September 11th: Conspiracies & Cover-ups - Original Version

[Tesha Dodge]

Volitzer

Member
Member # 245

Rate Member   posted 01-25-2007 10:33 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
johnee:

I was making a military analysis from a different period in time. The Red-Coats never did come in between the Union Blues and the Confederate Grays during the Civil-War because in would have been in fact a suicidal mission.

What Americans are doing in Iraq between the Sunni's and the Shia as an invading outside force is the exact same thing.

[ 01-25-2007, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Volitzer ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6864 | From: Jacksonville, Florida | Registered: Oct 2000

[Tesha Dodge]

johnee

Member
Member # 1580

  posted 01-26-2007 12:01 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, that explains it.
The thing about those red coats, is one could see the bloody things coming for miles, not very subtle at all. As for suicide missions, I suspect our chaps were sent over to be either shot in the back or settle down.
All’s well that ends well. Just as long as we didn’t wind up with the French and Spanish on both sides of us.That would never do, not after the Armada and Napoleon anyway. War can play havoc with trade don’t you know, or be just as lucrative I suppose.

Back on target, err,,, topic,
Carry on.

[ 01-26-2007, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: johnee ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 1475 | Registered: Jul 2003 

[Tesha Dodge]

via mars 2
Member
Member # 1970

Member Rated:
   posted 01-26-2007 07:07 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one must never overlook the bankers when matters of war intervene our serenity. whether recent or in the past.

johne - good to see you're up on the goings on. cheers

--------------------
the truth hurts, but lies hurt more

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2357 | From: arlington, va. | Registered: May 2004   

[Tesha Dodge]

 
BigFatFurryTexan

Member
Member # 1520

Rate Member   posted 01-27-2007 06:44 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am more interested in fighting the terrorists, not the factional and tribal conflicts.

--------------------
Think outside the flock

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3650 | From: West Texas | Registered: May 2003   
 

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 01-28-2007 03:05 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw... I do believe that I was just recently vindicated. Nearly two months ago, when the repubs lost their majority, the dems (in this forum) were running around predicting that Bush would be putting his tail between his legs and turning around from Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, Merlin, who said that? Cause I don't remember anyone and I was here two months ago. Let's be specific, don't set up a straw man argument that no one was arguing.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that it was me - and only me - who said that, not only will we NOT be turning tail and running, we WOULD be scaling operations UP! ** VINDICATION **
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20,000 troops aren't going to make a whiff of difference over there. They tried more troops in Bagdad over in the summer and all it did was make the killing worse.

By the way, Bush doesn't call it an escalation, but rather an "augmentation," let's get our facts right here. 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just another point of fact: For those of you who said that our commander-in-chief didn't have the support of the military or his party any longer, I would like to point out that you were wrong again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again, Merlin!
Only 38% of the troops even support the new "augmentations." And wait till next week when all those Republicans vote against the new troop surge. I hope you're back here then to take your lumps. 


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that George has replaced all of the Generals, Admirals and Colonels who wanted to manage a war (and occupation) with men & women who want to win a war, the moral and effectiveness has improved almost overnight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, it was so hard for them to find an army guy to actually buy into Bush's new plan that they got themselves an admiral to lead the ground forces. Is that the first time that ever happened? Yes, it is, cronysim abounds in the Bush Administration. Just tell him what he wants to hear and you get yourself a promotion! I heard he only had one star prior to this, now he is getting others.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take it from a former military man (with lots of friends over there) - you can't put a price on effective leadership, and Bush has now shown it to the troops... The troops will repay the favor by showing the American citizens just how smart "W's" move really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, don't put this off on the troops! They are riding around in humvees that they have to find armor for by going into the trash, there aren't enough of them to secure the areas they capture and many of the guys over there still don't have body armor.

You're right about one thing, though, you can't put a price on effective leadership, which is why Al Gore should have been elected President. Not only would we not be in Iraq in the first place, Bin Laden & his cronies would already be taken care of (if September 11th had even happened at all).

All Bush cares about is his "legacy," which, at this point already looks to be a forgone conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

rockessence

Member
Member # 1839

Member Rated:
   posted 01-28-2007 03:14 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I fear that the "legacy" that GW seeks is to be the one who brought on the end times....

