Liars Liars !

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunthr
Bush makes the important decisions based on principles.  That is a higher form, in my opinion, than making decisions based on politics.  Bush has been consistent throughout.  We can and are finishing the job we began - as long as we have our volunteer military.

If IRAQ was based on a principle, even if truth was twisted to get everyone behind it, then the principle would be that no country in the world should have to live under a dictator like Saddam.  If this is the principle that our leaders are following, then we would have to invade half of the world to set them free from their tyrannist leaders.  I don't disagree with with the ideal that no human should live under oppressive leaders, it's just not very realistic to think we have the power to free them all! That is why IRAQ was bad move.  Since we are there alrady, now we have to bring the job to a successful close as soon as possible!   to the team!

[JBA]

This guys is no republican, actually a bit Liberal, read his blog, Google
Thomas P M Barnett. For his bio, military analysis Navel academy Newport RI.

He has lectured CIA, Pentagon and most World militaries on Terrorism,

If you want to understand the war on Terrorism then read this

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425202399/thompmbarn-20/002-6542001-3010415?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1

and this


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0399153128/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/002-6542001-3010415?n=283155

From 1998 through 2004, Prof. Barnett was a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Newport RI, where he taught and served--in a senior advisory role--with military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command.  From November 2001 to June of 2003, Dr. Barnett was on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he worked with (then) OFT Director Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (USN, ret.) on a cluster of strategic concepts that link change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military capabilities to meet future threats.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Gunthr
I can laugh off the progressive far left liberals  . . .[/url]

Ah yes, the Hillary Clinton bogeyman!

It could not be long before someone used the most inane, tired and useless cliche in modern politics could it?

"Look out, Hillary Clinton gone' git yo mama!"

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Casca
"...individuals who are actively attempting to undermine your position to the detriment of the outcome, for political gain and with no clearly articulated alternative course of action besides cut and run..."  

We are in substantial agreement:

Yet Murtha's postulate was not cut and run, no one has said that is feasible to simply walk away without any plan, and they are only calling for planning.

Bush has used this war and terror in general for politics, no question and his admin has done so shamelessly:  would that there was some consistency amongst conservatives calling that as bad as what they say about anyone else.  

So we have one guy who is a total political monkey and has no plan he will enunciate beyond "9/11, stay the course" and other political monkeys of both parties who are saying "plan something please but don't quote me on it."

We are sad indeed.  

Bush has stated he will listen to the "generals on the gournd." There is no evidence he has ever done that.  That's my problem:  he has no more credibility than Krusher or Hillary, yet we're banking on a "trust me" from the guy?

No, I don't want Hillary to be president, I also don't think Bush has the understanding and work ethic it requies to actually stay the course and steer us to victory because so many decisions are made publicly by others in his admin so I think our undermanned services will take it in the bellybutton again because of political desires that are out of proportion to what is feasible.

And Bush and his cronies will blame "liberals" for allowing him to drive our military off a cliff.  I can't wait for the book titled: "We never made a mistake."

I'm more of a realist:  if we can't and are not going to, and the GOP in the senate are applying the brakes now so we won't win as Bush has demanded we do, then change the criteria and win one for our guys now and keep our military intact.  

The real war is on Terror and that aint being fought in Iraq, that's a global gig.  

Sakai

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
But that's still not the case.  Even after 1441 Sadam let inspectors back in and while they were at the frunt door he was up to his old tricks of moving stuff out the back.  

What people like Sakai and SkyRock don't seem to want to remember is that it has been US policy to enact regiem change in Iraq since 1998

They still can't prove that Bush lied.  They got nothing but spin and talking points.

Proof is that we were mislead into believeing that there were definitely stockpiles of chem weapons and that the threat was imminent!  "A smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud".   As far as policy on IRAQ, it has been bungled by the last four administrations.  There are many countries in the world that, because of being a threat to national security and/or human rights abuses, deserve regime change.  Why pick IRAQ and why when we had a war on terrorism to fund and fight?
Bad choice and bad timing!

