Neocon Manifesto”) which all contained the same piece entitled Neocon Manifesto.
Well it certainly does attempt to explain what the “neocons” are plotting. But it offers a rather bizarre and warped a view of the world if you ask me.
A few quotes:
[quote]It has recently been revealed that Zionists are even involved with extreme right anti-Semitic movements in Europe and with the creation of Hamas. After all, anti-Semitism is the Zionist
Hobbes,
Your attention to detail and sarcasm are impressive. As are your more serious posts that I, for one, missed badly enough to try to get you back into posting mode.
Thanks for your continued presence here. You’re building quite a fan base throughout the political spectrum which is no easy feat.
After reading in another thread of Spook’s alleged anti-semitism, I read quite a few, if not all of his postings.
I’m willing to wager that this is an unfortunate coincidence and that he was not referring me to the actual document entitled “Neocon Manifesto” but made that title up to describe what he felt would likely be in such a document, were it to actually exist.
Why cut him this much slack and not presume that this is indeed proof of his anti-semitism? His posts don’t support it, from what I’ve read at least.
Israel does seem to be a topic which he’s quite invested in, as we all have our own particular interests. But, he hasn’t written anything I’ve seen that is hateful or incitements to violence/censure towards Jews.
The poster who accuses him also has his merits, and can construct impressive arguments at times. However, in this case – the case of Spook being an anti-Semite – it does seem a bit like a dismissal through an accusation of prejudice. edit #2: Much like that same posters every statement is sometimes dismissed because he is a “neocon” according to some. For me, criticism of israel does not equate with hatred for Jews.
edit: I do hope my instincts are correct on this.
[quote=“spook”]
Might I suggest that you read the fineprint of the Neocon Manifesto more carefully.[/quote]
Joooooos! Eeeeeeevil Joooooos!!! 
Fred, that’s a good idea. Now that Afghanistan is sorted out, and Iraq’s nearly sorted (looks lovely and peaceful in the run up to the elections, which I’m sure will sort that lack of government thing out once and for all), why don’t the Americans just leave? And could they promise not to do any more invading? I have lost count of the places America has invaded since the end of WW2. (Don’t you guys ever get tired? You used to let other countries like Indonesia do their fair share of invading, but now it’s all “me, me, me”. Give the other guys a chance. It’s only fair.)
Is “smaller footprint” army-speak for “just enough troops to overthrow the government, but not enough to prevent anarchy”?
The problem isn’t my alleged anti-semitism – which I’ve challenged them to demonstrate and been told they’re “not going to be drawn into” doing so.
The problem is their demonstrable McCarthyism in the face of criticisms they can’t and won’t answer directly.
Once again, for the record, I condemn anti-semitism and all the horrors it has generated against people of Jewish faith and culture throughout the ages.
To equate anti-semitism with criticism of government policies I believe to be wrong though is simply demagoguery.
As for the “Neocon Manifesto” I refer to, it’s a very real series of documents by the main architects of “Operation Iraqi Freedom”:
"We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region . . . "
May 29, 1998
Signed: Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz
Fine Spook:
I will relent and welcome your statement that you are not anti-Jewish. I am not going to go back through all these threads today to find every example when we were talking about something else and you brought up Israel. Let’s just say that the frequency with which you did so and your rabid interest in Pollock and the Liberty added much to the impression. However, as soon as you bring Israel into a conversation again, I am going to again strongly suggest that you either start a thread on Israel (which I noticed you did not have the guts to do the last time I suggested your mentioning of Israel on a completely different topic was inappropriate or sounded anti-Jewish) or will point out that continued discussion in a thread in which Israel has no conceivable involvement will get you another lashing across the fingers typing the heated but Israel, but Israel, but Israel, but we invaded Iraq for our Israeli allies but we are pressuring Syria because of our Israeli allies, but what about Israel, but what about Israel? Fair?
Hexuan: I think that there is a vast difference between who the US has “invaded” and other “invasions.” Would you say that our invasion of Afghanistan was made to either bring misery to the people there, for territorial aggrandizement or to take over Afghan resources? Would you say that is the case with Kuwait? Grenada? Panama? Iraq? Vietnam? Korea? Germany? France? Italy? etc.
I think that our involvement has been unfortunate and misguided in the following places: Guatemala in 1954 and to some extent our laziness in supporting regimes like Somoza in Nicaragua and perhaps Suharto in Indonesia. But I still do not see that we had much of a choice. We also had diplomatic relations with the Soviets and the Communist Chinese but I do not see the same posters criticizing our involvement with them. Naturally, they would not because they espouse communist principles but… you get the point.
[quote=“fred smith”]I will relent and welcome your statement that you are not anti-Jewish. I am not going to go back through all these threads today to find every example when we were talking about something else and you brought up Israel.
Let’s just say that the frequency with which you did so and your rabid interest in Pollock and the Liberty added much to the impression
.[/quote]
Freddie, this seems to be very similar to your tirades against euroep, so if this gives you the impression of Spook being anti-semitic, then you can now understand why so many thought you to be anti-european. :bravo:
Glad to see you can finally recognise yourself for what you are.