PDA

View Full Version : Bush makes farewell visit to Iraq



Moon
12-14-2008, 11:57 AM
Bush makes farewell visit to Iraq
Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:56am EST

By Matt Spetalnick

BAGHDAD, Dec 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush made an unannounced farewell visit to Baghdad on Sunday, just weeks before he leaves office and bequeaths the unpopular Iraq war to President-elect Barack Obama.

Slipping out of the White House over the weekend, Bush flew secretly to the Iraqi capital to hold talks with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and address a rally of U.S. troops.

"Bush has come to meet Iraqi leaders, thank the troops and celebrate the new security agreement," a White House official said.

Bush arrived first by helicopter at the presidential palace for talks with President Jalal Talabani and his two vice-presidents. He planned to meet later with Maliki.

Bush's trip -- his fourth to Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion -- follows approval of a security pact between Washington and Baghdad last month that paves the way for U.S. forces to withdraw by the end of 2011.

Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSLE499617)

newshutr
12-14-2008, 02:54 PM
An Iraqi Journalist threw two of his shoes at President Bush during a joint press conference.


VIDEO (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11096193&ch=4226716&src=news)

ralph wiggum
12-14-2008, 02:58 PM
An Iraqi Journalist threw two of his shoes at President Bush during a joint press conference.


VIDEO (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11096193&ch=4226716&src=news)

And the DUmmies are positively orgasmic. :rolleyes:

Moon
12-14-2008, 03:26 PM
An Iraqi Journalist threw two of his shoes at President Bush during a joint press conference.


VIDEO (http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11096193&ch=4226716&src=news)

Looks like he learned his objectivity from American "journalists".

I liked Bush's response after the incident.

Molon Labe
12-14-2008, 04:03 PM
Looks like he learned his objectivity from American "journalists".

I liked Bush's response after the incident.

Eddie Murphy called this type of person a "Shoe Throwin' Mutha'" :D

Sonnabend
12-14-2008, 05:13 PM
And the DUmmies are positively orgasmic.

...who miss one very, very, very essential difference between this and the consequences had he done this to Saddam Hussein.

As it is, in 2008, he may face charges, but will live to see another day.

Under Saddam?? He, and his family , and his relatives would have been kidnapped, tortured, murdered and their bodies thrown into the river.

That's a living example of democracy and freedom.

nacho
12-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Looks like he learned his objectivity from American "journalists".


Helen Thomas tried to do that once but she broke four bones including her hip bending over to get her orthopedic clog off.

SarasotaRepub
12-14-2008, 05:58 PM
W's got pretty good reflexes. :D

Bleda
12-14-2008, 06:30 PM
This video has made me love Bush even more than I already do.

wulfpaw
12-15-2008, 06:14 AM
Lol, he's lucky that james bond guy that slings the hat wasn't there..:p

Sonnabend
12-15-2008, 06:34 AM
One of my workmates asked a VERY good question: how the HELL did he get THAT close and where the hell was the Secret service?? :mad::mad:

One shoe, maybe..but TWO??? :mad:

djones520
12-15-2008, 06:40 AM
One of my workmates asked a VERY good question: how the HELL did he get THAT close and where the hell was the Secret service?? :mad::mad:

One shoe, maybe..but TWO??? :mad:

He was in the same pulpit as the rest of the Press.

That is a good question about the 2nd shoe though. Had that been a gun then the Secret Service would have just been total abject failure.

djones520
12-15-2008, 06:42 AM
Lol, he's lucky that james bond guy that slings the hat wasn't there..:p

I'd say he's luckier that it wasn't the shoe throwing guy from Austin Powers.

AmPat
12-15-2008, 08:33 AM
He was in the same pulpit as the rest of the Press.

That is a good question about the 2nd shoe though. Had that been a gun then the Secret Service would have just been total abject failure.

Who throws a shoe? Honestly? A Shoe?:confused:;)
Nobody expected this. It probably took a second for the SS to register the pure lunacy they witnessed.

Sonnabend
12-15-2008, 08:35 AM
Who throws a shoe? Honestly? A Shoe?It could have been a knife..or a grenade...or a firebomb....where the hell was his Detail??

linda22003
12-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Who throws a shoe? Honestly? A Shoe?:confused:;)


It's supposed to be a deadly insult in Iraq. It kind of loses its effectiveness when the person being insulted is from a culture that doesn't see it the same way.

djones520
12-15-2008, 09:29 AM
It's supposed to be a deadly insult in Iraq. It kind of loses its effectiveness when the person being insulted is from a culture that doesn't see it the same way.

I think your missing the qoute... that was the line Austin Powers used when he got nailed in the head by the Shoe Throwing Guy who was a nock off of the Hat Throwing Guy.

wiegenlied
12-15-2008, 10:22 AM
Now the shoe-thrower is being tested for alcohol and drugs to determine his state of mind and soon he will probably end up in jail

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 10:42 AM
...who miss one very, very, very essential difference between this and the consequences had he done this to Saddam Hussein.

As it is, in 2008, he may face charges, but will live to see another day.

Under Saddam?? He, and his family , and his relatives would have been kidnapped, tortured, murdered and their bodies thrown into the river.

That's a living example of democracy and freedom.HEY!!!:mad: Don't rain facts on their orgasm parade:mad:

wulfpaw
12-15-2008, 03:01 PM
Did you see the video? Bush ducks and then comes back up like he knows it's nothing.. Then the guy throws the second shoe. Sounds like it could have been staged, like that time prince charles had someone fire off a couple rounds into the air and he didn't dive for cover. An event to show off; 'tough under fire'..

YupItsMe
12-15-2008, 07:07 PM
Did you see the video? Bush ducks and then comes back up like he knows it's nothing.. Then the guy throws the second shoe. Sounds like it could have been staged, like that time prince charles had someone fire off a couple rounds into the air and he didn't dive for cover. An event to show off; 'tough under fire'..


What's your DUmmie name? :rolleyes:

wulfpaw
12-15-2008, 08:31 PM
Go to hell.. I'm not a dem; I'm not GOP; I'm an american conservative. Last I checked, that's who this forum is for. Not blind worshippers toeing the party line.

PoliCon
12-15-2008, 10:08 PM
Go to hell.. I'm not a dem; I'm not GOP; I'm an american conservative. Last I checked, that's who this forum is for. Not blind worshippers toeing the party line.Who said anything about towing a party line? :confused:

wulfpaw
12-16-2008, 08:02 AM
Your actions speak louder than words. Blindly supporting the GOP/bush, when they haven't had a conservative leg to stand on for years now. The question here is, why did he come back up from his first duck? How did he know the next throw wasn't a knife, or worse? 'Oh, he's only throwing shoes, I'm getting back up for a second look'.. And the Secret Service the same thing, 'What was that, a shoe? Well, he probably won't throw another..' Heh, didn't they already build bombs into shoes?

Sonnabend
12-16-2008, 08:04 AM
He didn't..and neither did you.

