Welcome to PatsFans.com

So, Who Lost Iraq?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by glecco, Dec 17, 2006.

  1. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    So, Who Lost Iraq?

    Some don’t think it’s too early to ask this question. The administration is acting as though it would be better to get a dime to the dollar back from a poor investment rather than nothing at all. Most people have come to realize that this has more of the feeling of a short sale gone terribly wrong and that it is best to stop the bleeding sooner rather than later. I suspect it will be only a matter of months before this question will be more than rhetorical.

    Given past performance it may be predicted that the Limbaugh/Fox/Murdoch crowd will blame liberals and the “Liberal Press†for loosing Iraq. I suspect that the script is already being written. This argument is clearly preposterous. Liberals have not had significant influence in making national policy since Regan’s first term. Their ineffectualness is matched by the “Liberal Press†which is nearly nonexistent at any rate. The self-contradiction implicit in this argument is that if the “Liberal Press†has the influence to put an end to the war, then why were the cautionary remarks in the last four years so thoroughly ineffectual to date. The “Liberal Press†is unable to cause anything to happen.

    The wacky religious right will blame the usual suspects. Say, for instance, Bill Clinton for the corruption of the military via the “Don’t ask, don’t tell principle.

    Wall Street Republicans will most likely opt to avoid the discussion altogether – there’s no gain in it and many had not approved of the adventure in Iraq from the start. They will prefer instead to do what they do best – seize the opportunity in this catastrophe and profit.

    After the turn of the year, the spin machine of Republican establishment will approach relativistic tangential velocity – it will be instructive to see what electricity it will generate. There’ll be oceans of red herrings and armies of straw men. The hype will be imaginative and OT by miles. Two examples of what to expect:

    “Now is not the time to find blame, but to work together to come to an honorable solution.â€

    “The Dems have equal responsibility for the war since they all voted for executive action in Iraq.â€

    In preparation for the 2007 discussion:

    This post submits that the blame for the loss in Iraq belongs in its entirety to the current administration. No other conflict in this nations history can be so clearly be attributed to the impetus provided to the then current President. This includes the Mexican-American War and Polk.

    More to the point, the loss of the Iraq War has it’s origin in its beginnings. From the start there was never a believable or consistent argument neither in its execution nor in its continuation. There are three major and easily detectable administration fabrications which have surfaced from time to time to justify out nation’s initiation of hostilities in Iraq.

    1.Purported weapons of mass destruction and the implication that they were to be used against us.
    2.The support that Iraq is giving to our enemy, Al Qaeda.
    3.The ethical imperative of liquidating the horrendous rulers of Iraq.

    Points 1 and 2 have been adequately discussed elsewhere and in time may well be clearly understood by most to have been fabrications. Point 3 is absurd as the ethical imperative has never been a cause of conflict between nations. The purpose of the conflict in Iraq remains a mystery to most.

    Aside: Point 3 interests me greatly. If anyone can discover an instance in history of a tribe or a city-state or a nation going to war for largely moral/ethical purposes I would greatly appreciate the enlightenment.

    As for the reasons for the continuation of hostilities I am unable to detect anything coherent coming from the administration in this regard. I think that it all boils down to saving face for George W. Bush – perhaps there’s more to it – I’m not sure. Here also I would appreciate any enlightenment.

    Happy Holidays to All
     
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,171
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    The ungrateful smelly stinking scumbag f-cking Iraqi People lost Iraq.

    Turn Saddam loose, restore him to power, then watch how fast he gets those back stabbing bastards into line.

    The Democrat Pigs voted for the war, they believed the WMD's were there, Kerry said he would have gone to war, then when the WMD's wer'nt found the Democrats saw their chance to PAYBACK Bush for WINNING the election, they stuck it right up Bush's a$s, not finding the WMD's was the best thing that could have happened to the democrats and with the help of the left Wing Biased Media they have succeeded to bring down the man they Hate worse then death itself.

    Never before in the history of this country has a political group shown the Hatered & Jealousy for one man as the stinking f-cking Democrats have for GW Bush.
     
