NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember the good 'ole fuckin' days?

When "we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months" as Dicky-boy said?

When "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." as Donny said?

Or even every single time since then some rosy-assed assessment on scaling down troop commitments has come out and then got brushed aside by the rude insistence of reality to keep rearing it's ugly head?

So what's the official line now?


Well, on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:

[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.



Really? Does anyone else fucking remember them calling for a generational occupation of Iraq when the country was being revved up with the false reasons to defend themselves from the evil, WMD-owning thug who was suddenly NOW going to starting handing out nukes like candy to every jihadist that asked?




Boy, you'd think with them constantly talking about how they've got the insurgents on the run, that the current violence is a last gasp, etc. etc. bullshit that they wouldn't be talking in "generational" terms....


But they are.


Just wondering. Is generational one decade? Or two?

No one had to say that to me.

When I saw the plane hit the Pentagon after flying over the parking lot, I knew we were in for the rest of our lives - no matter what countries we ended up invading after that.

No government official needed to tell me that. And when we invaded Iraq, I knew we would be there as long as we had been in Germany.

No government official needed to tell me that.

Were you under the impression that we could invade two countries, overthrow their governments, fight insurgencies, and then the locals would become instant Americans (just add water!)?

Heck, the Germans were at least a part of Western Civilization - we had something in common - and they had a prior desire for working democracy.

I think we'll be in Iraq for 100 years.

I think we'll be in Iraq for 100 years.


You have just made PNAC very, very happy.



Incidentally - Under those fucking circumstances, how long does it take before you become officially recognized as the new evil dictator that they need liberation from? I mean, it's not like you guys were elected by Iraqis.....

yeah i remember them saying it....

in my nightmares

Were you under the impression that we could invade two countries, overthrow their governments, fight insurgencies, and then the locals would become instant Americans (just add water!)?

I'd say that it's not so much that people believed that as that it's a lot of what the governments were saying. Whether it was explicitely stated or not, there was a definite 'Home for Christmas' attitude to this war.

Then again, there usually is. You'd think we'd've learnt by now...

You have just made PNAC very, very happy.

Incidentally - Under those fucking circumstances, how long does it take before you become officially recognized as the new evil dictator that they need liberation from? I mean, it's not like you guys were elected by Iraqis.....

As I recall, the Japanese didn't elect us either. And we wrote their Constitution. And we still have soldiers in Japan.

Note, however, that like Iraq, Japan has their own elected government.

The middle east has been a generational commitment since the end of world war II. There are just more troops there now.

As I recall, the Japanese didn't elect us either. And we wrote their Constitution. And we still have soldiers in Japan.

Note, however, that like Iraq, Japan has their own elected government.

Difference Japan bombed our ports. Iraq hasn't.

If Iraq attacked our nation/military places, than we could compare them.

Iraw has just cause saying we didn't harm you so leave us alone. And let them run their own country.

I think we'll be in Iraq for 100 years.

Well you can do that. We should pull out as soon as possible.

*gasp!*
You mean a military conflict has lasted longer than our leaders said it would!? No way!

*gasp!*
You mean a military conflict has lasted longer than our leaders said it would!? No way!
I know! Never been known for them to be wrong before... *trails off into grumbling*

I think we'll be in Iraq for 100 years.
Take a book, it'll get boring.

I know! Never been known for them to be wrong before... *trails off into grumbling*
I mean, I figured it would be over by Christmas!
Note the itallics for historical quote.

Well you can do that. We should pull out as soon as possible.

Good idea. Let 1700 lives and 85 billion go up in smoke if the Iraqi Gov't proves to not be strong enough to control the country yet. :(

Good idea. Let 1700 lives and 85 billion go up in smoke if the Iraqi Gov't proves to not be strong enough to control the country yet. :(
Yes, but if the terrorist are in power we can take them out similar to Afganistan. It was a whole lot easier.

Well you can do that. We should pull out as soon as possible.

Try telling that to a woman before she's finished.

Big surprised! Bush lies.. this maybe news to some, however I figured out he was a lying sack of shit a long time ago.

[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.



Really? Does anyone else fucking remember them calling for a generational occupation of Iraq when the country was being revved up with the false reasons to defend themselves from the evil, WMD-owning thug who was suddenly NOW going to starting handing out nukes like candy to every jihadist that asked?




Boy, you'd think with them constantly talking about how they've got the insurgents on the run, that the current violence is a last gasp, etc. etc. bullshit that they wouldn't be talking in "generational" terms....


But they are.


Just wondering. Is generational one decade? Or two?
Dude, as soon as you went in, I knew you wld be in there for a at least a decade, you cant acheive peace and stability in weeks or even years. Look at us in N.Ireland, we still havent got ourselves fully sorted out and its been a century at least since serious attempts at peace began. Did you really epect it to be quick, thats kinda naive.