Hence my question, where the hell was his detail?

wulfpaw
12-16-2008, 08:06 AM
Indeed, which leads to my 'it was staged' observation.

Sonnabend
12-16-2008, 08:08 AM
Indeed, which leads to my 'it was staged' observation.

Said observation is wrong.

wulfpaw
12-16-2008, 08:10 AM
Well, it's an opinion, and it's my right to have one. My observation provides more answers than yours, at this point. Where was his detail, after all?

Sonnabend
12-16-2008, 08:23 AM
Well, it's an opinion, and it's my right to have one. My observation provides more answers than yours, at this point.

Whats to say.A guy threw two shoes at Pres. Bush because he had a beef with him.


Where was his detail, after all?

Ask them.

biccat
12-16-2008, 08:26 AM
Said observation is wrong.
Shoegate was obviously another BFEE MIHOP incident, Sonna.

( :D )

Odysseus
12-16-2008, 10:33 AM
He was in the same pulpit as the rest of the Press.
That is a good question about the 2nd shoe though. Had that been a gun then the Secret Service would have just been total abject failure.
They screen for guns, knives and any other potential weapons at these things. The security is tighter than what you go through at an airport. They didn't screen for shoes, although I'm sure that they check them for explosives, a la Richard Reid.

Who throws a shoe? Honestly? A Shoe?:confused:;)
Nobody expected this. It probably took a second for the SS to register the pure lunacy they witnessed.
Hitting someone with a shoe in Arab countries is considered a serious insult, just like showing them the bottom of your foot. It implies that you consider them beneath you. Remember the video footage of Saddam's statue on the ground? The Iraqis that surrounded it were beating it with their shoes.

Did you see the video? Bush ducks and then comes back up like he knows it's nothing.. Then the guy throws the second shoe. Sounds like it could have been staged, like that time prince charles had someone fire off a couple rounds into the air and he didn't dive for cover. An event to show off; 'tough under fire'..
He ducked because he has quick reflexes, and he came back up because he wanted to know what was going on. Why would the president stage an event that would empower Islamists who could point to his being insulted and humiliated by a "journalist" (who, BTW, came from a pro-Saddam news outlet in Egypt, if you can believe that anyone who didn't have a gun to their head could be pro-Saddam).

Go to hell.. I'm not a dem; I'm not GOP; I'm an american conservative. Last I checked, that's who this forum is for. Not blind worshippers toeing the party line.
No, you're more of a generic conspiracy dolt. We get a few of you from time to time. They tend not to last here, as the tinfoil hats interfere with the wifi reception on their laptops.

Well, it's an opinion, and it's my right to have one. My observation provides more answers than yours, at this point. Where was his detail, after all?
It's a stupid opinion, based on ignorance, and provides no answers and raises more questions (such as what medications you should be on). His detail was there, but they didn't have time to react. The guy obviously slipped both shoes off, had one in his throwing hand and then got the other one as fast as he could. It's not exactly rocket science.

Shoegate was obviously another BFEE MIHOP incident, Sonna.
( :D )
Blame it on the Shooooooooooooooos :D

Molon Labe
12-16-2008, 11:09 AM
Go to hell.. I'm not a dem; I'm not GOP; I'm an american conservative. Last I checked, that's who this forum is for. Not blind worshippers toeing the party line.

I doubt the episode was staged.... But I can sure understand how I'd feel if some Arab Neocons tried to implement Sharia law here in the U.S. when we didn't ask for it.
I'll guarantee...A bunch of us would throw more than shoes. ;)

You make a great point about people towing the party line. You'll find this thread is full of the Bush apologists.


Who said anything about towing a party line? :confused:



of course the GOP has high unfavorable ratings - the tack to the left has pissed off the base. We don't want to have to vote a democrat over a socialist - but that's what they gave us in McCain.


Who are you voting for?
John McCain :
AmPat, BDMcGee, boozerbear, BSR, Carlef, cat714, Celestron, Constitutionally Speaking, d_va, Eagle, Exile, expat-pattaya, Fight Socialism, Full-Auto, g3shooter, InspiredHome, JB, jendf, jeskibuff, jinxmchue, johns777, KCornett, Kimberly, Kristin, lacarnut, lacjmc, Lager, Lars1701a, LibraryLady, Linda, LogansPapa, mike128, MrsSmith, Mythic, Perilloux, PoliCon, raiderguy8, ralph wiggum, ReaganForRus, Rebel Yell, SaintLouieWoman, Shannon, Sonnabend, SPYDER, TandT, Trixie, wiegenlied, Zathras

Didn't you vote for a socialist? Haven't we all lately?
It's a fair question for anyone that voted for a left wing putz like McCain. It's not like he ever hid his left wing tendancies. I think I'm being objective...I voted twice for the socialist Bush. Some of us have just figured it out quicker than others.

Odysseus
12-16-2008, 12:08 PM
Well, it's an opinion, and it's my right to have one. My observation provides more answers than yours, at this point. Where was his detail, after all?


I doubt the episode was staged.... But I can sure understand how I'd feel if some Arab Neocons tried to implement Sharia law here in the U.S. when we didn't ask for it.
I'll guarantee...A bunch of us would throw more than shoes. ;)
They are. Haven't you heard of CAIR?

Molon Labe
12-16-2008, 12:10 PM
They are. Haven't you heard of CAIR?

You're comparing CAIR to a U.S. military intervention into the the Middle east?:rolleyes:

Odysseus
12-16-2008, 12:59 PM
You're comparing CAIR to a U.S. military intervention into the the Middle east?:rolleyes:

CAIR is the tip of the iceberg. The Islamists have spent tens of billions of dollars in the US on mosques, colleges (try to find a Middle East studies department that isn't completely bankrolled by Wahabbis), even elementary school textbooks. We're on the receiving end of a massive infiltration and propaganda attack through our educational and media institutions.

Molon Labe
12-16-2008, 02:00 PM
CAIR is the tip of the iceberg. The Islamists have spent tens of billions of dollars in the US on mosques, colleges (try to find a Middle East studies department that isn't completely bankrolled by Wahabbis), even elementary school textbooks. We're on the receiving end of a massive infiltration and propaganda attack through our educational and media institutions.

We can agree on CAIR and the need to thwart them...
My point: It doesn't take a genius to understand the average Iraqi citizens frustration with being force fed "Democracry" in their name. Just as you do protest at being force fed something entirely foreign to Western Civilization.

Sonnabend
12-16-2008, 02:38 PM
Blame it on the Shooooooooooooooos :D

You.

Owe.

Me.

A.

Monitor :mad::mad:










:D

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 03:25 PM
Your actions speak louder than words. Blindly supporting the GOP/bush, when they haven't had a conservative leg to stand on for years now. The question here is, why did he come back up from his first duck? How did he know the next throw wasn't a knife, or worse? 'Oh, he's only throwing shoes, I'm getting back up for a second look'.. And the Secret Service the same thing, 'What was that, a shoe? Well, he probably won't throw another..' Heh, didn't they already build bombs into shoes?WHAO. Point of order - no one is blindly supporting anyone. My respect is for the office if not for the person holding it AND even if Bush was the very WORST of the left I'd still stand behind him as my president - like I will for Obama. When they are wrong - call them on it. As for your idiotic claim about a knife - you do know that these guys were SEARCHED before they were let into the room right? The Secret Service knows how to do their jobs. They would have been thoroughly searched - sniffed and patted down. AND BESIDES - what would you have the man do? COWER IN FEAR??? GAH.

