Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So now that Iraqi sovereignty is about to be announced, how are we doing so far d'you think?

 

Is there still anybody who thinks the Iraqis are better off now, terrorism is down, and the Mideast is just a whole lot safer? Is there anybody that reckons the Powell Doctrine has saved us from another Vietnam?

 

Any thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone really think Iraq's sovereignty is actually going to mean anything ??? I mean, are they really going to become a self governing nation without the interferance or meddling of the outside world (ie United States) ?????

 

I don't think so......... confused.gif

 

Still too much oil for Bush and the rest of his Texan theives to turn their backs completely on Iraq just yet.

 

I also think, just because a ceremonial sovereignty is announced, does not mean we have been saved from another Vietnam. I bet my proverbials that after June 30 (if indeed national recognition is given back to Iraq at this time) we will still have American soldiers in Iraq, and they will still be getting their azzez shot at. I would go so far as to say we will probabl;y expirience hostage situations for a long time to come as well, mostly as a result, I believe, of America's failure to treat Iraq as an independant nation.

 

Hope I am wrong..........

 

Still all may change after the election in November (unless the result is disputed again and heads before the courts a second time - in which case the powers to be will ensure things remain the same....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and did I mention petrol prices? As the instability spreads into Saudi Arabia and as heads roll there, we find it a leetle more expensive to roll over here.

 

Nice going...

 

Unfortunately it's not only America involved. Britain is going to be in it until we get rid of Blair, and probably beyond that too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by stripper on coke:
we will still have American soldiers in Iraq,
There will be US soldiers in Iraq for years to come. Bank on it. Hell, they never left after the first gulf war.

mina2 - unfortunately, it's the truth. But, the Brits and Australia, South Korea, Japan, etc....they're all in it too. Bush started this, and since 'we' (florida) voted for him, we have to live with his decision to knock the chip of the Bush family shoulder.

PS - anyone see the story about Cheney dropping the F-bomb on the senate floor? Pretty funny: Cheney says a bad word
Link to post
Share on other sites

I pulled this from a surfing message board I frequent. Pretty funny satire:

 

http://forum.surfermag.com/forum/showfla...rt=1#Post505239

 

"My fellow Americans, I'm appearing before you today to ask for your support as I make the most solemn decision a president can make: Committing our military troops to war.

 

"We must remove Saddam Hussein from power, although his only known threat to the United States is that he hates us. While we know that Hussein possessed and used weapons of mass destruction in the past, we have no evidence that he has them today or that he's making more. But he hasn't proved that he doesn't have them and this constitutes an urgent threat to America.

 

"So we must act now, because Hussein who had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, might choose to give the WMDs that he doesn't have to Osama bin Laden, with whom he has never collaborated.

 

"That's why I've decided to shift the bulk of our military resources away from catching bin Laden, who has already attacked us and vows to do so again, so that we can pursue a man who hasn't attacked us and almost certainly can't, based on the remote possibility that he'll give aid to bin Laden, who no longer is my top priority.

 

"My fellow Americans, the case is clear. We must liberate the Iraqi people, though we have little evidence that they want us to invade their country. We must give them a chance at democracy, though history strongly suggests that a Western attempt to impose a government in this part of the world is doomed to fail.

 

"Our very presence is likely to attract terrorists from all over the region and inspire new recruits, dedicated to undermining our attempts to impose a new government.

 

"Still, we must ensure the establishment of a new, friendly government in Baghdad that won't have a prayer of survival without our help. Before long, they'll beg us to establish a military base in Iraq - which is our primary objective. That, in theory, will enable us to threaten every other Middle Eastern nation that dares to stand against us. Peace will reign, oil will flow and profits will accumulate. Admittedly, experts consider this pretty a far-fetched scenario, but we can't fail because God is on our side. He tells me so.

 

"But we face a long, difficult, bloody operation. More than 800 American soldiers will die and 4,000 will be maimed during the first 15 months of war. We'll honor them by saying that their sacrifices helped preserve American freedom, which in fact is threatened more by my attorney general than by Hussein.

 

"In addition, this war will put us at odds with France, Germany and many other of our traditional allies. But we'll work to repair those ruptured bonds soon, when we go crawling back to the world community pleading for it to bail us out of the tar pit into which we're about to leap.

 

"And so, my fellow Americans, I'm asking you to commit a modest $200 billion of your hard-earned money over the next two years to support this patriotic endeavor. Don't worry; your money will be in good hands, as we will hand out billions in no-bid contracts to corporations well known to people in my administration.

 

"And you can count on firm leadership from me until our mission is accomplished. So that you never lose faith in me, I will refuse to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, whether it's intelligence failures, prisoner abuse scandals or insufficient body armor for our troops.

 

"I'd like to tell you that America will prevail and that terrorism will be defeated. But I'm here to give an honest evaluation of our situation.

 

"So I am compelled to tell you that more than two dozen military brass and diplomats from both major parties who doubt the wisdom and sanity of my call for war will take the unprecedented step of publicly describing my strategy as a 'total disaster.' They'll say that my approach will make the world less safe, alienate us from the very allies we need to help construct a global anti-terrorism alliance and undermine our national prestige and honor.

 

"And they'll be right. But here is the ultimate truth that so many of my un-American, unpatriotic critics overlook: You won't care. You'll still like me and support me, no matter how badly things turn out (Disco Queen). That's because you have short memories, and you'll believe just about anything I tell you (Disco Queen), even if it contradicts what I've told you before.

 

"So in closing, let me say, God bless you, and God bless America."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in Powell's position in all this. Wasn't it the great man who came up with the blindingly commonsense doctrine of fighting only winnable wars, hitting hard from the start, and having a plan for getting out afterwards?

