Your name is GW Bush.
I've been waiting months for him to start shifting the focus of the war into minimizing the political fallout of partial/complete military withdrawal. It is going to happen, hell they simple don't have the numbers to maintain the Surge that he deems so vital after April 2008, and they have expended all their options for keeping troops in rotation. Even if he manages to coast until Jan 2009 it is sure as sh'it going to be not long afterwards when the boys start coming home.
Yet he keeps publicly airing the same rhetoric that has been pushing for the last wildly unsuccessful four years.
I guess I shouldn't be suprised, he was in fact inept enough to give Osama bin Laden the very thing he wanted when he orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, a ground war in Dar el Islam between Islamic guerillas and the American Armed forces. A war that has gone pretty well for Al-qaeda in that it has accomplished all its objectives (rise in radicalism, loss of americas support from allies, no clear decisive wins for the US etc). Still it is frustrating.
He is right about one thing though, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will precipitate a disaster of epic proportions. To bad that his bumbling handling of the whole affair has made it all but impossible to avoid. He gave them what he wanted in the first place and refused to deviate from his course creating a situation where the end result is all but unavoidable. Rather than using his remaining days in office to minimize the situation so that a withdrawal wouldn't be such a disaster he keeps on plowing along right into Al-qaeda's hands.
/rant off
Edited, Aug 31st 2007 11:27am by bodhisattva
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Failure
FailureFollow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
That was nice of Neph.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
He's very sensitive and in a tough spot emotionally. I thought it was the least I could do.
Hunter S. Thompson on September 12th, 2001 wrote:
…The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives. It will be a Religious War, a sort of Christian Jihad, fueled by religious hatred and led by merciless fanatics on both sides. It will be guerilla warfare on a global scale, with no front lines and no identifiable enemy.
… We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them. This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force. Good luck. He is in for a profoundly difficult job -- armed as he is with no credible Military Intelligence, no witnesses and only the ghost of Bin Laden to blame for the tragedy.
… We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or what will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for WAR seem to know who did it or where to look for them. This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will ferret them out by force. Good luck. He is in for a profoundly difficult job -- armed as he is with no credible Military Intelligence, no witnesses and only the ghost of Bin Laden to blame for the tragedy.
I've been finishing up Kingdom of Fear since your avatar reminded me that I had, in fact, only gotten through half of it.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
Donald Rumsfeld wrote:
Nov. 6, 2006
SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action
The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS
[...]
Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not "lose."
Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.
SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action
The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS
[...]
Of course, neither of those options address how to actually improve the situation. They're just recommendations Rumsfeld made before he left on how to best spin the operations and avoid being called a loser no matter how it goes.
Edited, Sep 5th 2007 3:54pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
for what ever reason we went in, right or wrong, the end result was written in stone over 1000 years ago. the war we are fighting in Iraq is the same type of war they have been fighting ever since the crusaders went in there to show them the light.
same with russia in afganistan. they won every battle, but they just kept comming and comming untill finally, after 15 years and 15,000 troops, russia decided the oil there was just too expensive.
no matter how long we stay, it WILL NOT STOP untill we go. and yes, when we go, it will be a really serious mess.....for a very long time.
that said,
the republican party has a vested interest in staying untill atleast 2009. if they pull out, its their failure 100 percent. if they hand it to the dems.....what happens if we stay or leave is now the dems fault, not theirs. they had a plan, and the dems stoped them from finnishing it........the mantra for the republican party in 2012 elections.
we are not going anywhere untill after the elections if they can help it.
and when iraq turns into a mess after we leave, the dems will get BLASTED out of the water for being the ones to do it.
the moral majority working hard....for you.
same with russia in afganistan. they won every battle, but they just kept comming and comming untill finally, after 15 years and 15,000 troops, russia decided the oil there was just too expensive.
no matter how long we stay, it WILL NOT STOP untill we go. and yes, when we go, it will be a really serious mess.....for a very long time.
that said,
the republican party has a vested interest in staying untill atleast 2009. if they pull out, its their failure 100 percent. if they hand it to the dems.....what happens if we stay or leave is now the dems fault, not theirs. they had a plan, and the dems stoped them from finnishing it........the mantra for the republican party in 2012 elections.
we are not going anywhere untill after the elections if they can help it.
and when iraq turns into a mess after we leave, the dems will get BLASTED out of the water for being the ones to do it.
the moral majority working hard....for you.
shadowrelm wrote:
the moral majority working hard....for you.