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 03:31 PM
You make a great point about people towing the party line. You'll find this thread is full of the Bush apologists. You obviously don't pay attention except for when it suits your agenda. We have been more than critical of Bush on issues like immigration - these bail outs - etc. Just because we don't jump up and down and scream and stomp our feet like libertarians does not mean we're all Bush apologists.





Didn't you vote for a socialist? Haven't we all lately? It's a fair question for anyone that voted for a left wing putz like McCain.Sarah Palin isn't a socialist. And SHE is the one I voted for. BESIDES sometimes you have to vote for the socialist to avoid the communist.

It's not like he ever hid his left wing tendancies. I think I'm being objective...I voted twice for the socialist Bush. Some of us have just figured it out quicker than others.I didn't vote for bush for his economic policy. I'm smart enough to know its CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. THEY set the economic policy not the president. I voted for BUSH for Judges and for National Security.

Molon Labe
12-16-2008, 04:06 PM
You obviously don't pay attention except for when it suits your agenda. We have been more than critical of Bush on issues like immigration - these bail outs - etc. Just because we don't jump up and down and scream and stomp our feet like libertarians does not mean we're all Bush apologists.

Sarah Palin isn't a socialist. And SHE is the one I voted for. BESIDES sometimes you have to vote for the socialist to avoid the communist. I didn't vote for bush for his economic policy. I'm smart enough to know its CONGRESS that has the power of the purse. THEY set the economic policy not the president. I voted for BUSH for Judges and for National Security.

What exactly is my "agenda". I'm dying to know?
You're right Palin wasn't a socilist....just a patsy for the garbage McCain was shoveling. What exactly does that make her then?

That's the limitations of the VP I'm afraid. Never heard of anyone who voted for the VP on a ballot.
You'll have to excuse me if I've somehow missed your staunch criticism of Bush.
Seems to me, (especially in these times) some could use a bit more fire in their belly like some of the libertarians types.
I fault their zealotry and activism less than I do the so called conservatives I've seen lately who think that a yearly trip to the voting booth equates the extent of their "civic duty". :rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-16-2008, 04:25 PM
I fault their zealotry and activism less than I do the so called conservatives I've seen lately who think that a yearly trip to the voting booth equates the extent of their "civic duty". :rolleyes:I agree. People have become complacent. We've been peddled polls for so long that people think that answering one is now political activism. As I have said before - get involved. Attend your local school board meetings at the very least - and your local council meetings if possible. we need to stop letting politicians walk all over us. If we get involved they will have fewer opportunities.

AmPat
12-16-2008, 06:15 PM
Hitting someone with a shoe in Arab countries is considered a serious insult, just like showing them the bottom of your foot. It implies that you consider them beneath you. Remember the video footage of Saddam's statue on the ground? The Iraqis that surrounded it were beating it with their shoes.
Blame it on the Shooooooooooooooos :D
Wow, I thought I was socially retarded.:D You and Linda need to get out more. My comment was loosely quoted from Austin Powers. I'm aware of the whole Arab insult angle.

Odysseus
12-16-2008, 06:22 PM
We can agree on CAIR and the need to thwart them...
My point: It doesn't take a genius to understand the average Iraqi citizens frustration with being force fed "Democracry" in their name. Just as you do protest at being force fed something entirely foreign to Western Civilization.
The guy who threw the shoes worked for an Egyptian-based TV network that was notoriously pro-Saddam. The average Iraqis were the ones who defied the terrorists to vote in their country's first democratic elections, thanks to us. This "journalist" is just a shill for the losers.

You.

Owe.

Me.

A.

Monitor :mad::mad:

:D
Have you never heard of Windex? :D

What exactly is my "agenda". I'm dying to know?
You're right Palin wasn't a socilist....just a patsy for the garbage McCain was shoveling. What exactly does that make her then?
McCain's not a socialist. He's an economic illiterate, but that's not the same thing. McCain would have made some good decisions, and some bad ones, because ultimately he didn't know enough about economics to make the right decisions consistently, but I have no doubt that everything that he did would have been with the good of the nation as his uppermost concern. Do you disagree? And do you think the same can be said of Obama?

Molon Labe
12-16-2008, 07:19 PM
The guy who threw the shoes worked for an Egyptian-based TV network that was notoriously pro-Saddam. The average Iraqis were the ones who defied the terrorists to vote in their country's first democratic elections, thanks to us. This "journalist" is just a shill for the losers.

Right...I agree...... average Iraqi's did go out and vote....as did average Iraqis who went and joined the insurgency. There's a difference between the Al Qaeda and the insurgency.
Come on Odysseus...go sell that blanket "Terrorist" bunk to somebody who doesn't think. Those "terrorists" are now helping the U.S. military track down and root them out.

Oh...It's easy to dismiss the shoe guy as being a Saddam shrill...but that would be a mistake. It's not like it's just Arabs that think he speaks for how only they feel...

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1081154


McCain's not a socialist. He's an economic illiterate, but that's not the same thing. McCain would have made some good decisions, and some bad ones, because ultimately he didn't know enough about economics to make the right decisions consistently, but I have no doubt that everything that he did would have been with the good of the nation as his uppermost concern. Do you disagree? And do you think the same can be said of Obama?

So far with what I'm observing....Obama is a closer cousin to Bush and Clinton than any true "socialist" out there. And I somewhat disagree in as much as I believe that the difference between Obama and McCain is one of only which interest they choose to answer too.
Did you ever take a look at who funded both campaigns? The major "difference" was that Goldman & Sachs was only a little bit lower on McCain's list of contributors than Obama's. Can you say "hedging your bets" ? Hope and Change!......Maverick politics!:rolleyes:

When we banter the term socialist...what most really mean is someone who caters to left wing interests. IMO....what we have in Obama and the congress in general is a quasi plutocratic kleptocracy. He does not resemble a socialist in the Bernie Sanders vein.
Sanders is the only true socialist in it's purest sense in the U.S. congress. I disagree with him on a great many things but there is no doubt he is principled to the socialist cause and not the interests that currently define both major parties in congress.

RobJohnson
12-17-2008, 03:17 AM
Saudi offers $10 mln for shoe thrown at Bush

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.2819245224

AmPat
12-17-2008, 03:27 AM
Wealthy Saudi Hasan Muhammad Makhafa has offered 10 million dollars for one of the shoes thrown by an Iraqi TV journalist at outgoing US President George W. Bush during a press conference in Baghdad on Sunday. Many in the Arab world have hailed the journalist, Montazer al-Zaidi, as a hero and rallies took place in Iraq on Monday calling for his release from custody.