I think we'll be in Iraq for 100 years.
Really? And I thought I was a nation-building globalist nut!

Iraw has just cause saying we didn't harm you so leave us alone. And let them run their own country.
Note, however, that like Iraq, Japan has their own elected government.

Try telling that to a woman before she's finished.
lol :rolleyes:

I'm surprised we don't get more "jokes" like this in all those threads we have about "pulling out" of Iraq. ;)

I mean, it's not like you guys were elected by Iraqis.....

No-but our presence has allowed them to choose people and elect them. They didnt have a chance with sadaam there. We arent controlling them-we are letting them establish and control themseleves.

Dont pretend you dont get that.

Difference Japan bombed our ports. Iraq hasn't.

If Iraq attacked our nation/military places, than we could compare them.

Iraw has just cause saying we didn't harm you so leave us alone. And let them run their own country.
Apparently an attempted assasination of one of our previous presidents doesn't count? Or the number of times he shot at UN sanctioned flyovers?

Well...it doesn't surprise me one bit that they are now calling it a "generational committment".

I knew that the war on terror would become the "new" Cold War before we even invaded Afghanistan.

It probably won't end in my lifetime...pretty sad, since I'm only 22.

It does piss me off, however, that the administration couldn't just come out and say so. They have to pussyfoot around the fact that no matter how we try to handle terrorism, it's long term...

...because getting the voters to want to vote for something like that might be difficult. :rolleyes:

Good idea. Let 1700 lives and 85 billion go up in smoke ...it IS already gone up in smoke...wasted...gone with the wind...astalavista baby.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050606.gif

The good news is that the New York Times reported that there is a lot of Red-on-Red fighting. Apparently, the local insurrectionists are shooting at the foreign insurrectionist and vis-versa. The locals are apparently ready to cut a deal with us and they resent the furriners spoiling their opportunities for a deal.

Things aren't as bleak as they appear. Not if the NY Times is reporting good news.

As I recall, the Japanese didn't elect us either. And we wrote their Constitution. And we still have soldiers in Japan.

Note, however, that like Iraq, Japan has their own elected government.

You will also note that we stipulated that Japan have little to no military force after WW2 because we, America, would protect them in case of attack. Also Japan actualy fought fair and we dropped the A-bomb on them.

Big surprised! Bush lies.. this maybe news to some, however I figured out he was a lying sack of shit a long time ago.

so you think he's a fortune teller... that he is able to predict the future?

because as most people know, being wrong about future predictions is NOT lying.

You will also note that we stipulated that Japan have little to no military force after WW2 because we, America, would protect them in case of attack. Also Japan actualy fought fair and we dropped the A-bomb on them.

...and in dropping the A-bombs, we saved probably millions of Japanese and American lives.

You will also note that we stipulated that Japan have little to no military force after WW2 because we, America, would protect them in case of attack. Also Japan actualy fought fair and we dropped the A-bomb on them.
This is funny. There's only one way to fight a war. That is to win and minimize casualties on your side. Nowadays, you also follow the Geneva Convention, but that certainly didn't preclude nuking Japan in WWII. We did absolutely nothing unfair to Japan.

so you think he's a fortune teller... that he is able to predict the future?

because as most people know, being wrong about future predictions is NOT lying.
As I recall, Bush only predicted that this would take a long time and be hard work. Remember the first debate with Kerry?

As I recall, Bush only predicted that this would take a long time and be hard work. Remember the first debate with Kerry?

You are correct sir/ma'am.
Since the beginning of this thing the American left has said again and again the Bush and his team thought this would be a short term thing, and that they said we would be out relativily quickly.
Yet, as I watched the news when it began I clearly remember listening to the Bush team state again and again that this would be a long term commitment and they had no idea how long it would take.
This is a case of the left attempting to convince people something is true by repeating it again and again.
Nobody thought it would be short term thing, nobody thought we could pull out quickly except for people who had and have no grounding in military history and strategic doctrine.

If I recall correctly, Japan did not fight "fair" in WWII. They attacked pearl harbour before declaring war, a big no no. The also executed most prisoners they captured. And the fact that they were developing biological weapons and testing them on the chinese.

Nope not fair.

Regardless..... anyone else noticed the really cheap fuel prices since we got Iraq and its shitload of oil? (sarcasm)

If I recall correctly, Japan did not fight "fair" in WWII. They attacked pearl harbour before declaring war, a big no no. The also executed most prisoners they captured. And the fact that they were developing biological weapons and testing them on the chinese.

Nope not fair.