Shadow, what the hell does that mean? Seriously, you often write it, and I never get it.
Who is the "moral majority"? And why the "moral" qualitative? Is it "moral" as in "ethics"? Or "moral" as in "What the curent, dominant thought-of-the-moment is?
And how do this majority "work" exactly? And why "for me?"
I really don't get it.
Explain please.
It was just clear that in the last couple weeks Bush has started to become even more insistent that any reduction of troops in Iraq would be a failure, even though it is pretty clear that a)the dems are going to wait on Petraeus and his report and won't be able to force a withdrawal under Bush anyways b)the upcoming troop shortage in april will be viewed as a failure if it isn't addressed now.
He kind of addressed this by stating that troop reduction in the coming months was a 'possibility'. Also you can see the beginning of a shift in focus in that it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Iraqi govt as well as its own security forces are being put to blame and the realization that the American military can't hold the situation together.
He kind of addressed this by stating that troop reduction in the coming months was a 'possibility'. Also you can see the beginning of a shift in focus in that it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Iraqi govt as well as its own security forces are being put to blame and the realization that the American military can't hold the situation together.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
Also you can see the beginning of a shift in focus in that it is becoming clearer and clearer that the Iraqi govt as well as its own security forces are being put to blame and the realization that the American military can't hold the situation together.
And a mere 4.5 years too late. Good for him.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
shadowrelm wrote:
the moral majority working hard....for you.
Shadow, what the hell does that mean? Seriously, you often write it, and I never get it.
It's his tagline. Just like "I'd buy that for a dollar" in the seminal classic, Robocop.
Edited, Sep 6th 2007 9:44am by Kaelesh
Sectarian violence in Baghdad is expected to go down. Not because of the surge but because the Sunni population is being increasingly displaced by Shiites and there's less people to have to kill and drive out.
Newsweek wrote:
The surge of U.S. troops—meant in part to halt the sectarian cleansing of the Iraqi capital—has hardly stemmed the problem. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July was slightly higher than in February, when the surge began. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has more than doubled to 1.1 million since the beginning of the year, nearly 200,000 of those in Baghdad governorate alone. Rafiq Tschannen, chief of the Iraq mission for the International Organization for Migration, says that the fighting that accompanied the influx of U.S. troops actually "has increased the IDPs to some extent."
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won. "If you look at pre-February 2006, there were only a couple of areas in the city that were unambiguously Shia," says a U.S. official in Baghdad who is familiar with the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record. "That's definitely not the case anymore." The official says that "the majority, more than half" of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shiite-dominated, a judgment echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: "And very few are mixed." In places like Amel, pockets of Sunnis live in fear, surrounded by a sea of Shiites. In most of the remaining Sunni neighborhoods, residents are trapped behind great concrete barricades for their own protection.
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won. "If you look at pre-February 2006, there were only a couple of areas in the city that were unambiguously Shia," says a U.S. official in Baghdad who is familiar with the issue but is not authorized to speak on the record. "That's definitely not the case anymore." The official says that "the majority, more than half" of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now Shiite-dominated, a judgment echoed in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: "And very few are mixed." In places like Amel, pockets of Sunnis live in fear, surrounded by a sea of Shiites. In most of the remaining Sunni neighborhoods, residents are trapped behind great concrete barricades for their own protection.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ethnic cleansing. Is there anything it can't do?
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Kaelesh wrote:
It's his tagline. Just like "I'd buy that for a dollar" in the seminal classic, Robocop.
Yeah, but at least relate to Robocop taglnie's, cos you know, I'd buy that for a dollar too.
But the moral majority working hard for me? I've never even met the bloody moral majority.
See what a nice thread this has become?
Make with the rate ups cannuck.
Make with the rate ups cannuck.
Highlighting words that are spelled incorrectly is a bad idea.
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
It's his tagline. Just like "I'd buy that for a dollar" in the seminal classic, Robocop.
Yeah, but at least relate to Robocop taglnie's, cos you know, I'd buy that for a dollar too.
But the moral majority working hard for me? I've never even met the bloody moral majority.
When our second most f-cked up president was in power, the Honorable Richard Nixon, there were huge protests against many things. The Vietnam war, for one. Being French, I'm sure you've heard of the place. And Dien Bien Phu.
But Nixon knew, in his heart of hearts, that Americans supported everything he did. So he spoke of the "Silent Majority" who supported him even though there were massive demonstrations against the war, and pretty paltry ones for it.