Makhafa told Dubai-based Arabic satellite TV station Al-Arabiya that al-Zaidi's shoes were "a symbol of freedom not just footwear."

"They represent a victory for those who have disgraced the Arabs by occupying their lands and killing innocent people," he said.

I say let's sell them for the 10 million (each) and then buy 20 million worth of weapons and ammunition. Kinda turns it around on the imbecile.:cool:

wiegenlied
12-17-2008, 03:45 AM
Prime Minister Gordon Brown arrived in Baghdad for an unannounced visit on Wednesday and was received by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi state television said. The visit, Brown's fourth to Iraq as prime minister, follows the drafting by the Iraqi cabinet of a law that paves the way for Britain's 4,100 troops to withdraw by the end of July 2009, more than six years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Source: Yahoo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081217/tpl-uk-iraq-britain-brown-43a8d4f_2.html)

An unannounced visit sometimes becomes a good option.

marinejcksn
12-17-2008, 04:25 AM
Regardless of his faults, you've gotta notice one thing: W is a class act. He's flawed on Conservative principles but he honestly cares about us in the military, this I know without question.

wiegenlied
12-17-2008, 05:37 AM
It is just unfortunate for Bush because the 9/11 thing happened during his term of office. But Bush has done the best thing what a leader must do to protect national security in the case of an external attack: not negotiating with enemies, not giving them any chances of survival, and that was exactly what Bush has done.

What the hell with a pair of shoes.

PoliCon
12-17-2008, 11:37 AM
Regardless of his faults, you've gotta notice one thing: W is a class act. He's flawed on Conservative principles but he honestly cares about us in the military, this I know without question.He did give us some great Judges though :). Robert's and Alito were both God sends! That woman he nominated though . . . wow. DUMB DUMB DUMB.

Odysseus
12-17-2008, 12:41 PM
Needless to say, Kieth Olbermann and Chris Mathews will never be allowed near any Republican unless they are barefoot.


Right...I agree...... average Iraqi's did go out and vote....as did average Iraqis who went and joined the insurgency. There's a difference between the Al Qaeda and the insurgency.
Come on Odysseus...go sell that blanket "Terrorist" bunk to somebody who doesn't think. Those "terrorists" are now helping the U.S. military track down and root them out.
You know better than that. The average Iraqi didn't join the insurgency. It was always a minority element, even among the Sunni. The vast majority of the insurgents were foreign fighters, with some Ba'athist holdouts.

So far with what I'm observing....Obama is a closer cousin to Bush and Clinton than any true "socialist" out there. And I somewhat disagree in as much as I believe that the difference between Obama and McCain is one of only which interest they choose to answer too.
Did you ever take a look at who funded both campaigns? The major "difference" was that Goldman & Sachs was only a little bit lower on McCain's list of contributors than Obama's. Can you say "hedging your bets" ? Hope and Change!......Maverick politics!:rolleyes:
Again, I disagree. The difference between Obama and McCain is that, while both are clueless on economic issues (and Obama fares worse here, because his brand of cluelessness is based on a lifetime of digesting misinformation on economics, while McCain has just never given it much thought), McCain was iron when it came to defense, and wouldn't budge if he believed that he was in the right. Obama has never demonstrated any character and will go whichever way is most expedient or beneficial to him, his party or the nation, in that order.


When we banter the term socialist...what most really mean is someone who caters to left wing interests. IMO....what we have in Obama and the congress in general is a quasi plutocratic kleptocracy. He does not resemble a socialist in the Bernie Sanders vein.
Sanders is the only true socialist in it's purest sense in the U.S. congress. I disagree with him on a great many things but there is no doubt he is principled to the socialist cause and not the interests that currently define both major parties in congress.
Actually, Sanders is the only Socialist, but there are other small "s" socialists in congress, members who favor government ownership of the economy and the abolition of private property rights. What you have a lot more of are corporatist/fascist types, who favor government control of the economy and the regimentation of the nation along quasi-military lines in order to advance their agenda. That's where I put Obama, although given his close associates, it's not too far of a stretch to assume that he's a socialist, but since our national media didn't bother actually looking into where he really stands on the issues, we won't know until we watch him actually try to formulate policy.

Saudi offers $10 mln for shoe thrown at Bush

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Politics/?id=3.0.2819245224
Does Blago know this? Maybe he can trade it for an open Illinois senate seat.

Regardless of his faults, you've gotta notice one thing: W is a class act. He's flawed on Conservative principles but he honestly cares about us in the military, this I know without question.
Agreed. Even Cindy Sheehan admitted that after she met with him. It wasn't until she decided to cash in that she claimed otherwise.

It is just unfortunate for Bush because the 9/11 thing happened during his term of office. But Bush has done the best thing what a leader must do to protect national security in the case of an external attack: not negotiating with enemies, not giving them any chances of survival, and that was exactly what Bush has done.

What the hell with a pair of shoes.
Some DUmmie types are planning on organizing a protest by sending their old shoes to the President. They love the idea of a pile of reeking footgear outside the White House. Frankly, I don't think that a pile of Birkenstocks and Crocs would do anything except expose the left's lousy taste in footgear. We should find the people who are planning it and show them what a thrown combat boot feels like.

Molon Labe
12-17-2008, 02:16 PM
You know better than that. The average Iraqi didn't join the insurgency. It was always a minority element, even among the Sunni. The vast majority of the insurgents were foreign fighters, with some Ba'athist holdouts.

So you say....I understand many things very differently. You can't tell me that all the Shieks in theatre who have been helping are Ba'athists and a "minority" of opinon. Are you telling me the average units working with the tribes are lying? Or are they just misinformed? You are being intellectually dishonest...or simply really believe what you are saying. Just say you believe in implementing Democracy by military power so we can move on. It will so much more refreshing. You started to when you mentioned those who resist and disagree were "sore losers"...but you stopped too short.


The difference between Obama and McCain is that, while both are clueless on economic issues (and Obama fares worse here, because his brand of cluelessness is based on a lifetime of digesting misinformation on economics, while McCain has just never given it much thought), McCain was iron when it came to defense, and wouldn't budge if he believed that he was in the right. Obama has never demonstrated any character and will go whichever way is most expedient or beneficial to him, his party or the nation, in that order.

Goldman & Sachs hedging bets does not a difference make.
One can easily replace "The Maverick" with Obama in any of the above.


Actually, Sanders is the only Socialist, but there are other small "s" socialists in congress, members who favor government ownership of the economy and the abolition of private property rights. What you have a lot more of are corporatist/fascist types, who favor government control of the economy and the regimentation of the nation along quasi-military lines in order to advance their agenda.

And therein lies the problem...the small "s" equals little that is very distinguishable anymore by party lines since there all there to give some special interest a handout. I believe that not every member of congress really knows that what they are doing actually leads to tyranny.... but I see little difference in the current gang of 535 that they deserve trust.