--------------------
"Illigitimi non carborundum!"
All knowledge is to be used in the manner that will give help and assistance to others, and the desire is that the laws of the Creator be manifested in the physical world. E.Cayce 254-17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3128 | From: Port Townsend WA | Registered: Feb 2004   

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 01-28-2007 03:16 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you go, Merlin:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poll Of Troops: Minority Supports "Surge"
By Greg Sargent | bio
 


Curious about what members of the military actually think about President Bush, the Iraq war, and the question of whether there should be a "surge" in troops? Then check this out: The latest annual Military Times poll of members of the military has just come out, and guess what it finds? For the first time, more respondents disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war than approve of it. It also finds that a minority -- all of 38% -- think there should be more troops in Iraq than are already there. And only half think success in Iraq is likely -- down from 83 percent two years ago. More after the jump.


The Military Times poll finds that only 35 percent of respondents approve of Bush's handling of the war -- down from 63 percent two years ago -- while 42% disapprove of it. From the Army Times' article today on the poll:
The American military -- once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war -- has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war -- in 2004 -- 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president's approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush's handling of the war. While approval of the president's war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year's poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.

There's more. As you may have heard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently held a photo-op sit-down with some of the troops in Iraq. By sheer coincidence, all of the assembled troops said they support an increase in troops to Iraq.

That's strikingly at odds with what this poll found, though. The poll asks the following question:

We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?
Here are the answers:
Zero: 13%

0-50,000: 7%

50,000-144,000: 6%

145,000: 13%

146,000-200,000: 22%

200,000+: 16%

No opinion/Don't know: 23%

These are worth a quick look. While it doesn't show broad support for a withdrawal, it strikingly shows that 13 percent favor a complete pull out. More tellingly, only 38% think there should be more troops there than there are now. In other words, only 38% favor a "surge."

By contrast, a total of 39 percent think there should be the same number or less than there are now.

This poll isn't a perfect gauge of how the troops in Iraq feel, but it's pretty good: A full 50 percent of respondents have done at least one tour in Iraq. Even better, the poll questioned 6,000 randomly selected active-duty members.

It'll be interesting to see what the wingnuts -- not to mention the commentators at the big news orgs -- have to say about this one.

You can see the full poll here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/dec/29/poll_troops_disapprove_of_bush_on_iraq_majority_opposes_troops_increase
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 01-28-2007 03:21 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rockessence:
I fear that the "legacy" that GW seeks is to be the one who brought on the end times....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be right, Rock! He has also given orders to start detaining and shooting at the Iranians. A couple of weeks ago, he also had the troops invade an Iranian embassy in Kurdistan and detain some people.

He is trying to "bait" Iran into attacking us so he can widen the war. He needs to get impeached before he can do anymore damage, and the less he listens to Congress, the more that could happen, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

via mars 2
Member
Member # 1970

Member Rated:
   posted 01-30-2007 05:31 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at this point i hope all here would see how irrelevant this discussion has become. reminds me of a christian and an atheist catfight.

both are as right as they want to be. and they can't be told otherwise.

i think it's important to get over it and understand why and how it happened in the proper context. like religion, i'm almost to the point of believing that it is a personal belief system and should not be talked about at the local public inn.

on the other hand, something can be gained/learned from this. for instance, while mulling over when to drag my ass upstairs for coffee this morning, the local news put out yet another report about airport security, or shall i say lack thereof. in this case the focus was on the cheesy security tags that all wmata airport workers have dangling around their necks. not only are they easy to counterfeit, but a tiered access system, similar to that used by many corporate types is not implemented. in other words, a janitor who has no business in certain restricted areas can gain that access with little or no detection.

THE NECESSARY PHYSICAL SECURITY MEASURES THAT NORMALLY WOULD BE IN PLACE IN AREAS SUBJECT TO BREACH ARE NON-EXISTANT.

to counter this basic lack of institutional control, two things should immediately be rectified:
somebody in security policy should get off their fat ass and institute a tiered access system whereby those who need access are granted it, with proper control/protocol arrangements
and
yank some of the tsa goons off the already well guarded frontlines and protect the flank; that being the entrance ways to very unprotected and easily breached points of access such as baggage handling, administrative offices, and other infrastructure egress that provide deeper access into the areas of the airport subject to the most harm.

