The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

[joecct]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

YAHOO! coerced? ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?tid=HP_lede

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

DOS and the IC knew it was BS, but they also knew the White House only wanted "evidence" with one answer. So they cherry-picked and sent it up the chain to the Bush politicals, and they said nothing when ginned-up garbage from Iraqi ex-pat fortune hunters with an eye to the killing they'd make after the US invasion was presented as "chilling inside testimony." The members of the Intel committees probably knew it was BS but the GOP members wanted the war and the Dem members were terrified of being "soft on terrorism." The Brits knew it was pure BS and I still don't know why Tony went along for the ride. PNAC and the oil companies had the war drawn up by 1995 and were just waiting for incumbency in the White House and a pretext. SCOTUS gave them one and OBL gave them the other.

Other than a handful of intel analysts who spoke truth to power and Shinseki who told Rummy to his face that he was lying, and a handful of "crazy, far left, surrender monkeys!!!11!" who had it all pegged right from the get-go, nobody came out of that disaster looking good, but the real culprits, in order of guilt, were the Neocon idiots with their 11th grade understanding of geopolitics, the Rovian politicos who were willing to kill a few thousand servicemen and waste a few trillion dollars for some electioneering, and the whole John Birch edifice of the American right for not only allowing it to happen but cheering it on like a vapid SEC football crowd.

A few on the right have actually managed to learn something and at least have distanced themselves from that dumpster fire, but all the Neocons and most of the Noise Machine is still waist deep in their own filth and claiming it's rosewater. They are, literally, never going to learn. The best we can do is keep sharp objects away from them until they pass away in the nursing home.

Too bad your hero Shinseki didn't turn out to be a SecVA worthy of the name. Just curious, are you into bonus money yet for "Neocon?" Seems like you should be. You may have noticed, there are other problems in that part of the world these days. And America's First Empty Suit, having been president now for six years, is responsible for our response. I'm sure, in your consummate smugness, you're frequently repeated the old saw about the military "fighting the last war." Well, why don't you stop doing what I'm pretty confident you've accused others of doing?

Bonus "Hysteria Points" for mentioning the JBS.

Maybe you and Scooby should consider getting a room.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

And for the new war that started last night officially there are many saying that the only reason we're going all in on ISIS(L) is because of the beheadings of our journalists.

That's not a reason to go to war. I hope the **** they come up with something better.

Yeah, like there's anything that would get your stamp of approval.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Beats the Carter Doctrine, anyway.

If we're going to exploit people and steal their oil, for god's sake let's make those people Canadian. It's closer, the women are prettier, they already speak English and they've got hockey.

The alternative to "stealing other people's oil" might be for America to regain energy independence. But you guys are opposed to that, too. Go figure.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Yeah, like there's anything that would get your stamp of approval.

For war against 12th century morons? No, not likely.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I think if Republicans want ground troops committed to Iraq, they should come out and say so. We all know what sad old man McCain really wants, its time for him and his pals to say it in public. The guy's not afraid of hitting the Sunday talk show circuit, to say the least. Campaign on a "lets invade Iraq AND Syria" platform. I have no idea if that's the GOP's stance in total, but these neo-conservative failures need to own to what they'd really like to do. How many troops would you commit, and for how long?

On his worst day, John McCain is more of a man than you can dream of being from the comfort of your home in "Leftwinglandia."

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

For war against 12th century morons? No, not likely.

Points for honesty, if not for pertinence. You may have noticed, our modern vulnerabilities (not to mention our openness) combined to make 9/11 possible. The philosophy that informs their madness, no matter how ancient, does not make them less of a threat. Himmler had Nazi "archeologists" scratching around, looking for the Holy Grail and other ancient artifacts which would "prove" the racialist nonsense of National Socialism. Japanese militarists looked to the ancient Code of Bushido to justify themselves. Nobody, except possibly you, would have dismissed the threat these people posed based on how old or moronic their philosophies were.

There's evidently nothing or nobody that would justify the use of American military power in your mind. Jeanette Rankin's got nothin' on you, bub.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

The alternative to "stealing other people's oil" might be for America to regain energy independence. But you're opposed to that, too. Go figure.

I'm opposed to American energy independence? I didn't know that and you did, huh? Go figure.

And BTW, we're projected to be energy independent by 2020, so by then you will insist we have every soldier home from the Middle East, right? Kthxbai.

 

[joecct]

I'm opposed to American energy independence? I didn't know that and you did, huh? Go figure.

And BTW, we're projected to be energy independent by 2020, so by then you will insist we have every soldier home from the Middle East, right? Kthxbai.

There is always Mexico.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I'm oppose to American energy independence? I didn't know that and you did, huh? Go figure.

And BTW, we're projected to be energy independent by 2020, so by then you will insist we have every soldier home from the Middle East, right? Kthxbai.

Well, if you're not, why not throw in a little pro forma criticism of the Community Organizer in Chief, occasionally? On the subject of his policy, which seems in opposition of energy independence. I don't believe criticizing our beloved Smartest Guy in the History of the World for his ineptness in securing a SOFA in Iraq (and taking ostentatious credit for it) is quite the same as wanting to have a GI in every market in the Middle East. Whether you guys like it or not (and you obviously don't) bad things tend to happen when America "leads from behind." The world is not run from the faculty club at the University of Chicago.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

On his worst day, John McCain is more of a man than you can dream of being from the comfort of your home in "Leftwinglandia."

John "Ground Troops Everywhere" McCain? No. Worst Congressman we have. Tied with Peter King and Lindsey Graham.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

John "Ground Troops Everywhere" McCain? No. Worst Congressman we have. Tied with Peter King and Lindsey Graham.