PoliCon
12-17-2008, 02:37 PM
So you say....I understand many things very differently. You can't tell me that all the Shieks in theatre who have been helping are Ba'athists and a "minority" of opinon. Are you telling me the average units working with the tribes are lying? Or are they just misinformed? You are being intellectually dishonest...or simply really believe what you are saying. Just say you believe in implementing Democracy by military power so we can move on. It will so much more refreshing. You started to when you mentioned those who resist and disagree were "sore losers"...but you stopped too short.I have a friend who did psy-ops in Iraq. The violence of the "insurgency was primarily prompted and perpetuated by foreign fighters.

Odysseus
12-17-2008, 03:23 PM
So you say....I understand many things very differently. You can't tell me that all the Shieks in theatre who have been helping are Ba'athists and a "minority" of opinon. Are you telling me the average units working with the tribes are lying? Or are they just misinformed? You are being intellectually dishonest...or simply really believe what you are saying. Just say you believe in implementing Democracy by military power so we can move on. It will so much more refreshing. You started to when you mentioned those who resist and disagree were "sore losers"...but you stopped too short.
Why don't I just have the word "NEOCON" stamped on my forehead? It would save time and you could dismiss me without actually reading anything that I write. No, the units weren't misinformed, but unless they were at the operational, rather than tactical level, they didn't see the big picture. I did. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, including their Sheiks, are Shia, not Sunni, and had nothing to do with the insurgency. Even the Sunni Sheiks were less than enthusiastic, except for the Al Tikriti, who lost everything when Saddam fell. The only Shia insurgents were the Mahdi Army under Moqtada al Sadr, and he was backed entirely by Iran, which just goes to show the extent of the foreign influence. As for implementing democracy by force of arms, ask the Germans, Japanese, Italians and South Koreans how they feel about it. And, BTW, South Korea was just as tribal and clannish as any Arab state, and the left said the same things then that they do now about the futility of bringing them into the 20th century. Gutless isolationism used to masquerade as principled liberalism, now it's infected both sides, but it doesn't impress anyone. The only difference is that where the liberals see war-mongering tools of the military industrial complex under their beds at night, you see NeoCons.


Goldman & Sachs hedging bets does not a difference make.
One can easily replace "The Maverick" with Obama in any of the above.
And then it would no longer be true. BTW, you really should check your facts. Goldman Sachs (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085)gave Democrats a 3:1 edge in contributions in the last election cycle, 74% to 26%, slightly less of a bias than the national media, but hardly as even as you tried to claim. Out of $5,319,566 contributed, $3,949,690 went to Democrats and $1,359,536 went to Republicans.

And therein lies the problem...the small "s" equals little that is very distinguishable anymore by party lines since there all there to give some special interest a handout. I believe that not every member of congress really knows that what they are doing actually leads to tyranny.... but I see little difference in the current gang of 535 that they deserve trust.


I have a friend who did psy-ops in Iraq. The violence of the "insurgency was primarily prompted and perpetuated by foreign fighters.
I've got a few Civil Affairs buddies who just came back and said the same thing, and it's what I saw during my tour. Plus, just about everyone that I know said the same thing. Of course, we're all obviously "misinformed" and "intellectually dishonest."

PoliCon
12-17-2008, 04:02 PM
I've got a few Civil Affairs buddies who just came back and said the same thing, and it's what I saw during my tour. Plus, just about everyone that I know said the same thing. Of course, we're all obviously "misinformed" and "intellectually dishonest."
Of course we are. We're not members of the MSM.

Molon Labe
12-17-2008, 04:13 PM
No, the units weren't misinformed, but unless they were at the operational, rather than tactical level, they didn't see the big picture. I did. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis, including their Sheiks, are Shia, not Sunni, and had nothing to do with the insurgency. The only difference is that where the liberals see war-mongering tools of the military industrial complex under their beds at night, you see NeoCons.

Funny.. wasn't it men like Ike and Major General Butler that first saw the dangers of the MIC?
Liberal Shrills????
Why...no one would ever accuse you of seeing a "liberal" behind a plot against the military or Republicans.

When I say "neocon" I speak of a group that has a very specific influence in what goes on in Iraq and it has been proven time after time. I studied it and know the playbook...Remember?
When it diminishes, then I will make note of it and move on...trouble is...it looks like Obama is going to carry the mantle....
No... Not everything is a Neocon plot....just as not everything is a Liberal plot, and too many arguments end on that note.
There's a time and place to call out something for being partisan "liberal" nonsense or "neocon" crap......this is not one of them.
Try to stay on target...I know it's tempting to start the ad hominem platitudes...but you were doing a great job with facts. ;)



BTW, you really should check your facts. Goldman Sachs (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085)gave Democrats a 3:1 edge in contributions in the last election cycle, 74% to 26%, slightly less of a bias than the national media, but hardly as even as you tried to claim. Out of $5,319,566 contributed, $3,949,690 went to Democrats and $1,359,536 went to Republicans.

Yeah...that's where I get my facts too, its just my interpretation would be if you ain't interested then you don't give to the cause. So..let's see...G&S was 2nd on Obama's list and 4th on McCain's in contributions.

3 to 1...in millions?
I mean......What's a couple of million among friends with "different" beliefs...huh?
Oh yeah....Unless those beliefs help us out either way we go.
If you can't see that's hedging bets? Oh Brother!!!

Have you ever given to a Democrat? I sure haven't. What's G&S excuse?... I'm sure you'll have an answer.

biccat
12-17-2008, 05:49 PM
I have a friend who did psy-ops in Iraq. The violence of the "insurgency was primarily prompted and perpetuated by foreign fighters.
I have a friend who spent some time in Iraq, he was injured during the battle in Fallujah. He said a lot of times they were fighting against blond hair blue eyed white (Baltic) mercenaries. Even the ones who looked the part weren't from Iraq.

Molon Labe
12-17-2008, 06:24 PM
I have a friend who spent some time in Iraq, he was injured during the battle in Fallujah. He said a lot of times they were fighting against blond hair blue eyed white (Baltic) mercenaries. Even the ones who looked the part weren't from Iraq.

Good lord....I'm not disputing the foreign fighter fact...I'm aware of the make up of the insurgency. There were plenty of opportunistic individuals that were waiting to kill American's. Bin laden even said so. Why is that a surprise?

What I'm disputing is twisting the situation to fit one's belief system. What is essentially being suggested in the quote below is that someone of the "minority" couldn't possibly have a legitimitate gripe...and if he does...well then he must have some "agenda". A "sore loser" I believe is the way it was put.



The average Iraqi didn't join the insurgency. It was always a minority element, even among the Sunni. The vast majority of the insurgents were foreign fighters, with some Ba'athist holdouts.

Of course we wouldn't bother to use facts, just simple insinuations as to why he "might have" or why we "think" the shoe nut dissented, with absolutely no evidence.

Historically, revolutions, Insurgencies and mass movements in general have always involved a minority of individuals. So what does that proove....That they were wrong?

Odysseus
12-17-2008, 11:27 PM
Of course we are. We're not members of the MSM.