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Proof is that we were mislead into believeing that there were definitely stockpiles of chem weapons and that the threat was imminent!  "A smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud".   As far as policy on IRAQ, it has been bungled by the last four administrations.  There are many countries in the world that, because of being a threat to national security and/or human rights abuses, deserve regime change.  Why pick IRAQ and why when we had a war on terrorism to fund and fight?
Bad choice and bad timing!

maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.  

Iraq is the perfect location to do it as well. It happens to be centered were "radical islam" calls home.  If you don't think we are fighting the WOT on the streets of Iraq you are sadly mistaken.....sadly mistaken.  

But again, you have no way to prove that Bush lied about WMD smoking gun or intel.  It simply doesn't exist....kinda like WMDs that just disapeared in mid air......vanished, but no one seems to care why they arent there just that there not there.

there's many reasons that make this the right war, at the right place, at the right time.  It's just kinda hard to say I told you so when it comes to the security of our nation.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.  

Iraq is the perfect location to do it as well. It happens to be centered were "radical islam" calls home.  If you don't think we are fighting the WOT on the streets of Iraq you are sadly mistaken.....sadly mistaken.  

But again, you have no way to prove that Bush lied about WMD smoking gun or intel.  It simply doesn't exist....kinda like WMDs that just disapeared in mid air......vanished, but no one seems to care why they arent there just that there not there.

there's many reasons that make this the right war, at the right place, at the right time.  It's just kinda hard to say I told you so when it comes to the security of our nation.

You are mistaken.  Saddam generally had to big of an ego for any "radical islam" to call home there.  Saddam was in fact a much less threat to the united states, as far as providing a launch pad to attack us, than lets say Saudi arabia, Lebanon, North Africa, South east asia.  All of these ****ries and regions are losely policed when it comes to infiltrating islamic fundamentalist cells.  Saddam was all up in everything so much so that most hardcore terrorist might ask to run to him, but wouldnt want to operate there.  
     IRAQ was a horrible choice to fight the WOT.  The money and manpower we have already spent there could have constructed manned lazer detecting checkpoints on every inch of border here in the mainland.  We would know everysingle movement across our borders from an illegal alien in the south to a moose fart in the north.  After we finished securing our borders, then we decide on where to venture out and start a fight with the bad guys.  The homeland is still left unprotected in many ways.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by SkyRock
You are mistaken.  Saddam generally had to big of an ego for any "radical islam" to call home there.  Saddam was in fact a much less threat to the united states, as far as providing a launch pad to attack us, than lets say Saudi arabia, Lebanon, North Africa, South east asia.  All of these ****ries and regions are losely policed when it comes to infiltrating islamic fundamentalist cells.  Saddam was all up in everything so much so that most hardcore terrorist might ask to run to him, but wouldnt want to operate there.  
     IRAQ was a horrible choice to fight the WOT.  The money and manpower we have already spent there could have constructed manned lazer detecting checkpoints on every inch of border here in the mainland.  We would know everysingle movement across our borders from an illegal alien in the south to a moose fart in the north.  After we finished securing our borders, then we decide on where to venture out and start a fight with the bad guys.  The homeland is still left unprotected in many ways.

you're a racist.  You can't put lazers on the border.  At least that's what the left would have said to Bush doing that.

Seriously, so you would have waited till country after country fell to islamo fascism spuring up many hate factories till you would have "spent the money"  I'm glad you aint running things.  Again these guys are hell bent on world domination.  I'd much rather fight them when they are small less organized and managable than when they are knocking on our doorstep.


Again Germany Pre 1935

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
you're a racist.  You can't put lazers on the border.  At least that's what the left would have said to Bush doing that.

Seriously, so you would have waited till country after country fell to islamo fascism spuring up many hate factories till you would have "spent the money"  I'm glad you aint running things.  Again these guys are hell bent on world domination.  I'd much rather fight them when they are small less organized and managable than when they are knocking on our doorstep.