i think part of the problem lies in public threat assessment mentality in one of two ways. first of all, a very public presence is very effective as a means of deterrent simply by visually creating a potential obstacle.
second, the notion that a plane must be breached while in air as a priority threat must be tempered with idealogical plan b counterintuitiveness. for instance, if terrorist group 1 decides that the effectiveness of the attack plan is not likely to succeed, yet the impetus is on mission completion nonetheless, what would be the next best target situation now that physical proximity and harmful mindset are still engaged?
unfettered access to an already unprotected target looks to be the next obvious choice. unless of course it's the primary objective. and therein lies the problem.

it's been how many years and things are still the same? does this government seriously think that real terrorists don't exist and think about these types of things?

citizens are terrified more by the tsa than the threat their supposed to be protecting us from. meanwhile, the henhouse door sits ajar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2357 | From: arlington, va. | Registered: May 2004   

[Tesha Dodge]

Merl

Member
Member # 4913

Member Rated:
   posted 02-04-2007 11:55 AM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:
Gee, Merlin, who said that? Cause I don't remember anyone and I was here two months ago. Let's be specific, don't set up a straw man argument that no one was arguing.

First Allison, call it a "straw man" all you want, but the point was being debated. I notice how you try and marginalize when anyone else is correct and you are wrong - that's a little sad. Anyway, here's your proof:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic: Crusade: Is it Time for Another One?
Originally posted by Byron
posted 12-06-06

I doubt you'll be seeing Bush starting anymore wars in the Middle East. You can tell by his rhetoric that he's backing off from Iraq.

19Merlin69
unregistered
posted 12-09-2006 06:34 AM
Response by 19Merlin69:

Funny - I thought Saddam started it. Furthermore, you should listen more closely, they are talking about sending MORE troops in order to speed up the training process and end the sectarian violence. Even the Iraq study group recommended that. I'm against stopping the civil war, I think it needs to happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll accept that apology in private mail if you wish. My "strawman" has feelings too you know. 


Originally posted by Allison-: 20,000 troops aren't going to make a whiff of difference over there. They tried more troops in Bagdad over in the summer and all it did was make the killing worse.

Wrong again. Try finding your information at a source that hasn't already decided that this won't make a difference. This has not been tried before in Iraq, as it is not simply a, Troop increase. It has a mission and a purpose, therefore it is not just a gang of 20-25,000 more dudes.

Originally posted by Allison-: By the way, Bush doesn't call it an escalation, but rather an "augmentation," let's get our facts right here.

You are really going out of your way to "put me in my place" here, aren't you? That's hilarious - considering no matter how hard you try, or how many hairs you split - the fact is, you are wrong. 

Originally posted by Allison-: Wrong again, Merlin! Only 38% of the troops even support the new "augmentations." And wait till next week when all those Republicans vote against the new troop surge. I hope you're back here then to take your lumps.

I'm back - and I'm ready to take my "lumps".... LOL - All two republicans that have voiced dissatisfaction with the increase in troop numbers don't feel so lumpy to me.  As for the poll, well, I cannot speak to that. I noticed that the numbers and make up of the poll respondents are absent - so I cannot base an opinion on anything, therefore I do not make one. So we're back to where we started - your're still wrong. 

Originally posted by Allison-: Sure, it was so hard for them to find an army guy to actually buy into Bush's new plan that they got themselves an admiral to lead the ground forces. Is that the first time that ever happened? Yes, it is, cronysim abounds in the Bush Administration. Just tell him what he wants to hear and you get yourself a promotion! I heard he only had one star prior to this, now he is getting others.

Now you are really struggling. It's like watching a drowning victim. At least you did admit that you were repeating BS without researching it; finally. We all knew it, but an admission is always nice. Admiral Fallon is a FOUR STAR Admiral and has been for quite some time. I didn't bother researching his promotion history, but I do know that he was a "4-star" back in 2000.

Crony(ism)? Please. Why don't you take the time to consider the BIG PICTURE of the entire region Allison? Central Command is not an Army posting - it is a military position. That means Generals and Admirals from all of the Armed Forces can staff it, including its top position. There have been members from all branches posted there since its inception. Adm. Fallon is a tried and true strategist, war hardened, tested, and experienced. He also has control of the world's largest, most powerful and most highly trained Navy. But check out what the NYPost had to say on the issue: Ralph Peters

You need to consider the possibility that your theory is drowning.

Originally posted by Allison-: Hey, don't put this off on the troops! They are riding around in humvees that they have to find armor for by going into the trash, there aren't enough of them to secure the areas they capture and many of the guys over there still don't have body armor.