Funny.. wasn't it men like Ike and Major General Butler that first saw the dangers of the MIC?
Liberal Shrills????
Why...no one would ever accuse you of seeing a "liberal" behind a plot against the military or Republicans.
Ike was pretty much the poster child for RINOs in the '50s, as was his veep, Nixon. He did nothing to roll back the New Deal and actually expanded the role of the federal government through a fairly activist approach to construction (those national highways didn't spontaneously form under an invisible hand). The Senate Majority Leader, Taft, was the real conservative. As for MG Butler, he was an out and out communist. If those are your conservative icons, you really need to get back to first principles.


When I say "neocon" I speak of a group that has a very specific influence in what goes on in Iraq and it has been proven time after time. I studied it and know the playbook...Remember?
When it diminishes, then I will make note of it and move on...trouble is...it looks like Obama is going to carry the mantle....
No, I don't remember. What playbook would that be? As for what goes on in Iraq, we've pretty much handed that over to the Iraqi people. Now that the Status of Forces Agreement has been ratified at their end, they've pretty much got the same level of sovereignty that South Korea has. We'll maintain enough forces in the AO to assist the Iraqis with their internal security, train their forces and deter Iran, but that's in their interest and ours. Remember, Iran really does plan on a global jihad.

No... Not everything is a Neocon plot....just as not everything is a Liberal plot, and too many arguments end on that note.
There's a time and place to call out something for being partisan "liberal" nonsense or "neocon" crap......this is not one of them.
Try to stay on target...I know it's tempting to start the ad hominem platitudes...but you were doing a great job with facts. ;).
Ah, so when you tell me that I'm "intellectually dishonest" or "simply really believe what [I am] saying," that's not an ad hominem, but when I point out that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being either a Neocon or a liberal, it is. Got it. Any other rules that you'd like to impose on the discussion?


Yeah...that's where I get my facts too, its just my interpretation would be if you ain't interested then you don't give to the cause. So..let's see...G&S was 2nd on Obama's list and 4th on McCain's in contributions.

3 to 1...in millions?
I mean......What's a couple of million among friends with "different" beliefs...huh?
Oh yeah....Unless those beliefs help us out either way we go.
If you can't see that's hedging bets? Oh Brother!!!
Have you ever given to a Democrat? I sure haven't. What's G&S excuse?... I'm sure you'll have an answer.
I do. You must read the caption that went with the chart.

These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Now, the bold text and red color were not my emphasis, but were in the original. Goldman Sachs didn't give the money, although they collected some through their PAC and passed it on. Now, if you compare the numbers given only to the presidential campaigns, you'll see that Goldman Sachs passed on $884,907 from its employees to Obama, and only $229,695 to McCain, or, to put it another way, for every dollar a GS employee gave to McCain, four more gave their dollars to Obama. That's a 20%/80% split for Obama within the company, which puts them just a bit behind the MSM in terms of percentage of support for Obama.

Molon Labe
12-18-2008, 08:32 AM
Ike was pretty much the poster child for RINOs in the '50s, as was his veep, Nixon. He did nothing to roll back the New Deal and actually expanded the role of the federal government through a fairly activist approach to construction (those national highways didn't spontaneously form under an invisible hand). The Senate Majority Leader, Taft, was the real conservative. As for MG Butler, he was an out and out communist. If those are your conservative icons, you really need to get back to first principles.

Taft is a conservative hero. Butler is not. I never said he was a conservative. I respect him for not only what he did on the battlefield but moreso because he stood up to the powers that be that were dead wrong. There's no one left that is seriously given consideration that WW1 was a good thing.
And there is no evidence he was a communist. Was he sympathetic to the anti war effort? Oh yes and for the right reasons...not in the traditional left wing sense that wars are not inevitable. Regardless...his thesis is correct. Try making the same amount as the private in the field....see how long people scream this or that venture is a "worthy cause" for "security".


No, I don't remember. What playbook would that be? As for what goes on in Iraq, we've pretty much handed that over to the Iraqi people. Now that the Status of Forces Agreement has been ratified at their end, they've pretty much got the same level of sovereignty that South Korea has. We'll maintain enough forces in the AO to assist the Iraqis with their internal security, train their forces and deter Iran, but that's in their interest and ours. Remember, Iran really does plan on a global jihad.

In other words I know the walk and the talk. I studied it for 10 years.
Thanks for your opinion on what is happening. I can't disagree with what you say about the status.
The way in which we got to this point of relative calm in order to do this is what's in dispute. In other words......If you believe the Iraqi army and police forces control the more remote regions and that people like Al Sadr have just "fallen in line", you are sorely mistaken.



Ah, so when you tell me that I'm "intellectually dishonest" or "simply really believe what [I am] saying," that's not an ad hominem, but when I point out that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being either a Neocon or a liberal, it is. Got it. Any other rules that you'd like to impose on the discussion?

:D OK you caught me. However....I think calling you out for being "dishonest" holds a bit more weight then a "Libtard" or conspiracy of the MIC accusation.
It's not just Liberals who think there is to much influence in D.C. Strength through defense is one thing. I'm all for it..... But when the "shoe" gets past all the missile defense shields and Carrier groups you'd better start rethinking the concept of what the threat is and what is needed...:p




Now, the bold text and red color were not my emphasis, but were in the original. Goldman Sachs didn't give the money, although they collected some through their PAC and passed it on. Now, if you compare the numbers given only to the presidential campaigns, you'll see that Goldman Sachs passed on $884,907 from its employees to Obama, and only $229,695 to McCain, or, to put it another way, for every dollar a GS employee gave to McCain, four more gave their dollars to Obama. That's a 20%/80% split for Obama within the company, which puts them just a bit behind the MSM in terms of percentage of support for Obama.

So what are you suggesting....that GS giving hundreds of thousands to two campaigns prooves they are Libtards because they gave a few hundred thou. more to Obama?

Odysseus
12-18-2008, 11:25 AM
Taft is a conservative hero. Butler is not. I never said he was a conservative. I respect him for not only what he did on the battlefield but moreso because he stood up to the powers that be that were dead wrong. There's no one left that is seriously given consideration that WW1 was a good thing.Yes, but the anti-war effort that he was sympathetic to was WWII, not WWI. He was an isolationist when Stalin was an ally of Hitler's.

And there is no evidence he was a communist. Was he sympathetic to the anti war effort? Oh yes and for the right reasons...not in the traditional left wing sense that wars are not inevitable. Regardless...his thesis is correct. Try making the same amount as the private in the field....see how long people scream this or that venture is a "worthy cause" for "security".
He was a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism, which was a was a Comintern affiliate formed by the CPUSA. Henry F. Ward, the chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, was the chairman of the League, which distributed communist publications throughout churches as part of a major campaign by the CPUSA to organize in churches and enlist members. The League dissolved after the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact alienated the non-communists and its membership numbers collapsed. If Butler didn't know that he was shilling for Stalin, he was deliberately fooling himself.