Even McCain knows, if you don't, he's in the Senate. And he's more of a man than you'll ever be, too.

 

[burd]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Whether you guys like it or not (and you obviously don't) bad things tend to happen when America "leads from behind." The world is not run from the faculty club at the University of Chicago.

It's been a long time since this country has experienced any one thing as bad as either of the disasters Mr. Mission Accomplished managed to allow happen, let alone a twofer. Mr. "Bring it on" inherited a surplus and left us with an economy on life support. He gave us a quagmire his own VP had the sense to know was avoidable:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Someone got it right, but it sure wasn't Sonny Boy.





T

 

[Old Pio]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It's been a long time since this country has experienced any one thing as bad as either of the disasters Mr. Mission Accomplished managed to allow happen, let alone a twofer. Mr. "Bring it on" inherited a surplus and left us with an economy on life support. He gave us a quagmire his own VP had the sense to know was avoidable:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?

Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

Someone got it right, but it sure wasn't Sonny Boy.





T

Funny. Your jaded view of history seems to begin and end with Bush II. No mention of LBJ. Remember? The "peace candidate." 59,000 dead in Vietnam. Ring a bell? Interesting how that works out, isn't it? Why don't you and the rest of the nervous nellies stop focusing on and blaming Bush for everything wrong in the world. And turn your attention instead to how to we clean up the mess created by this empty suit with the non existent resume and missing transcripts?

Are you absolutely positive you and the rest of the ladies in the chorale want to pose as deficit hawks?

The matter of casualties is always a tough one to contemplate. I don't want any Americans in uniform killed or injured, ever. Sadly, that's not an achievable goal, given realistic training which takes a handful of lives every year. We could, I suppose, become like Andorra in the old Pete Seeger tune: "they spend four dollars and ninety cents on armaments for their defense. Have you ever heard of such confidence? Andorra hip hoorah." Or we could recognize that sometimes people in our military are asked to put their lives on the line. And hope that when they do, the cause is just.

You seem to be confusing the casualty totals from Gulf War I and Gulf War II. As I say, the loss of every American who dies in service to his (or her) country is a tragedy. In Phoenix, we have honored Laurie Piestewa, the native American who died serving her country by naming a mountain after her. But occasionally any POTUS (including this one) has to contemplate the potential loss of life in considering foreign policy options. It's a fact of life.

Democrats blamed Hoover for over a generation after he left office. Evidently that's your plan with Bush. We're into the sixth year of the Obama presidency and all you can talk about is Bush. Better talk louder, because those falling poll numbers seem to indicate Americans are catching on to the game.

 

[joecct]

John "Ground Troops Everywhere" McCain? No. Worst Congressman we have. Tied with Peter King and Lindsey Graham.

A bit of rose colored glasses, don't you think? I'm sure every Democrat is pure as driven snow and not a jackarse..

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

honesty and transparency matter.

If you are claiming that the purported evidence of WMDs in Iraq (after Saddam had been proven to use poison gas against the Kurds, mind you, and after Israelis had taken out a nuclear reactor under construction!) was knowingly and deliberately fabricated, and you say that "honesty and transparency matter," then provide some evidence for your claim please. It seems to me that something that significant would have come to light by now.

Irag demonstrably DID have WMDs at one point. That has been definitively proven beyond any doubt. The question merely was, "did he still have WMDs in the early 2000s?"

It appears from everything I've read and heard that the evidence was mixed. There was some evidence that he might, and there also was plenty of evidence to suggest that he had dismantled it and shipped it all to Syria (where, sadly, it was used again... )

When I saw that dog and pony show, I thought to myself, "I'll bet Saddam has moved all of his WMDs out of the country so that they can't be found, and as soon as the fuss dies down, he'll bring them back again."

My criticism is less about the invasion itself (i was ambivalent about it, there were good reasons both ways) but about the occupation.

I was horrified that we had not follow-up plan. What did we think was going to happen once Saddam was gone? How could we possibly just stand idly by and let them slaughter each other? We should have known that, once you remove a tyrannical dictator, you have to replace him/her with a stron grip at first and then ease people into a gradual transition.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Even McCain knows, if you don't, he's in the Senate. And he's more of a man than you'll ever be, too.

Senators aren't in Congress? I thought Congress included both Houses.

At least I don't think ISIS is coming over the Mexican border to kill me. That puts me one up on McCain.

 

[joecct]

Senators aren't in Congress? I thought Congress included both Houses.

At least I don't think ISIS is coming over the Mexican border to kill me. That puts me one up on McCain.

Congressman/women refers to members of the House.
Senator is the proper honorific for members of the Senate.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

It's amazing that even after the worst presidency in the last hundred years, which was the epitome of the Dirty Harry School Of Overcompensating Men, there is still anybody who believes that school yard bully crap is relevant to real life problems. Probably it's because those same people are trapped forever in their love for an actor and his John Wayne School Of Sepia Toned Nostalgic Delusions.

Politics now is a battle between people who can handle reality and people who are desperately hanging on to the movies of their youth 50 years ago. Movies which were even at the time produced deliberately to feed a completely fictional account of the world back to people who wanted to escape from reality. Who knew that entertainment would mold the entire life philosophy of millions of suckers?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

they also knew the White House only wanted "evidence" with one answer. So they cherry-picked and sent it up the chain to the Bush politicals

This is a more realistic explanation, it seems to me. The evidence was ambivalent, and some of the evidence was over-emphasized while other parts of the evidence was de-emphasized.