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    easily the most out-of-touch, paranoid, biggoted, irrational post i've had the misfortune of reading .... i believe every rule in the terms of service sticky has been broken 2-3 times each in one blathering ramble... rock on.... and almost every assertion easily destructable with facts...

    what an embarrassment...
     
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,734
    Likes Received:
    265
    Ratings:
    +476 / 18 / -17

    I certainly agree that it's the administration that lost Iraq. Besides their failure to be honest with the American peple and to put together a winning military campaign in Iraq, they failed to make the right political calculation with regard to the American public. They seemed to have forgotten that we live in a democracy, and there's no way Americans would rally around a miserable and counterproductive campaign build around Bush's adolescence, namely his wanting to be the "decider" and "war president."
     
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,171
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    HATE--GET BUSH--HATE--GET BUSH--HATE--GETBUSH

    THATS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, THE JEALOUSY OF THE AUNTIE PELOSI GANG TOWARDS BUSH HAS TURNED THEM INTO A BUNCH OF LUNATIC ANTI AMERICAN MONSTERS.

    THE IRAQI PEOPLE ARE NOT WORTH ONE MORE AMERICAN LIFE, WE TRIED TO TAKE THEM OUT OF THE SAVAGE STONE AGE AND THEY WANT NO PART OF IT, GIVE THEM BACK TO SADDAM.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,734
    Likes Received:
    265
    Ratings:
    +476 / 18 / -17

    Harry, I think only someone with pure, unadulterated love for Bush could write the kinds of things you write. To anyone less emotionally involved with the president, it would be clear that we don't hate Bush anymore than we would dislike anyone who launched a war based on lies, failed to protect the nation, appointed unqualified cronies, ran up the deficit, tried to suspend our civil rights, and otherwise accomplished nothing during the last 6 years.
     
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,171
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    Will the Democrats want to go to war for George Clooney in Dafur?

    Young Men,
    If these bastards want you to go to Dafur run for Canada.

    Are Dafurians better than Iraqians?

    Why does Dip Sh!t Clooney think the Dafurians should be helped but the Iraqians should have been left to be slaughtered by Saddam and his Demented sons:confused:

    Baffling isn't it?
    :bricks:
     
  8. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    303
    Ratings:
    +823 / 7 / -2

    Wow, didn't know we lost already. That's certainly news to me.



    And then these leftists try to say that they've never undermined the cause with their anti-americanist drivel. Nah, of course not. :D
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,734
    Likes Received:
    265
    Ratings:
    +476 / 18 / -17

    It's not baffling. It's pretty obvious that American troops in Iraq is helping no one. In Darfur, where genocide is the issue, it makes sense to try to do something. I don't think an all-out invasion is what's being advocated in Darfur. We don't want to topple the government there, but we could support the African Union force that is not strong enough to deal with the situation. The feeling is that 15,000 NATO troops would go a long way towards helping to normalize the situation; that's a far cry from the 140,000 currently deployed in Iraq.
     
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,171
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    That would be a good job for France, Koffi Annan and his little gang of crooks, America is busy right now trying to keep savages from blowing up our Malls.
     
  11. glecco

    glecco On the Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It would be a good thing if we were protecting the malls. We're to busy right now blowing up Malls in far off places to do this, however.
     
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    303
    Ratings:
    +823 / 7 / -2


    Patters I agree about Darfur. I really can't understand what the F the UN's problem is. It's sad that people there are dying in droves, and Kofi & Co. are do nothing. Typical UN I guess. The UN is the most useless organization in the world. Such a noble idea gone wrong, the United Nations.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    303
    Ratings:
    +823 / 7 / -2

    Harry you're right. The UN is so concerned with life, yet they stand by while women and children are murdered in Darfur. Where are they? See, the UN won't do anything without American money. Those clowns want to do so much, but they will only do it when someone else foots the bill.
     