The people calling themselves the "Moral Majority" used the same tactics: demonstrably, the majority of Americans support the right for a woman to choose an abortion. The "Moral Majority" don't. So they aren't a majority. You know, it's like the old German Democratic Republic. Lies inherent in the name.
To "hide" their numbers, they direct their followers (either at times or all the time) to not respond to polls. I may be wrong, but I recall hearing Nixon began this.
They have semi-legitimate colleges where things like interracial dating aren't allowed. We have a euphemism for people like them: fundamentalists.
It's nicer then extremist. Or what probably most people believe: that they hold some values diametrically opposed to the American ideals of freedom and justice for all.
Quote:
To "hide" their numbers, they direct their followers (either at times or all the time) to not respond to polls.
And walk in single file.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Thanks Yoss.
It still doesn't make much sense in the "withdrawal of Iraq" context, but at least it's a start.
If I'm honest, I would've preferred if Shadow had explained it himself, simply for comic value.
But for ocular purposes it's probably better to read it from you.
It still doesn't make much sense in the "withdrawal of Iraq" context, but at least it's a start.
If I'm honest, I would've preferred if Shadow had explained it himself, simply for comic value.
But for ocular purposes it's probably better to read it from you.
the republican party often claims the title as the "moral party"."moral majority" is the quote fox news used on many ocaisions when referning to the repubican party.
the "working hard" part comes from bush,s speaches, when on many ocasions he stated that his job is "hard" and he is "working hard" for the american people.
honestly people, pay attention. hehehe
bottom line, the republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to stay in Iraq untill after the next election. the democratic party IS NOT going to force them to pull out either. they may raise a stink and try to shame them into pulling out, but they wont cut off funding to the military in a time of war. doing so would e handing the repubs the next election when the repubs start waiving the flag and decrying the dems wont buy our soldiers bullets to defend themselves with.
we are in iraq untill after the next election. bottom line. september report or no report. it doesnt matter what it says. the right will spinn it one way, the left will spinn it the other. but the repubs are determined to hand it to the dems, and the dems are too afriad of the voter fall out if they try to stop the funding to our military.
rock and a hard place. and our soldiers are paying the ultimate price for their politics. just like vietnam.
how much is a soldiers life worth? however many votes it takes to win an election, thats how much.
the "working hard" part comes from bush,s speaches, when on many ocasions he stated that his job is "hard" and he is "working hard" for the american people.
honestly people, pay attention. hehehe
bottom line, the republicans are going to fight tooth and nail to stay in Iraq untill after the next election. the democratic party IS NOT going to force them to pull out either. they may raise a stink and try to shame them into pulling out, but they wont cut off funding to the military in a time of war. doing so would e handing the repubs the next election when the repubs start waiving the flag and decrying the dems wont buy our soldiers bullets to defend themselves with.
we are in iraq untill after the next election. bottom line. september report or no report. it doesnt matter what it says. the right will spinn it one way, the left will spinn it the other. but the repubs are determined to hand it to the dems, and the dems are too afriad of the voter fall out if they try to stop the funding to our military.
rock and a hard place. and our soldiers are paying the ultimate price for their politics. just like vietnam.
how much is a soldiers life worth? however many votes it takes to win an election, thats how much.
Quote
--------------------------
"And walk in single file."
--------------------------
Republicans are Tuskan Raiders!!!
It does explain a great deal......
--------------------------
"And walk in single file."
--------------------------
Republicans are Tuskan Raiders!!!
It does explain a great deal......
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
brianjweis wrote:
Quote
--------------------------
"And walk in single file."
--------------------------
Republicans are Tuskan Raiders!!!
It does explain a great deal......
--------------------------
"And walk in single file."
--------------------------
Republicans are Tuskan Raiders!!!
It does explain a great deal......
Part of the fun of obscure quotes is not having douches like yourself point out every one.
Thanks for killing the thread.
/salute Nephthys
Having never been flamed here before I didn't know whether to be insulted or happy, so I'll go with...both.
Next time I'll try to get some sleep before I post.
Yer NOT nice.
Having never been flamed here before I didn't know whether to be insulted or happy, so I'll go with...both.
Next time I'll try to get some sleep before I post.
Yer NOT nice.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
And that is what constitutes a flame these days?
Huh. I really expected more from the big, bad Asylum.
Huh. I really expected more from the big, bad Asylum.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Recent Visitors: 205
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (205)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Failure
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC