NationStates Jolt Archive

Not only is this the best headline ever... but now I'm not sure if I want him to start withdrawing troops. It makes me think that he's found other places to put them.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/bush_troops_to_withdraw_from_s.html

What bullshit, anyway. Right?

Like putting new paint on a mausoleum. Makes it look as good as possible, but doesn't change the inside.

The man spins more than an olympic figure skater. :p

Not only is this the best headline ever... but now I'm not sure if I want him to start withdrawing troops. It makes me think that he's found other places to put them.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/bush_troops_to_withdraw_from_s.html

What bullshit, anyway. Right?
What's the big deal? It's what the government has been doing forever...If you don't like the results you see, redefine the terms until the expected(desired) results match the observed...

What's the big deal? It's what the government has been doing forever...If you don't like the results you see, redefine the terms until the expected(desired) results match the observed...

Wait... are saying that it is desirable to be delusional?

That's all I got out of that. Maybe I misread?

Wait... are saying that it is desirable to be delusional?

That's all I got out of that. Maybe I misread?

No, he's saying it's typical. Once the desired result is no longer possible you simply move the goal posts until you can claim a win.

Wait... are saying that it is desirable to be delusional?

That's all I got out of that. Maybe I misread?
Not desirable, but predictable.

Look, if a state institutes a graduation test and the majority of students fail (California, most recently), the state just redefines what makes a pass so that the desired number of students can graduate.

Better yet, how many time have we, the USA, brokered a 'lasting peace' in the middle East?

No different here. What is it you expect from politicians? Consistency and honesty? Ha!

I nearly wet myself when I heard that on the news yesterday. That has to be the most ridiculous attempt at saving face since Napoleon declared the retreat from Moscow a moral victory...

On a completely unrelated note, I saw Shrubya on TV yesterday walking around what was doubtlessly a very small very secure courtyard in Baghdad, and I couldn't help but notice he wasn't wearing any body armor.

Now, I know he's stupid, but the Secret Service isn't. Are they hoping for someone to take a shot at him? That's just dumb, I know he was going for the photo-op look, but come on.

Not desirable, but predictable.

Look, if a state institutes a graduation test and the majority of students fail (California, most recently), the state just redefines what makes a pass so that the desired number of students can graduate.

Better yet, how many time have we, the USA, brokered a 'lasting peace' in the middle East?

No different here. What is it you expect from politicians? Consistency and honesty? Ha!

You're sounding more cynical than usual. Not that I disagree with you.

On a completely unrelated note, I saw Shrubya on TV yesterday walking around what was doubtlessly a very small very secure courtyard in Baghdad, and I couldn't help but notice he wasn't wearing any body armor.

Now, I know he's stupid, but the Secret Service isn't. Are they hoping for someone to take a shot at him? That's just dumb, I know he was going for the photo-op look, but come on.

Actually he was in Al Asad Airbase in Al Anbar province. I lived there for four months, and let me tell you it's about as secure as it gets. It's in the middle of the Great Western Desert and there's literally nothing for dozens of miles around it except for a small village called Al-Baghdadi, which has a whole lot of eyes on it all the time.

Anyway, body armor there is completely unnecessary as it's quite literally impossible for a sniper to get in and pretty damned difficult for mortars to get close enough due to constant foot and helo patrols. I never once wore my IBA while on Al Asad.

The man spins more than an olympic figure skater. :p

I propose we wrap him in copper wire and put a magnet around him. At last Bush will provide something useful. Near limitless energy (he's going to die eventually).

You're sounding more cynical than usual. Not that I disagree with you.
Maybe...

We've done some good and bad things in Iraq. I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should have done anything at all. I'm sure it was a decision that won't be easily vindicated. On the other hand, it just seemed like the right thing to do when the decision was made.

Maybe...

We've done some good and bad things in Iraq. I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should have done anything at all. I'm sure it was a decision that won't be easily vindicated. On the other hand, it just seemed like the right thing to do when the decision was made.

There may be hope for you, yet.

Maybe...

We've done some good and bad things in Iraq. I'm still on the fence about whether or not we should have done anything at all. I'm sure it was a decision that won't be easily vindicated. On the other hand, it just seemed like the right thing to do when the decision was made.

Had the war been executed correctly and the aftermath actually planned for it could of worked out quite well.

A few months ago, the President couldn't have set foot in there.

In Al Asad, he most certainly could have.

edit: It's just a jump to the left...

Had the war been executed correctly and the aftermath actually planned for it could of worked out quite well.

Apparently, it's not too late for Anbar to be working.

A few months ago, the President couldn't have set foot in there.

Had the war been executed correctly and the aftermath actually planned for it could of worked out quite well.

The war was executed perfectly. Warriors don't plan for anything but victory. It's unfortunate that the Iraqis rolled so easily, but that's not the fault of Centcom.

Tommy Franks wrote a great book about the actual war. It should be on the reading list of everyone that either criticizes or supports the way the Coalition fought in those first few weeks of real hostilities.

The part that we got wrong was trying to fill the void that should have had UN peacekeepers, with war-fighters. But the UN ran away from it's responsibility early in the post-war phase.

The war was executed perfectly. Warriors don't plan for anything but victory. It's unfortunate that the Iraqis rolled so easily, but that's not the fault of Centcom.

Tommy Franks wrote a great book about the actual war. It should be on the reading list of everyone that either criticizes or supports the way the Coalition fought in those first few weeks of real hostilities.

The part that we got wrong was trying to fill the void that should have had UN peacekeepers, with war-fighters. But the UN ran away from it's responsibility early in the post-war phase.

Perfectly?

Three words: Shock and awe.

That's all you need to think about to remember that it was a fuckup of an invasion.

Perfectly?

Three words: Shock and awe.

That's all you need to think about to remember that it was a fuckup of an invasion.
So the PR wasn't good. How do you measure the success? I measure it with ground taken and friendly casualties -- Lots of the first and few of the second. The invasion met both criteria. Hence it was as close to perfect as any military operation can get.

Your turn.

But the UN ran away from it's responsibility early in the post-war phase.

Oh come now Myrmi. That's an outright lie and you know it. After the so-called coalition took Baghdad, they hunkered down over Iraq like a vulture and fed it to their baby, Haliburton.

You were there when you saw the political maneuvering. UN involvement could only happen under US direction. Which is a kind way of saying the UN would foot the bill, take the blame, and the US would run away with the piggy bank.

p.s. It's late. Will respond several hours later.

We are not retreating! We are advancing in the opposite direction.

So the PR wasn't good. How do you measure the success? I measure it with ground taken and friendly casualties -- Lots of the first and few of the second. The invasion met both criteria. Hence it was as close to perfect as any military operation can get.

Your turn.

You can measure a traditional war with ground taken and the amount of friendly casualties. While fighting insurgents, however, you must measure the war in terms of how well we've kept the civilians safe, and how much political progress has been made - because politicians, not marines, are the only ones who can quell an insurgency.

The part that we got wrong was trying to fill the void that should have had UN peacekeepers, with war-fighters. But the UN ran away from it's responsibility early in the post-war phase.

Its responsibility? So you're claiming that the UN has a duty to provide logistic support for a war it didn't approve? That's a laughable statement.

Not desirable, but predictable.

Look, if a state institutes a graduation test and the majority of students fail (California, most recently), the state just redefines what makes a pass so that the desired number of students can graduate.


A good description of the UK's education policy over the last thirty years...

We are not retreating! We are advancing in the opposite direction.:D

you win da thread.

Its responsibility? So you're claiming that the UN has a duty to provide logistic support for a war it didn't approve? That's a laughable statement.

Not quite. The USA really botched it, only in the fact that we tried to do peacekeeping work with the same troops that won the war --- abbreviated as it was. The UN did have a presence in Iraq and should have maintained it for peacekeeping duties. They are the international organization that does that sort of thing.

As far as their approval, we could go do the litany of the resolutions and find that member nations were authorized to conduct military operations against a recalcitrant Saddam Hussein.

The war was executed perfectly. Warriors don't plan for anything but victory. It's unfortunate that the Iraqis rolled so easily, but that's not the fault of Centcom.

Tommy Franks wrote a great book about the actual war. It should be on the reading list of everyone that either criticizes or supports the way the Coalition fought in those first few weeks of real hostilities.

The part that we got wrong was trying to fill the void that should have had UN peacekeepers, with war-fighters. But the UN ran away from it's responsibility early in the post-war phase.

Why would the UN do something like that? It's not like we punched them in the face and then fisted their arse until they screamed for mercy. So after the rape you want the victim to help find the car keys so the rapist can evade the cops? Perhaps if we had actually tried to garner the support of our "allies" it might have ended up differently. As it was we alienated the people who turned out to be correct. The invasion was planned perfectly, the aftermath sucked like a crack whore for a $10 rock. Damnit this is depressing for my 1,000th post.

Wow... American news-stories can begin with quotes. We'd never get away with that in Australia.

Oh, so yeah. Does the motivation or justification of Bush matter as far as a withdrawal is concerned?

We are not retreating! We are advancing in the opposite direction.

Is that you Mr Brown?

p.s: Bleeding heck it's been a while since I last posted! Did I miss anything good?

Bush should pull a Sadam and get executed. :sniper:

As far as their approval, we could go do the litany of the resolutions and find that member nations were authorized to conduct military operations against a recalcitrant Saddam Hussein.

They also approved thousands of sanctions against Israel, which the US vetoed because it fellates that country. Unless you're looking to get THOSE enforced as well, don't pretend the UN authorized that bloodshed.

The UN did have a presence in Iraq and should have maintained it for peacekeeping duties. They are the international organization that does that sort of thing.


One office does not a peacekeeping force make. And be honest Myrmi. You know the US wanted full control over everything. If the UN involved itself, it would only be under US control. And that would have meant the same bunch of idiots directing things, but with UN troops dying.

Bush wants to be the boss of everything. Let him pay the butcher's bill.

I propose we wrap him in copper wire and put a magnet around him. At last Bush will provide something useful. Yeah, i'm sure someone will have a purpose for him then ....
There was this guy that was caught "smuggling" some kind of rock or something with wire wrapped around it in his colon a little while back ... hmmm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcZl0jKP2Bo&v3

(he's going to die eventually).
Argh! Don't get my hopes up! Tblisi was a no-show.

We are not retreating! We are advancing in the opposite direction.

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin
He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And all his limbs hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin
His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burnt off and his penis...
He is brave Sir Robin,
Brave Sir Robin who...
To fight and...............
Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely, ran away...away...
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out
Bravely talking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin
...only slightly catchier than "Let The Eagle Soar".

Argh! Don't get my hopes up! Tblisi was a no-show.

Eh, he isn't going to live forever. In fact, it would be faster if he openly proclaimed "I am invincible". Challenges to fate are one way to guarantee high mortality rates.

You're sounding more cynical than usual. Not that I disagree with you.
really? I think he's sounding more, "My beloved party has now shown itself (yet again) to be a pack of two-faced liars so instead of admitting how truly appalling and deceitful they are I'm going to shrug my shoulders and claim that everyone is as bad as them. That way I don't have to face up to the fact I've supporting a bunch of lying asshats"

Is that you Mr Brown?

p.s: Bleeding heck it's been a while since I last posted! Did I miss anything good?

Only everything.

Eh, he isn't going to live forever. In fact, it would be faster if he openly proclaimed "I am invincible". Challenges to fate are one way to guarantee high mortality rates.

Like "Bring it on", "Mission accomplished", and "I'm gonna go eat some pretzels"?

really? I think he's sounding more, "My beloved party has now shown itself (yet again) to be a pack of two-faced liars so instead of admitting how truly appalling and deceitful they are I'm going to shrug my shoulders and claim that everyone is as bad as them. That way I don't have to face up to the fact I've supporting a bunch of lying asshats"

Well to the post you quoted, at that point, Mermaid was being fairly reasonable. Then he specified what his points were, and we heretofore realized he was being a dodging dumbass.

Like "Bring it on", "Mission accomplished", and "I'm gonna go eat some pretzels"?


Unfortunately, the first two are only challenges to fate for his goals, not his personal life. Now if he got on TV and shouted "I am invincible!", he'd be dead in short order.

The latter, not so much a challenge of fate, but certainly a rolling of the dice.

Hmmm, maybe if we could combine a segway with a pretzel holder....

Unfortunately, the first two are only challenges to fate for his goals, not his personal life. Now if he got on TV and shouted "I am invincible!", he'd be dead in short order.

The latter, not so much a challenge of fate, but certainly a rolling of the dice.

Hmmm, maybe if we could combine a segway with a pretzel holder....

We'd be invincible!

We'd be invincible!

You fool! What did I say about such proclamations! You've doomed us all! Aaaah! *runs*

:p

You fool! What did I say about such proclamations! You've doomed us all! Aaaah! *runs*

:p

Sheet, sheet!

Not quite. The USA really botched it, only in the fact that we tried to do peacekeeping work with the same troops that won the war --- abbreviated as it was. The UN did have a presence in Iraq and should have maintained it for peacekeeping duties. They are the international organization that does that sort of thing.

As far as their approval, we could go do the litany of the resolutions and find that member nations were authorized to conduct military operations against a recalcitrant Saddam Hussein.

If we had really cared about the UN's approval we would have given them the time to finish the inspections. We had time and Bush & Co. had us all imagine the mushroom cloud to get things on the fast track to an unjustified war.

If we had really cared about the UN's approval we would have given them the time to finish the inspections. We had time and Bush & Co. had us all imagine the mushroom cloud to get things on the fast track to an unjustified war.
The Iraq War wasn't about WMD's or Saddam's regime, it was about the fact that the neocons were still living in the Cold-War statehood idea, they couldn't comprehend that a few terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan could kill 3k Americans so easily, they needed a state to blame and force the anger onto, they needed a scapegoat. Saddam was alot of things, including a genocidal fascist maniac, but like any good Arab despot he hated religious extremists. The invasion of Afghanistan and operations over the world against the terrorists weren't enough for Bush, he needed to see tanks rolling down streets and artillery blowing up stuff to be convinced something was being done, it's truly a shame such simple-minded propagandizing is needed for popularity and not the truth, which the American people have now seen.

The Iraq War wasn't about WMD's or Saddam's regime, it was about the fact that the neocons were still living in the Cold-War statehood idea, they couldn't comprehend that a few terrorists in the caves of Afghanistan could kill 3k Americans so easily, they needed a state to blame and force the anger onto, they needed a scapegoat. Saddam was alot of things, including a genocidal fascist maniac, but like any good Arab despot he hated religious extremists. The invasion of Afghanistan and operations over the world against the terrorists weren't enough for Bush, he needed to see tanks rolling down streets and artillery blowing up stuff to be convinced something was being done, it's truly a shame such simple-minded propagandizing is needed for popularity and not the truth, which the American people have now seen.

I really don't believe 9-11 had anything to do with Bush deciding to go to war other than to get an angered population to agree with a stupid idea. Which is basically what you said anyway. Iraq was a target the moment Dubya decided he might like to be president.