You make me laugh... I am a former "troop" that you refer to. Funny, we managed to annihilate the Iraqis last time with Humvees, fast movers and buggies that had little (if any) armor. I remember walking around for months in a Threat level 1A vest (only protects against knife wounds), sweating my butt off in 125 degree heat, cleaning my weapon 70 times a day (due to infiltration by fine powdered sand) - and no one - not even the media gave a darn. Funny how we managed to win wars in the past without the materials you (and the media) seem to think is a "basic right" for our troops. Not everyone needs a vest and it is silly to say otherwise.

The FACT is, Allison, that people die in war. It's a sad fact, by it is one nonetheless. You are probably one of the people complaining about the cost of the war too... The ever-increasing cost is more like it. The increases can be directly tracked back to the perpetual drive for more, bigger and better. Your complaints are being converted into dollars. I stick by my initial commentary. Now that we have leaders in place that want to "WIN" instead of just "manage", things will get done a whole lot quicker.

Another thing bothers me about this as well. The media's insistence that this be a "bloodless conflict". It is absolutley insane to think that we can win (or could have won) this conflict any sooner without casualty. This is an absurd notion, as is the idea that politics could have prevailed. That is complete revisionist history and serves to only stupefy those who have actually followed this from a more personal level (such as I).

Originally posted by Allison-: You're right about one thing, though, you can't put a price on effective leadership, which is why Al Gore should have been elected President. Not only would we not be in Iraq in the first place, Bin Laden & his cronies would already be taken care of (if September 11th had even happened at all).

That's manure and only someone who is completely "absent" from understanding our system of government would believe that. What in the weird-world of Allison would ever make you think that Bin Laden would not have continued with his plans that had begun during Slick's term? What in your twisted world of illogic would make you think that Albert could have removed Bin Laden any quicker? The military would have been the same, the CIA and NSA would have been the same. Delta Force, Green Berrets, Rangers and SEALs are all the same, as are the Spec Ops of the security agencies. None of the forces THAT ACTUALLY DO THE WORK OF HUNTING DOWN TERRORISTS changes with the administration! 

The only difference would have been the Pres., the Veep, and the Secretaries!

Originally posted by Allison-: All Bush cares about is his "legacy," which, at this point already looks to be a forgone conclusion.

My lord, you are lost... I certainly hope that you are as critical of the democrats when they begin their activities; otherwise you would look like a hypocrite. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------
Doing a little research will not kill you - I have it on good advice that there has never been a recorded death due to reading and comprehending

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 172 | From: Gone for good | Registered: Jan 2007   

[Tesha Dodge]

 
Merl

Member
Member # 4913

Member Rated:
   posted 02-04-2007 12:59 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rockessence:
I fear that the "legacy" that GW seeks is to be the one who brought on the end times....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That may be right, Rock! He has also given orders to start detaining and shooting at the Iranians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The orders read, "With regard to the reality that Iranian agents have been located and surveilled," their orders are, "To operate in accordance with the rules of engagement." This means that they are authorized to use all necessary and authorized tactics; nothing more - nothing less. The media has blown this out to mean, "Kill Iranians." What is being reported is nothing short of ridiculous. Do a little research for yourself. Buying into everything that the inflammatory press reports is pathetic at this point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-: A couple of weeks ago, he also had the troops invade an Iranian embassy in Kurdistan and detain some people. He is trying to "bait" Iran into attacking us so he can widen the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is just another example of how little you even consider the bigger picture. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe - just maybe, there is more going on than what YOU see? Consider this:

Irbil is the personal fiefdom of Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, who leads the Kurdistan Regional Government. It is essentially a semi-autonomous kingdom and maintains a regional army called the Peshmerga (60,000 men). Now, keep in mind that the Kurd authorities have made it very clear that no federal Iraqi army troops may set foot on their territory - they don't trust them.

Barzani is eager to hold on to his semi-autonomous kingdom hoping ultimately for independence. Because of his relationship with the Iraqi government he cannot rely on the support of their military or their aid in any way. Continuing attacks by Sunni guerrillas have sabotaged oil exports from Kirkuk, and finances are dwindling. Turkey has no desire whatsoever to help them either. In fact, Turkey is considering an attack of their own to ensure that Kurdistan never achieves autonomy! Aside from U.S. support, where do they turn?