In other words I know the walk and the talk. I studied it for 10 years.
Thanks for your opinion on what is happening. I can't disagree with what you say about the status.
The way in which we got to this point of relative calm in order to do this is what's in dispute. In other words......If you believe the Iraqi army and police forces control the more remote regions and that people like Al Sadr have just "fallen in line", you are sorely mistaken.
I never said anything of the sort, but I will clarify my positions: First, the Iraqi Army and police actually do have control of most of the more remote regions, although in some areas, that control is predicated by extensive US logistics and intel support, and in others it's based on the fact that the tribal elites and officer corps are locally indistinguishible. Second, Al Sadr didn't fall in line, he was pushed, hard. So hard, in fact, that he's landed in Iran. His Mahdi Army is at a fraction of its former strength and continues to weaken because the Iraqi Army demonstrated that they could knock him on his fourth point of contact. In short, the Iraqi insurgency was never a popular movement, and its collapse stems from its failure to engage the vast majority and its alienation of all but the most rabid allies.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/121708.jpg

:D OK you caught me. However....I think calling you out for being "dishonest" holds a bit more weight then a "Libtard" or conspiracy of the MIC accusation.
It's not just Liberals who think there is to much influence in D.C. Strength through defense is one thing. I'm all for it..... But when the "shoe" gets past all the missile defense shields and Carrier groups you'd better start rethinking the concept of what the threat is and what is needed...:p
The carrier groups and missile defenses are just a couple of parts of the military instrument of national power. We have a lot more irons in the fire than that, and we need to keep them all operational because the jihadis won't be slacking off just because we voted in the guy that they preferred. If anything, that preference is based on their perception that he will be less capable of defeating them than Bush was. Remember, the jihad isn't about us. There is no president that we can elect, sensitivity that we can demonstrate, no ally that we can throw to the wolves that will change their hatred of the infidel, and because we are the biggest, baddest infidel on the planet, we are target number one.


:So what are you suggesting....that GS giving hundreds of thousands to two campaigns prooves they are Libtards because they gave a few hundred thou. more to Obama?

No, I'm suggesting that the proportion of Goldman Sachs employees who are inclined to supporting Obama outnumbers the ones inclined to support McCain by a 4/1 ratio. But, if you need more evidence, just remember that their former chairman is the current governor of New Jersey. NYC banking firms are almost as reflexively liberal as the media.

Molon Labe
12-18-2008, 04:14 PM
Yes, but the anti-war effort that he was sympathetic to was WWII, not WWI. He was an isolationist when Stalin was an ally of Hitler's.

He was a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism, which was a was a Comintern affiliate formed by the CPUSA. Henry F. Ward, the chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union, was the chairman of the League, which distributed communist publications throughout churches as part of a major campaign by the CPUSA to organize in churches and enlist members. The League dissolved after the Molotov-Von Ribbentrop pact alienated the non-communists and its membership numbers collapsed. If Butler didn't know that he was shilling for Stalin, he was deliberately fooling himself.

I've gotten way off track arguing over Butler and Ike. You think they're illegitimate. I don't.

You don't seek to discount their warning by any evidence of flawed logic. The best you've given me is "RINO" and "Commie"....I can get that "evidence" from anybody.

The fact is his warning about an industry designed toward war is closer to Robert Taft's than the current batch who call themselves conservative...but really aren't.


War, Taft perceived, was the enemy of constitution, liberty, economic security, and the cake of custom. His natural conservatism made him a man of peace. He never had served in the army himself, and he did not relish the prospect of compelling others to serve. Though he was no theoretical pacifist, he insisted that every other possibility must be exhausted before resort to military action."The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft", by Russell Kirk

You can agree with Taft then....Right?



In short, the Iraqi insurgency was never a popular movement, and its collapse stems from its failure to engage the vast majority and its alienation of all but the most rabid allies.

That's one take...Here's another.
How about the collapse is more about payoffs to warlords and shieks to control the regions. Even my colleagues know what went on when conducting meetings with the locals.

Question:
When those 8 million people vote for someone like Sadr....will you still be clapping your hands at the will of the people? Or to put it another way. Just how "democratic" do you think we will allow them to be until it doesn't suit our "security" interests. I'll bet I know.

The average Arab doesn't give a damn about "Democracy" from a Western point of view. Me thinks that a truly Democratically elected leader in the ME will much more resemble a Sadr than a Maliki.


Remember, the jihad isn't about us. There is no president that we can elect, sensitivity that we can demonstrate, no ally that we can throw to the wolves that will change their hatred of the infidel, and because we are the biggest, baddest infidel on the planet, we are target number one.

Good...even more of a reason why other infidel nations need to pick up the burden sharing of global security and stop relying on the U.S. men and material, taxpayers, and the taxpayers who haven't even been born yet.

You know...Just last week, I believe, Thomas Fingar head of the NIA stated once again that there is no reason to believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Some want to believe the contrary. I'll guarantee that if he had come out and suggested that they were two weeks away from "the bomb" there would be outcries for someone to "do something". But it's stony silence. Why?

Look....You are definetely a miltary man...No doubt. Unfortunately that doesn't translate into what is best in F.P. decsion making.
One of the reasons the founders implicitly wanted that power in the hands of the people.

Odysseus
12-18-2008, 06:29 PM
I've gotten way off track arguing over Butler and Ike. You think they're illegitimate. I don't.

You don't seek to discount their warning by any evidence of flawed logic. The best you've given me is "RINO" and "Commie"....I can get that "evidence" from anybody.
Except that when you presented their arguments, you sarcastically asked if they were liberal shills. Ike wasn't, but he was no conservative, either, and Butler was an out and out communist. My point was that whatever they were, they weren't exactly exemplars of conservative ideology.

The fact is his warning about an industry designed toward war is closer to Robert Taft's than the current batch who call themselves conservative...but really aren't.

You can agree with Taft then....Right?
I can, but I don't in this case. Sometimes, war is like penicillin. The longer you wait to apply the cure, the more it takes, and the longer the recovery. If France and Britain had opposed Germany's actions when Hitler was relatively weak, after the Rhineland militarization, for example, or when the Nazis partitioned Czechoslovakia, WWII could have been avoided entirely. If they had gone into Germany when the Wehrmacht was in Poland, WWII would have ended within a few weeks. By waiting, they prolonged the agony.

That's one take...Here's another.
How about the collapse is more about payoffs to warlords and shieks to control the regions. Even my colleagues know what went on when conducting meetings with the locals.
It's not that simple. Counterinsurgency (COIN) involves all sorts of tools beyond simply shooting. The restoration of security has to be accompanied by the restoration of critical services and a functioning economy, which takes investment capital and a buy in from the locals. But, make no mistake about it, the sheiks who did back the insurgency wouldn't have changed sides if the government couldn't protect them from their former allies, and if those allies hadn't alienated them through the casual application of brutality.
Question:

When those 8 million people vote for someone like Sadr....will you still be clapping your hands at the will of the people? Or to put it another way. Just how "democratic" do you think we will allow them to be until it doesn't suit our "security" interests. I'll bet I know.
I'll react with the same equanimity that I hoped that I've displayed when the US elected someone like Obama.

