Shouldn’t you be posting in the botting Senator in bogs thread, in that case?
BroonArrivalsArea[/quote]
It just chokes me up to read about that poor man. Just reaching for a piece of paper in the can.
Seriously though, if you’re rich and successful, wtf makes you think it’s ok to get a hummer in a public fucking bathroom? Am I missing something…?
I didn’t know it went anywhere. Unless someone did The USA a favor and turned it into a massive crater.
It’s the high faecal content in the air, it acts like pheromones to some. I just don’t understand why he didn’t declare this obvious medical issue. Surely a compassionate cuntry like America could have forgiven him for this?
HG
Is this all the pissy so called left wing on this forum can come up with?
It makes the foul innards of classicaliberalmen such as I wretch and wreakm with much gnashing of teeth.
Jesus Wept.
“Who lost Iraq?”
You did, for asking that same stupid question. AS if this particular plot of land could be rationally analysed. The whole premise of ‘Iraq’ as a nation state is a complete facade. It was prior to Saddam, after the fat bahsterd, and now: :charliebrown: during the shitestorm political jockeying for position style warfare that we see in effect.
Solution: Toss a few billions in that suckhole!
That’ll teach 'em!
Ah, Iraq. Yet another impressive military victory undone by execrable political leadership.
I wonder if deep seated religious/ethnic divisions among the populace played any role?
[quote=“spook”]The other reason though is because what we all know in our heart of hearts is that what we’re really trying to pull off in Iraq is a giant con game in which we’re trying to swindle the Iraqi people out of their self-respect, their most deeply held beliefs and maybe even eventually some of their oil loot – and like it.
That my friends has got to be one of the hardest “wars” imaginable to fight and win. Trying to swindle an entire country out of what they hold nearest and dearest – particularly when they never really trusted anything about us in the first place.[/quote]
That’s got to be the worst analysis I’ve ever seen of American intentions in Iraq. Praytell, old spook, just why exactly do you believe we’re trying to “swindle” the Iraqis out of their “self-respect?”
I can just see it now. Bush is in the “War Room” with his top generals and advisors, and a voice comes from the darkness, “Swindle the Iraqis out of their self-respect.” Yes, that is no doubt what happened.
Could you also explain what “deeply held beliefs” we’re depriving them off? Are we trying to deprive them of their religion? Or perhaps you mean the majority Shi’as liked being ruled by a Sunni dictator? Do tell spook.
I wonder if deep seated religious/ethnic divisions among the populace played any role?[/quote]
What kind of nonsense is that please? Did you not read the memo?
The Iraqis from Turkey down to the Perisian Gulf are extremely tollerant of each other. This is a general phenomenon of the region btw, applying to the entire Middle East as a whole. The local religion of peace practically negates any such hate or rivalries.
It was merely Saddam who oppressed the whole Iraqi lot, without him they would have had nothing but love for each other. This is a general phenomenom of the region btw, applying to the entire Middle East. Different religions and ethnicities there have a long tradition to treat each other with tollerance if they are only left to their own devices.
Iraqi history is littered with examples of democratic movement. Not really fully-fledged of course, but in regular intervals someone tried to give it a go. This is a general phenomenom of the region btw, applying to the entire Middle East. A tollerant and democratic state respecting the rights of minorities is the state of choice for any majority in the area. Elections are regularly won by moderates with a general leaning towards the US and the power of their parliaments is hardly challenge by anyone but a faint, distant minority (see next bullet point).
Any bombings you may hear about are committed by a very tiny terrorist minority which however has no support in the general population whatsoever. Also this is a general phenomenom of the region btw, applying to the entire Middle East. Muslims in general frown upon such acts, in particular when committed against US forces or their local supporters.
All of the above facts are merely sorrowly underreported by a Bush-bashing liberul media.
You Gao_bo_han are apparently just another liberul-communist-gay-racist-something-dongxi-man-terrible-dongxi-traitor-dongxi-somthing-dongxi ignorant of these basic facts. No wonder you are sceptical about the success in Iraq you idiot.
Shame upon you!
Did I just write that? 
On a more serious note again: You forgot to mention the hooded cloaks and spooky shaddows the cabal was throwing at the brickwalls in the dim candlelight as they fiendishly cackled plotting the vilde deed.
Something like that.
We billed it as Operation Iraqi Freedom and proclaimed sovereignty had been restored to the Iraqi people while all the while secretly preparing for permanent occupation. Every time U.S. officials have been asked if we intend to permanently occupy Iraq they answer with vague platitudes or change the subject. During the parliamentary elections of 2004 we conspired at the highest levels to rig the process and were only stopped at the last minute by Condoleeza Rice and Nancy Pelosi – while all the while proclaiming our commitment to democracy. Iraq’s equivalent of the White House and U.S. Capitol building have been transformed into our nation’s largest embassy complex without the slightest concern as to whether that’s okay with the “liberated” people of Iraq or not.
Saying one thing and doing something entirely different – particularly in secret – is the essence of fraud. How can anyone with even the slightest grasp of reality, of the facts, claim we’ve done anything less than commit a gigantic fraud in Iraq? Operation Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do with freedom. Our true motivation was to depose the government of Iraq and establish permanent military bases there so we could keep Iraq and its people permanently under our thumb.