One scenario imaginable is that Iran was sending aid to the Peshmerga conditionally (they share with the Badr Brigade). They are the paramilitary wing of the *****e Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Recently, the U.S. raided SCIRI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's estate and captured Iranian intelligence officials there too. That had (apparently) come to consult about the shape of the Iraqi government, and how to move forward shaping it in an "Iranian-Friendly" one.

Massoud Barzani has long and good relations with the Badr Brigade (Corps), to which they gave bases in Kurdistan - late in Saddam's waning period. They were jointly working to overthrow him if you hadn't heard.

Bush implies that Iran is supplying weapons and aid to US enemies in Iraq, and there may or may not be a lot of evidence for it - I personally do not know. However, the circumstantial evidence is that, Iranian Intelligence officers keep popping up all over the place like "Whack-a-Moles". Maybe Iran was helping the two main US allies in Iraq with their paramilitary capabilities; Kurdistan and SCIRI and that the money and weapons accidentally seep into insurgent groups. That might be a possibility, and all of this is a big misunderstanding - But maybe not...

Maybe we are missing the "Forest for the Trees". Maybe Iran is lead by a fair amount of intelligent folks who realize that not everything is Black or White.

Let's take the opportunity to look at some of the facts in the case before we rush to judgement - shall we?

We DO keep finding Iranian officials in the country.
We DO keep running across Iranian documents in compounds we raid.
We DO keep finding Iranian weapons and munitions at Badr Brigade safe-houses.
We DO continue to catch Iranian militants amongst the terrorists we kill & capture.

These are the "Hard Facts", now let's look at some of the "Soft Facts":

There are no Iranian Embassies in Iraq, not in the north or the south, so the "Consulate" that we raided in Irbil was not protected by any diplomatic rules of engagement. Even the UNSC agreed.
The "Iranian Diplomats" at the "meeting" in Irbil were armed, meeting in secret, and one took his own life so as to not be captured. That too was reported - even by CNN and NPR! Do innocent Embassadors engaging in peaceful and legal negotiations typically carry weapons and commit suicide when interrupted?
We are being given the whereabouts of these agents by Iraqis - Shia & Sunni. Hence, no conspiracy to widen anything other than our scope of the intelligence network required to wage an anti-insurgency war.

This was the fourth raid in recent days - not the first. It did not coincide with the president's speech as the press reports - check the dates. It was just another raid, in a line of them that has continued ever since, and the clarification of the rules of engagement is a part of it. "Enemy Combats" is a loose definition that requires constant redefinition as the "landscape" changes. That's all the administration was doing - keeping the instructions current and clear.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-: He needs to get impeached before he can do anymore damage, and the less he listens to Congress, the more that could happen, too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It'll never happen. They authorized the war based upon the same intelligence the administration had. Today they are still being kept up-to-date on the emerging threats and states-of-affairs, and they are involved to the hilt. None of them want to participate in a majority vote that has any teeth for fear that they might be held accountable; so they sit on the sidelines and snipe. The democrats have made themselves impotent by their inaction for so long, they know it, and now they are just hoping that Bush doesn't succeed before 2008. If he does, their screwed - if he doesn't, the Republicans are. Don't fool yourself, it's 100% politics (Damage Control) for the congressmen and senators of both parties anymore. Politically speaking - Bush and Cheney are the only ones who have nothing to lose.


I can only hope that you take my advice someday and do a little research.

--------------------
Doing a little research will not kill you - I have it on good advice that there has never been a recorded death due to reading and comprehending

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 172 | From: Gone for good | Registered: Jan 2007   
 
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000094;p=9

[Tesha Dodge]

DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 02-04-2007 01:28 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 None of them want to participate in a majority vote that has any teeth for fear that they might be held accountable; so they sit on the sidelines and snipe. The democrats have made themselves impotent by their inaction for so long, they know it, and now they are just hoping that Bush doesn't succeed before 2008. If he does, their screwed - if he doesn't, the Republicans are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I have no respect for any of them.

They are going to sell this country down the river,to get elected and re-elected .....

and guess what will happen in the comming years,
anarchy, I truly believe in a few years it is going to get ugly.

[ 02-04-2007, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Ishtar ]

--------------------
“Ad initio, alea iacta est.”
 

[Tesha Dodge]

Allison-

Member
Member # 2967

Member Rated:
   posted 02-04-2007 02:46 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, Merlin had some extra time on his hands!