The average Arab doesn't give a damn about "Democracy" from a Western point of view. Me thinks that a truly Democratically elected leader in the ME will much more resemble a Sadr than a Maliki.
So, you're saying that the election was rigged? Got proof, or is this just the paleocon version of the DUmmies Florida recount lament?


Good...even more of a reason why other infidel nations need to pick up the burden sharing of global security and stop relying on the U.S. men and material, taxpayers, and the taxpayers who haven't even been born yet.
Agreed, but if they don't, shall we pack up our gear and quit defending ourselves because of a fit of pique over the refusal of the French to lend a hand? How does that differ from John Kerry's multilateral engagement demands? And if you are concerned about our unborn generations of taxpayers, ask yourself which is worse, paying off the debt of a war won against the jihadis, or living under the regime that they will create if they win?


You know...Just last week, I believe, Thomas Fingar head of the NIA stated once again that there is no reason to believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Some want to believe the contrary. I'll guarantee that if he had come out and suggested that they were two weeks away from "the bomb" there would be outcries for someone to "do something". But it's stony silence. Why?
Good question, especially since the NY Times and WA Post would love to run articles that paint our Iran policy as nothing short of genocidal. I'll bite. Why do you think that there's silence?


Look....You are definetely a miltary man...No doubt. Unfortunately that doesn't translate into what is best in F.P. decsion making.
You would prefer to have these things decided by professional politicians?

One of the reasons the founders implicitly wanted that power in the hands of the people.
The founders also recognized that the military was part of the people, and that as long as Americans understood what military service entailed, we would be able to make informed decisions about when to resort to force. Unfortunately, that link is rapidly being broken as our armed forces and our elites have less and less to do with each other. In 1789, the President was a former general and his advisors and staff were almost entirely taken from among the revolutionary officer corps, and while much of the congress hadn't served, every signer of the Declaration of Independence had put his life on the line when he put his name on the record. Today, most of the congress not only hasn't served in the military, but many members are openly contemptuous of us and our culture, mission and ethos, and have no concept of what it means to be willing to lay down everything for your country. The decisions that they make about warfare are informed by focus groups, polls, abstract ideas that they barely comprehend and the occasional sound byte, but have very little to do with the world as it is.
The fact is that we will end up fighting wars, whether we want to or not. Wars will seek us out and we will either successfully fight off our enemies or they will force us to their will. Given the choice, I prefer to win, and that means that we must be prepared to engage any foe, any time, anywhere. Complain about the cost if you will, but if you think that fighting a war is expensive, wait until you have to pay for losing one.

Molon Labe
12-18-2008, 08:44 PM
Except that when you presented their arguments, you sarcastically asked if they were liberal shills. Ike wasn't, but he was no conservative, either, and Butler was an out and out communist. My point was that whatever they were, they weren't exactly exemplars of conservative ideology.

Sorry if the sarcasm was a distraction.
Regardless politics...their warning stands as relevant and their solutions would clarify a great deal about the "threats" we face. I won't hold my breath that it would ever happen. I do tend to be more of a realist than I let on.


I can, but I don't in this case. Sometimes, war is like penicillin. The longer you wait to apply the cure, the more it takes, and the longer the recovery. If France and Britain had opposed Germany's actions when Hitler was relatively weak, after the Rhineland militarization, for example, or when the Nazis partitioned Czechoslovakia, WWII could have been avoided entirely. If they had gone into Germany when the Wehrmacht was in Poland, WWII would have ended within a few weeks. By waiting, they prolonged the agony.

Oh Boy! Let's just agree to disagree on this point shall we? I've driven you to invoke Godwin's law... :p


So, you're saying that the election was rigged? Got proof, or is this just the paleocon version of the DUmmies Florida recount lament?

We will see just what type of democracy we get once we actually are long gone from a region of tribes and fiefdoms when their is no political pressure.
I don't think you are intentionally trying to insult my intelligence but I do know what the almighty fed tends to do in my name. (South Korea, Japan, Okinawa). I tend to a bit more skeptical that the fed is my friend and knows how to change the world.
I'm not biting on the "conspiracy" card. Institutional analysis is more like it. You might find it useful because it does wonders for seeing the "big picture".


Agreed, but if they don't, shall we pack up our gear and quit defending ourselves because of a fit of pique over the refusal of the French to lend a hand? How does that differ from John Kerry's multilateral engagement demands? And if you are concerned about our unborn generations of taxpayers, ask yourself which is worse, paying off the debt of a war won against the jihadis, or living under the regime that they will create if they win?

I don't give a beer fart if the French want to become Saudi central. They can spend THEIR money or the EU's for THEIR security....I don't care.
You seriously overestimate the power of the middle eastern states. You're so hell bent scared to death of every podunk "arab" that you're being blinded by your perception of the security dilemma. You accuse me of seeing Neocons yet it is you that sees little Arab Hitlers. Good grief.

And uh......Create regimes where? In America? Dude!....if that ever comes about....the war for this country's soul won't be won by an overseas mercy mission. (A little Star Wars lingo there)
That war has to be won by the people here at home over our leadership. Your'e a numbers man....Just how exactly do you think the bogey man will get here?


Good question, especially since the NY Times and WA Post would love to run articles that paint our Iran policy as nothing short of genocidal. I'll bite. Why do you think that there's silence?

Who knows? I was asking you. I'll take it as you don't know either or perhaps don't care. Why would you...I mean.....it doesn't fit into your view that Iran is Hitler's Germany.

Sorry..I invoked Godwin's law again.....you started it ya know....:D


You would prefer to have these things decided by professional politicians?

Given the choice, I prefer to win, and that means that we must be prepared to engage any foe, any time, anywhere. Complain about the cost if you will, but if you think that fighting a war is expensive, wait until you have to pay for losing one.

Who said I trust the politicians. Of course they have to be held accountable. I mean Cheney...after 8 years...still can't get it straight on why we went over there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/16/dick-cheney-iraq-war-wmd

So of course they need babysitters.

But since my idea is kinda the point of the supreme law of the land...ya know...letting the people we elect decide these type of things, and holding them accountable when they screw up. I know that's kinda foreign to some people...but shucks...that's the way it is right now.
Of course....We can change it.

And we can win...just not in the way most conservatives seem to think we have to by force alone.

At least you are honest that you're not to keen on the just war doctrine and rule by politicians.... That's fine if you don't, but lets just be men about it and send the constitution to the states so we can amend it to reflect that we want the military to run F.P. instead of just ignoring it all the time.


You would prefer to have these things decided by professional politicians?.

one more observation on this statement.

I find it interesting that you are trustworthy when the "professional politicians" say they know how to nation build and hold elections and where all the WMD's are, and that Saddam and Osama are buddies.....and all that jazz the government is soooo good at.....

but then you somehow get all cautious when someone suggest they do their constitutional job here at home. ;)