Regardless..... anyone else noticed the really cheap fuel prices since we got Iraq and its shitload of oil? (sarcasm)

Yep, the price of oil just keeps dropping and dropping since we invaded Iraq to loot their oil reserves. No war for oil! (seconded sarcasm)

...Also Japan actualy fought fair and we dropped the A-bomb on them.according to Hollywood (and even some US school books)only US soldiers fought fair...

and...that the Japanese should actually thank us...for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki...cos that saved millions of Japanese and US lives.

I am sure that in 100 years...Hollywood will say that Guantanamo was a legal detention center, no torture ever took place...and that there was 1000 reporters with video cameras on every cell..and that hundreds of Swiss RedCross observers were practically living with the POWs

Yep, the price of oil just keeps dropping and dropping since we invaded Iraq to loot their oil reserves. No war for oil! (seconded sarcasm)
Yep, I'm on the verge of making bio-diesel. It's almost affordable in Atlanta, but it's hard to get to the only place that pumps it.

Apparently an attempted assasination of one of our previous presidents doesn't count? Or the number of times he shot at UN sanctioned flyovers?

Good call. :D

The fact is Bush said from the beginning that the War on Terror would be a long and arduous struggle.

Yep, I'm on the verge of making bio-diesel. It's almost affordable in Atlanta, but it's hard to get to the only place that pumps it.

About the only good thing about these high gas prices is it is making other forms of fuel economically viable, it might get us off the oil tit. Perhaps that is why the price is being allowed to climb so high.

...and in dropping the A-bombs, we saved probably millions of Japanese and American lives.

By slaughtering civilians? Because the majority of those who got killed weren't soldiers

This is funny. There's only one way to fight a war. That is to win and minimize casualties on your side. Nowadays, you also follow the Geneva Convention, but that certainly didn't preclude nuking Japan in WWII. We did absolutely nothing unfair to Japan.

First off you missed my meaning, and aren't we not following the Geneva Convention now?

If I recall correctly, Japan did not fight "fair" in WWII. They attacked pearl harbour before declaring war, a big no no. The also executed most prisoners they captured. And the fact that they were developing biological weapons and testing them on the chinese.

Nope not fair.


Am I the only person who had to deal with some idiots claiming that the Iraqi's and Afgani's weren't fighting fair with their tactics? Becase I was trying to say that the Japanese used more conventional methods of attack.

according to Hollywood (and even some US school books)only US soldiers fought fair...

and...that the Japanese should actually thank us...for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki...cos that saved millions of Japanese and US lives.


Because EVERYTHING you read in the history books and Hollywood is 100% true. Also, you are saying that the Japanese should thank us for bombing two cities with weaponry that caused a huge number of civilian deaths and still causes deaths today due to the radioactiviity left over. Because if so I want to offer you a deal where you pay me 100$ and I kick you in the crotch.

First off you missed my meaning, and aren't we not following the Geneva Convention now?
Where is the US not following the Geneva Convention?




Also, you are saying that the Japanese should thank us for bombing two cities with weaponry that caused a huge number of civilian deaths and still causes deaths today due to the radioactiviity left over. Because if so I want to offer you a deal where you pay me 100$ and I kick you in the crotch.
Careful with that deal. You will find Japanese today who were alive during WW2 who are glad the US dropped the bombs. Women and children were being trained to fight off the invading Allies with bamboo sticks. Without the shock and awe of the atomic bombs, millions more Japanese would have died.

Since the beginning of this thing the American left has said again and again the Bush and his team thought this would be a short term thing, and that they said we would be out relativily quickly.
Yet, as I watched the news when it began I clearly remember listening to the Bush team state again and again that this would be a long term commitment and they had no idea how long it would take.


Did you or did you not read the first lines of the first post in this thread??

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

Apparently an attempted assasination of one of our previous presidents doesn't count? Or the number of times he shot at UN sanctioned flyovers?

"If Iraq attacked our nation/military places, than we could compare them."

Attacking on their terririty isn't out nation or military. Did the assassinations happened before or After first Gulf War? If after first you'd have a cause, but you don't.

Only Bush SR was attempted. Thus you ca'nt punish him tiwice, it is unlawful and called double jepoady. We don't allow that in America.

You are correct sir/ma'am.
Since the beginning of this thing the American left has said again and again the Bush and his team thought this would be a short term thing, and that they said we would be out relativily quickly.
Yet, as I watched the news when it began I clearly remember listening to the Bush team state again and again that this would be a long term commitment and they had no idea how long it would take.
This is a case of the left attempting to convince people something is true by repeating it again and again.
Nobody thought it would be short term thing, nobody thought we could pull out quickly except for people who had and have no grounding in military history and strategic doctrine.