You don't need to be put in your place, Merl, you are already there:

The info about Iran is just propaganda that the Bush Administration is trumping up to the media so it has justification to go to war with Iran. Any idiot can see that, oh, except the ones that actually want war with Iran.

Is that you, by the way?

The troops are against the "augmentation." Dance all you around the fact, the military itself is against it, which puts you in the minority.

The American people are against the "augmentation," which, again puts you in the minority.

The American people are not only against Bush, but specifically against the way he has handled the war in Iraq, which, once again, makes your opinion a minority one.

The augmentation has already started, and look what happened. Was it 125 people that got killed in Bagdad yesterday? Yep, that was what I saw at last count.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of them want to participate in a majority vote that has any teeth for fear that they might be held accountable; so they sit on the sidelines and snipe. The democrats have made themselves impotent by their inaction for so long, they know it, and now they are just hoping that Bush doesn't succeed before 2008. If he does, their screwed - if he doesn't, the Republicans are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, what do you expect them to do, cut off funding for the troops? They might do that yet, it comes in steps.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are going to sell this country down the river,to get elected and re-elected .....

and guess what will happen in the comming years,
anarchy, I truly believe in a few years it is going to get ugly.

And I have no respect for any of them
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have no respect for anyone here but Bush, Ishtar, which make your opinion also in the minority. Truth is, the Dems could support Bush, cut off funding, or do nothing at all, and your level of support for them would pretty much stay where it is right now: at 0. So why should they do things to cater to your vote?

Bottom line, Merl and Ishtar, is that the opinion of both you guys is in the minority of public opinion, whereas mine is with the majority. Sucks to be you guys, I guess, wrong all the time. 

[ 02-04-2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Allison- ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 412 | From: nowhere | Registered: Feb 2006   

[Tesha Dodge]

 
DingBatty Ole Ishtar

Member
Member # 736

  posted 02-04-2007 03:47 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I LIKE being in the minority,

The majority always scared me, I don't want to think like everyone else,

That would mean I am a follower.

I do the research then form my own opinion,

I think people are easily swayed and easily lead.

They are afraid to go against the flow, or paddle upsteam.

Who wants to think like everyone else?

[ 02-04-2007, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Ishtar ]

--------------------
“Ad initio, alea iacta est.”
 
 

[Tesha Dodge]

Merl

Member
Member # 4913

Member Rated:
   posted 02-04-2007 04:52 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Allison-:
Wow, Merlin had some extra time on his hands!

Little bit.

You don't need to be put in your place, Merl, you are already there:

Everyone except you knew that already.  Welcome to the club.

The info about Iran is just propaganda that the Bush Administration is trumping up to the media so it has justification to go to war with Iran. Any idiot can see that, oh, except the ones that actually want war with Iran.

Negative. Incorrect. Wrong. You may attempt to ignore the evidence, but even CNN, the NYTimes, the NYPost and USA Today are reporting the truth. Iranians are popping up everywhere - as are their weapons. Putting your head in the sand won't help you this time.

Is that you, by the way?

My stance on Iran has been made exceedingly clear in other posts. I'm against war with them based upon the nuclear issue - they are no threat YET. That is subject to change at a later date. Jeremy and Byron both knew my stance, and folks like Epsilon and von Koch (and a couple of others) think I'm retarded for taking that position, but who cares what they think. As for meddling in Iraq's affairs, well, that's a different issue. Would I go to war with them to stop it? Nahh... I would, however, send them a very clear message to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

The troops are against the "augmentation." Dance all you around the fact, the military itself is against it, which puts you in the minority.

Again, that is incorrect. The poll that you posted doesn't say that, and the folks over there aren't saying that. At last count, I have about 30 friends engaged in Iraq and 25 more in Afghanistan, and none of them share your opinion of what they are thinking. Like I said, the details of "who" and "what" regarding the poll were absent - so I cannot speak to it in particular. That is not "dancing" - that is "being honest" you should try it.

The American people are against the "augmentation," which, again puts you in the minority.

The American people are not only against Bush, but specifically against the way he has handled the war in Iraq, which, once again, makes your opinion a minority one.

Not really. The "American public", as an entity unto itself, doesn't know what it wants most of the time. They seem to want opposites depending upon the mood of the moment. My honest opinion of "the American Public" is that I don't trust them as a voting body. If we were to leave everything up to a majority vote of the "public", we would have banned abortion in the 70's, suffrage for women (19th ammendment) would never have happened, civil rights for African Americans would never have happened, we'd still be burning witches at the stake, and finally, we'd still be praying to Jesus Christ in every setting - state-funded or otherwise.