 

Obviously in Iraq they've been hitting hard, first with lethal boycotts, then with DU shells. But the winnable war, and the plan for getting out? That was never, ever, part of the equation. So why do people still talk about Powell as though he is some uniquely insightful and integrity-rich statesman? He's been totally co-opted by a yahoo, and he's too much of ahem, an uncle tom, even to have aired his own 'doctrine' when he had the chance. Although he half admits in public what we all know, that sovereignty for Iraq is a sham, he won't distance himself from the policy.

 

He needs to be called on this, in case he thinks 'President Powell' has a nice ring to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean11:
I'm interested in Powell's position in all this. Wasn't it the great man who came up with the blindingly commonsense doctrine of fighting only winnable wars, hitting hard from the start, and having a plan for getting out afterwards?

Obviously in Iraq they've been hitting hard, first with lethal boycotts, then with DU shells. But the winnable war, and the plan for getting out? That was never, ever, part of the equation. So why do people still talk about Powell as though he is some uniquely insightful and integrity-rich statesman? He's been totally co-opted by a yahoo, and he's too much of ahem, an uncle tom, even to have aired his own 'doctrine' when he had the chance. Although he half admits in public what we all know, that sovereignty for Iraq is a sham, he won't distance himself from the policy.

He needs to be called on this, in case he thinks 'President Powell' has a nice ring to it.
Who are these 'people' Ocean?

Powell disassociated himself a long time ago. I see where your barb about being an uncle tom comes in because of his lack of balls to say what he thinks.

I don't disagree with you at all, but the whole 'Powell for Prez' thing died over a year ago if not longer. Why are you even bringing this up? Old news.

In my opinion, you've just made the fundamental mistake of a lot of people judging this 'war'. Focus on the now and forget why WE, yes, WE are in this. Yeah, so it's cowboys fault and I hope he dies of syphillis and the Rangers get last place....

Instead of focussing on what the history is going to be, we need to continue to remind people how we got into this war and who brought us into it. Show the people what was said by Bush and monkey boy Blair, show what their INITIAL reasons for sending troops in was for......Not all this hooplah going on now...it's a smoke screen. Powell means nothing in this anymore.

I'm going to go buy a Pokeman now...it makes me genki
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plucky, the Powell for President thing is far from dead. If he disassociated himself, why his he still there vehemently denying that he disassociated himself from anything? The 'people' I'm talking about here are you and the media who like to think the great statesman has disassociated himself when he clearly hasn't in any meaningful way, at all. I suspect the reason why he hasn't disassociated himself, in spite of the gutting of his much-hyped doctrine, is that he has plans for the future. He's truly Teflon Tom.

 

As for anybody forgetting the original lies promoted by Bush and Blair, and their dissemination by media around the world, I don't think anybody has forgotten them. Who's forgotten 45-minute WMD and 'peance freance Eyeraq'? But I think we need to look at the future too, because the Islamicist insurgency (not Iraqi insurgency, and not terrorism) is going to explode in Saudi Arabia within the next few years. When it does, let's just hope some sensible responses have been thought out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Plucky, not sure what you mean by "Instead of focussing on what the history is going to be, we need to continue to remind people how we got into this war and who brought us into it. Show the people what was said by Bush and monkey boy Blair, show what their INITIAL reasons for sending troops in was for......Not all this hooplah going on now...it's a smoke screen."

 

I think the reason the war was started, and what history is going to say about this war is one and the same thing. The reason we were forced to go to war and sacrifice all these young lives was because of the 'sexed up' reports of WMD, to secure oil supplies for the greatest consumer of oil in the world (who was sick and tired of being 'over a barrell', and paying market price for this oil), and also because of a little family honour/revenge.

 

Actually, knowing little George's mentality, I would probably put the family revenge reason on top of all the others. He made it quite clear he was going after Saddam as soon as his dad finished corrupting the court system (after his son lost the federal election). Even disregarding the previous administrations reports of possible terrorist attacks by al-queda in the States. The fact it took him 2 years (or whatever it was) to secure the backing of bumboy Blair, and the rest of his collegues' support, to finally send the sons and daughters of America to Iraq to murder other human beings is of little importance.

 

I think the important thing is now, who's going to fix the problem ???? Why should the rest of the world (through the UN) be forced to pick up the peices (and the costs) just because the American govt wanted to flex their bolls ???? I mean, the US govt has already forgottn about that tiny nation called Afganistan - how long before they also forget about Iraq ????

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
As for anybody forgetting the original lies promoted by Bush and Blair, and their dissemination by media around the world, I don't think anybody has forgotten them.
Certainly not forgotten about them, but conveniently ignoring them. It makes me so frustrated. mad.gif
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed. It's going to take a few years, but eventually the media will focus on something else and Iraq will be forgotten. It's just the nature of the US today. How many Americans remember Czechoslovakia? Two years later and Afghanistan is in the tank. Iraq will remain for awhile, especially since the US will have bases and troops there for some time.

 

Ocean - if Powell runs, I'll eat my shorts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone's gotta explain this whole "Islamic insugency" thing to me, I lack any context at all.

 

My gut feeling these days, is that even when Bushy and his gang lose the November election, they still will have won, as they have made all of their buddys rich while promoting their twisted neocon agenda to the point where it has become the agenda of the vast majority of Republicans.

 

But I guess their is still hope for the Republican party. That guy that everyone thought would fail, Mr. Ahnold Shwarzenegger, is actually kicking ass in California, as he has balanced the budget, is proected to come up with a solution to the state's energy woes, and has gained support of many of California's Democratic, and Independant voters. Bush was a straight C student who went on to bankrupt almost every company he worked with. We in America need more success stories working in public office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...