Certainly the best judges of whether that’s true or not are the Iraqi people themselves. The last time they were polled on the issue – in 2003 – 1% said they believed what the U.S. government was claiming about its motivations for invading their country while the overwhelming majority said the true motivation was permanent occupation and usurpation of their natural resources.
If it walks like fraud, quacks like fraud and looks like fraud then it is fraud – notwithstanding our cherished national self delusions.
I have been yelling from every balcony, every rooftop and every mountain top for five years that we are going to stay, stay, stay, and yet this still comes as a shock or surprise to you? What the hell? Are you also going to whine about the fraud that perpetuates itself every day with regard to the Democrat platitudes about caring for the poor, about how the troubles in New Orleans and Louisiana were caused by an ineffective FEMA, that leftists march about this, that and the other but rarely ever stand by the strengths of their convictions. Why does this fraud, which is in our direct national interests, which the elected governments in Kurdistan and Iraq fully understand and desire bother you so much. Because we are not “being honest” with the Iraqi man on the street? haha
I wonder if deep seated religious/ethnic divisions among the populace played any role?[/quote]
The point of my statement was not to belittle the internal sociopolitical turmoil that is happening in Iraq. Rather, it was to draw a clear distinction between the performance of our men and women in uniform that are in the battle zone and the politicians in Washington. I, for one, never doubted the military muscle within the U.S. armed forces could be strong enough to overcome even the elite of the Republican Guard. Few doubted military success–even the biggest detractors of the U.S. expected victory. The problem still to be solved was whether or not the U.S. political acumen was strong enough to “win the peace.”
The very issue you bring up (internal faction conflict) is not a “can the U.S. win a military conflict” question. It is, however, a question for which every geopolitical strategist and leader of a country worth his salt should have an answer/FMEA contingency plan. There were many good political reasons why the elder Bush president did not venture into Iraq. In the beginning of the Kuwait conflict and the more current Iraq conflict, no one doubted the U.S. military’s ability to win the war.
So, if military victory is all but assured, what would be the reasons why there should not be an invasion? Afterall, all that counts is who has the most or biggest bombs/tanks/planes, right? Just turn on your T.V.; many of the reasons are being seen right now on CNN. There were many warnings, by many people much smarter and experienced than you or I in geopolitical strategy, that advised against engaging into this situation. I’ve yet to read about anyone in that group that thought there would be a military defeat. I can say, however, that the “we will be greeted as liberators” paradigm was woefully short of any competence standards by any measure.
Simply put, the U.S. military already won the war–the might of the American military was more than amply proven during the conflict. The question still remaining is: does the U.S. have the other “stuff” (strong political/economic alliances with standard and new incoming international players, the infrastructure wisdom to secure educational supremacy and a flexible workforce, the fiscal responsibility at the federal and state level, a sound geopolitical short-term/medium-term/long-term plan that has bi-partisan support, etc) to lead the world in the next hundred years.
Hopefully, the above clarifies my initial statement.
[quote=“Hrodric”] does the U.S. have the…wisdom… to lead the world in the next hundred years.
[/quote]
Not at the moment.
BroonArchives
Perhaps I should turn this around on you and “demand” that you admit that you are failing miserably in your efforts at convincing people that the efforts in Iraq are failing.
You could, but that would merely indicate the extent of your own delusions.
HG
Perhaps I should turn this around on you and “demand” that you admit that you are failing miserably in your efforts at convincing people that the efforts in Iraq are failing.[/quote]
It’s tough to decide whether the surge is “working” or not when I don’t even have a clear idea what a successful surge is supposed to look like. I doubt you do either.
Does it mean delivering a fatal blow to the insurgency so it withers away?
Does it mean providing enough breathing space for the Iraqi government so it’s able to gain control of the chaos in the country for the first time?
Failure is easy enough to define. It would simply mean that the “surge” tactic didn’t really permanently improve anything.
Got any idea what you’re talking about?
It’s the one that requires lots of tissues to wipe up or lots of gagging.
BroonAle
I don’t know what your problem is, but I’ll bet it’s hard to pronounce.[/quote]
Oops! Did I really forget to tell you I love you today?
Yes precious, we know you have trouble with big words, but that’s okay because God loves all all the little boys and girls, even those with mental calipers! Now run along to school, and don’t you worry at all about those big nasty words!
Kiss kiss!
HG
Perhaps I should turn this around on you and “demand” that you admit that you are failing miserably in your efforts at convincing people that the efforts in Iraq are failing.[/quote]
It’s tough to decide whether the surge is “working” or not when I don’t even have a clear idea what a successful surge is supposed to look like. I doubt you do either.
Does it mean delivering a fatal blow to the insurgency so it withers away?
Does it mean providing enough breathing space for the Iraqi government so it’s able to gain control of the chaos in the country for the first time?
Failure is easy enough to define. It would simply mean that the “surge” tactic didn’t really permanently improve anything.
Got any idea what you’re talking about?[/quote]spook -
You mean after all the blithering back and forth you’ve been doing you’re going to finally admit you have no idea of what you’re supposed to be looking for?
No wonder you can’t debate in a straight line. You are wandering around in circles of your own making.
Have fun…and remember…if you walk the same trail long enough you create a rut.