  14. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    this is just unfounded and silly... the UN doesn't have the kind of force necessary to go in and rectify central africa... that requires western military might, not the limited UN peace keepers... sure, they can make air strikes on known targets, but what good are air strikes going to do in the Sudan?

    we chose the "human tragedy" in the middle east because there's cheap Texas Tea right under their Babylonian feet... not because Saddam was killing dissenters... the true mass genocide in africa is "someone else's problem" in the mind of the PNAC crew... nevermind that the total exterminations of human beings in africa dwarf that of even the most exaggerated number attributed to Saddam...

    the terrorist core, the one that hit us on 9/11, is in afghanistan and pakistan... not iraq... never was...
     
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    42,691
    Likes Received:
    279
    Ratings:
    +702 / 20 / -30

    I suspect there is not more of a force in Darfur is money and manpower, the US has spent way too much in Iraq with little obvious results and mega fraud. The US also does not have many troops left to deploy anywhere, strategists argue that it will take a considerable force and much support, we are overstretched pure and simple.

    There also is no oil in Darfur.. just a lot of poor people, for this ADHD administration is it not sexy enough to lie about, never mind tell the trut.
     
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,171
    Likes Received:
    250
    Ratings:
    +967 / 2 / -9

    No More War Stay Out Of Dafur No More American Lives Lost There are no WMD's In Dafur Let France Germany Russia And Spain Send Troops, No More Iraq's No More Viet Nams Stay Home And Guard Our own Borders.

    Cindy Sheehan, Michale Moore, Dan Rather, where are you, George Clooney wants to start another war.
     
  17. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Its unfortunate that the level of intelligence in 50% of america is such that a very pointed and acute analysis like you present in this post is quickly succumbed by the dimly lit objectivity of four year olds.

    Ignore these childish replies for they are too immature to provide an answer to your very grave questions.

    In early 2004, when I first realized how bad this misadventure was going to go and how deliberately we were lied to, and the fact that the american people were collectively deceived by the neo-cons through proxy GW Bush, and that war profiteers like Dikhead Cheney were the sole impetus for occupying that broken nation, and as such the government had failed to provide "informed consent" about why it was necessary to sacrifice tens of thousands of our finest heros....I bought a bumper sticker....

    "ERRORS HAVE BEEN MADE OTHERS WILL BE BLAMED"

    It is still there.
     
  18. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,093
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The reasons for our continued presence in Iraq are not the same as our reasons for invading. The initial reason was geopolitical strategem: 1) maintenance of oil supply 2) continued oil exchange in US dollars and 3) establishment of forward operating bases to enforce 1 and 2.

    That said, we are now there to prevent a regional conflict from exploding. Unfortunately, we waited far too long to ask the question. Our continued presence is a large part of the problem as we have been slowly forced to take a side in this millenium long conflict.

    Which side will we take, so that we can blame the other? Will we side with shiite-Iran-and the nuke blackmailers or with sunni-Saudi and the al-qaeda fostering wahhabis??
     
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    303
    Ratings:
    +823 / 7 / -2


    Silly and unfounded? HA! Learn your hitory pal. Western might? PLEASE. European nations have plenty enough power to safeguard areas of Darfur. The problem is they don't want to. Not without American lives, and most importantly, American money. The UN is an utter waste of an otherwise well intentioned organization. There is no excusing the UN. Everywhere they've gone they've failed their mission. When the US agrees to action, the UN then follows. When the US pulls out, the UN isn't too far behind. Why is it that the UN can't act on its own? UN = Utter Joke. All the UN wants to do is control the world. They want to be the world government. Total joke.
     
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,351
    Likes Received:
    303
    Ratings:
    +823 / 7 / -2

    Why does the US haveto get involved? What's needed in Darfur? 15,000, 30,000, maybe 50,000 troops? How many countries are in the UN, and what is there military capacity? Please. Someone tell me what the UN is doing in Lebanon? Are they disarming Hezbollah or running patrols? NOPE. So why be there? Send that contingent to Darfur where it will save lives. Sorry fellas, but the UN has an awful track record. Too bad the MSM ignores most of it. As one pundit once said, the MSM doesn't want to give the UN bad press because they believe its such an important organization, and such negativity would weaken it. Sad.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>