You remember a period of time months AFTER the war started. Your memory is perhaps flawed in its exact placement of when the war started and when the public was told the war would be a long slog through difficult times.

Some points to consider...

In the first debate with Kerry, how many months had transpired since the start of the war? How many months before the war started did the Bush "case for war" begin? And during those months before the war, how many times was the duration of conflict described as "long" "Generational"
"Difficult" "Extended", etc.?

I believe you'll find that a study of that period the media releases and interviews from White house and DOD consistently point to a short conflict, with little or no mention of occupation. Generally the term "occupation" is dismissed by the official, in favor of "liberation" even when discussing the troops staying in Iraq after major combat operations have ended.

Did the assassinations happened before or After first Gulf War? If after first you'd have a cause, but you don't.

The assassination attempt of Bush sr. took place on April, 1993 during a visit to Kuwait, twenty-five mounts after Gulf War I. He was not president then, but he had been the president, and I think liberals would be crying for blood if someone tried to assassinate their beloved Clinton. So, do some research, and then tell someone they don’t have an argument.

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

Rumsfeld referred to the actual invasion and eventual fall of Baghdad and the toppling of Saddam's regime - which took 3 weeks.


We were, to an extent greeted a sliberators. Why don't you ask some people who are going through their 2nd and 3rd tours of Iraq. The resistance we are seeing is a large minority who are mostly outsiders, not so much Iraqis. I have a friend who is doing his 3rd tour now. When he came back from his second he told me about his base's shelling as well as the few times his unit was ambushed on patrol. Despite this, he doesn't believe that the majority of Iraqis are supportive of the insurgency.

Anywho... who was stupid enough to actually think that occupying a nation and completely changing its form of government would take a week? I knew we would be in Iraq for at least 5-10 years. At least. In Iraq we had to virtually start from scratch in rebuilding the country's infrastructure.

Where is the US not following the Geneva Convention?





Careful with that deal. You will find Japanese today who were alive during WW2 who are glad the US dropped the bombs. Women and children were being trained to fight off the invading Allies with bamboo sticks. Without the shock and awe of the atomic bombs, millions more Japanese would have died.

1. See: Guantanumo Bay and Gitmo

2. You know who you won't find being happy those bombs were dropped? those dieing of leukemia because of it. Also I bet if you asked the people in Japan at that time if they wanted to fight the Americans to the last, they probably would have said yes. Also we probably only needed to drop one bomb, not both.

1. See: Guantanumo Bay and Gitmo
As it's been explained by countless legal experts, non-uniformed combatants (like those imprisoned in Cuba) do not qualify for Geneva protections.

2. You know who you won't find being happy those bombs were dropped? those dieing of leukemia because of it.
Some of them probably will be happy. What with it probably saving the lives of a father and a brother or two. Others might just be pissed off.

Also I bet if you asked the people in Japan at that time if they wanted to fight the Americans to the last, they probably would have said yes.
And we saved them from their own stupidity.

Also we probably only needed to drop one bomb, not both.
*knock*, *knock*, that’s the sound of reality beating on your door. Instant communication from foreign governments to ours and then to a bombing run missions is not included.

"If Iraq attacked our nation/military places, than we could compare them."

Attacking on their terririty isn't out nation or military. Did the assassinations happened before or After first Gulf War? If after first you'd have a cause, but you don't.
Attacking 'on their territory’ on our aircraft which are flying over to enforce no-fly zones that he kinda agreed to/accepted/the international community said do this. Yeah, that’s just kinda an act of war.
Only Bush SR was attempted. Thus you ca'nt punish him tiwice, it is unlawful and called double jepoady. We don't allow that in America.
That’s for trials. Here's a clue. Politics and War is only 'fought; inside a courtroom after the war is over and when the verdicts have already been drawn up.

Some of them probably will be happy. What with it probably saving the lives of a father and a brother or two. Others might just be pissed off.


And we saved them from their own stupidity.


*knock*, *knock*, that’s the sound of reality beating on your door. Instant communication from foreign governments to ours and then to a bombing run missions is not included.

1. Because we all know how happy the terminaly ill are to be dieing, especially when they are children.

2. By bombing civilians?

3. Knock, knock Japan didn't have to to register all the damage from the first bomb before we dropped the second one, let alone have enough time to respond.

1. Because we all know how happy the terminaly ill are to be dieing, especially when they are children.

Why thank you for closing your ears and repeating your same tired statement.

2. By bombing civilians?

Yep. Ever heard of Dresden? Or London? Or Berlin? Or, lists a few dozen more German, French, English, Russian and Italian cities. See back in WWII, bombing civilians was par for the course.

3. Knock, knock Japan didn't have to to register all the damage from the first bomb before we dropped the second one, let alone have enough time to respond.

Exactly you dumbass.