Again Germany Pre 1935

Racist??????  wtf are you talking about? I thought you had a little smarts before this piece.  Wow! country after country???  lmao rofl! Please be more informed of the enemy that you try to talk about.  They are wanderers and if we tighten up security at home they have nothing.  They don't even have power in any of the middleastern countries.  They are thugs/terrorists with out a country.  They doo however seek refuge and co-ordinate out of a few countries.  IRAQ was not one of them.  Man, and I thought you knew some stuff!  The way you talk, we could stop terrorist by going country to country and occupying it.
 I am serious about the border security.  It seems odd that so many "feel" that the war in IRAQ is making it safer here.  There are so many holes in our nations homeland security that its like swiss cheese.  Yet, here we are in IRAQ fighting IED's.  Again gunslinger, what is the sole purpose of being in IRAQ?  I mean the most important reason for being there?

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
maybe you havn't heard of this little group that wants to take over the world called radical islam.  

Little being the operative word there.

It is not Iraq or all of the Middle east and creating more of them is hardly wise.

Even Bush knows enough to not say all of Islam, creating a monster where one does not exist will only force Islam into that position.  You leave them only the void of hatred and that is where they will end up.

Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Yeager, Panama was a farce and basically was used as a testing grounds for new weapons systems.  I believe 30,000 citizens were killed and many in one burrough where it mysteriously got torched!  If you want to know what americans didnt learn, then u must do some research, but the horrible truths about that fiasco are out there.  I will try and find you a link.

That's quite an allegation, I'd like to see some objective documentation.

Sakai

[Casca]

Originally posted by Sakai

Yet Murtha's postulate was not cut and run, no one has said that is feasible to simply walk away without any plan, and they are only calling for planning.

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

If this is not cut and run the distinction is too fine for me and AlJazeera to comprehend.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Casca
109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 73
To redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 17, 2005

SECTION 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

If this is not cut and run the distinction is too fine for me and AlJazeera to comprehend.

That was not Murtha's bill, it was a GOP bill designed to embarass the Democrats that Murtha himself did not vote for. Tell me how it is that anyone in the GOP still falls for this facile and inane type of sound byte crapola?

You boys need to read more, stop listening to the right wing sound machine.

Also, if Bush's speech did not talk about redeployment, then I don't know what the definition would be.  He said we won't cut and run, but he sure as hell said we'd step back and walk quickly as can towards the exits.

What do democrats want in Iraq?

Bayh: find realistic way to define success, then set benchmarks

Edwards: was "wrong". Wants "significant" reduction of troops after elections early next year. He'd tie the proportion of troops withdrawn to benchmarks set for Iraqi soldier performance.

Biden: no withdrawals until political situation improves, but sees 100K troops back home by '07. Does not rule out more troops if necessary. Wants admin to come clean about targets for Iraqi troop training. More civillian staff in Iraq.

Clark: add civillian component; consider adding troops; adjust the mix on the ground; establish clear benchmarks for training

Clinton: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for training Iraqi forces and make it clear to Iraq that the US's military committment is limited.

Feingold: 12/31/06 is a "target date" for troops to come home. But he's flexible.

Kerry: begin drawn down of 20K troops after elections in Dec and continue if successful.

Richardson: "It is now time for the military commanders to design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Warner: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for Iraqi forces. Eschews "debating the past."

The right has lost the initiative and with their continued spin has zero moral footing to move forward.  The GOP senate called for the same things, time to stop pointing fingers over sound byytes and get on with life mate.

If you think the dems want us out too quickly, you should be after the entire GOP senate.



Sakai

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Casca
109th CONGRESS

1st Session

Here is Murtha's bill compared to the GOP's bill:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.


The GOP revision, however, includes no preamble, and states that all troops will be removed immediately. This is it, in its entirety:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

See teh difference?

How lucky we are to have such scum sucking pigs making political hay with the lives of our military men and women?  Right?  

;-)

Sakai

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Sakai

How lucky we are to have such scum sucking pigs making political hay with the lives of our military men and women?  Right?  

;-)

Sakai

Yup