What the American public is suffering from is a forced delusion by the media. The delusion that the war should have been won, and done so with fewer casualties. Furthermore that the "rebuilding phase" should be a "political" process with little (if any) military involvement. In the beginning, the public would have voted in HUGE majority to go to war with Iraq, just like they did with the Taliban after 9/11. Now, they would be bringing the troops home. Our attention span is limited to a "Survivor" and Playstation timeframe. We only want to see success - and we want to see it immediately; all of the time. Setbacks are cumulative and multiply counted with the press, whereas successes are considered only once and are as fleeting as an aroma in the wind.

The fact is, the media is only reporting what they want to and they do so in order to keep you coming back for more. The good stuff won't do that, so they keep trotting out the bad - even if there isn't any. I was listening to NPR again yesterday, and I wasn't surprised to hear that the BBC reporter was embellishing the death toll - again. On the days where the sectarian violence is bad, they report the number of dead and wounded. On the days when it is relatively quite, we get a full acounting of all of the dead for the week and the totals for the year, and the comparative numbers from the previous weeks, months and years. By the end of the "Good day's" report, you'd think half the country died. That's media bias, and they are a major part of what's wrong in Iraq. Coupled with the American public's desire to be the "Saviour of the World" without ever making anyone unhappy, without killing anyone in war, and without ever having to say their sorry - we have a full-fledged, four-alarm cluster funk.

So - no, I really don't feel bad about being in the minority. You should try sticking up for something that isn't popular... It might give a little boost to your self esteem.

The augmentation has already started, and look what happened. Was it 125 people that got killed in Bagdad yesterday? Yep, that was what I saw at last count.

You make my point so clearly for me, I hardly need to respond. Your impatience and desire for a rush to judgement is only surmounted by your willingness to rush to action. The "surge" has not actually begun - yet you are looking for results. Just ignore the fact that people die in war, and ignore the fact that Bush did not promise that no lives would be lost once the "surge" occurred. Impertinence is a youthful quality that is tempered with experience, and smoothed by time. -- FDR --

Gee, what do you expect them to do, cut off funding for the troops? They might do that yet, it comes in steps.

No, Allison that isn't the only option - nice try. I love it when you try and beat people into a corner by offering them the only options you can think of... Luckily I brought my own brain with me. The "anti-Iraq War" folks have had 3 Full years to do something - they've done nothing. In fact, if it weren't for the press making every blemish seem like a boil of biblical proportions - they wouldn't be doing anything now. At some level, even the Libs know that the situation isn't anything at all like the media pronounces.

Nahh, they won't cut off the funding - they'll ride this political pony all of the way to 2008.

Now - for "Options" that they could have used - but didn't, and apparently ALLISON didn't think of them either:

1. De-authorize the war with a vote. Prior to the Democrat majority - this would have been viewed as a "No confidence Vote" and would have sent a signal to the EU that the Congress needed their help to dissuade the Administration from its path.

2. Impeach the President, the V.P., and/or the cabinet.

3. Open investigations into the cabinet level staff - particularly Rumsfeld.

4. Pass legislation to authorize the requirements of supplies that cannot possibly be paid for by the current funding. This would have completely blown the budget and forced the "re-scaling" of activities.

5. Place a timed collapse into the military spending fund, shutting off the spigot at a pre-determined point. Once the money's gone, the occupation ends.

Would any of it work? Who knows... But it would have sent a clear signal that someone was interested in actually stopping this thing. Apparently, aside from Dennis, no one was willing to look unpopular in the face of their constituency.

You have no respect for anyone here but Bush, Ishtar, which make your opinion also in the minority. Truth is, the Dems could support Bush, cut off funding, or do nothing at all, and your level of support for them would pretty much stay where it is right now: at 0. So why should they do things to cater to your vote?

We were both referring to the Democrats and the Republicans Allison. Put your snittiness away.

Bottom line, Merl and Ishtar, is that the opinion of both you guys is in the minority of public opinion, whereas mine is with the majority. Sucks to be you guys, I guess, wrong all the time. 

I personally have never felt bad or lonely about sticking to what I believe; particularly if the facts support it. I suppose that Ish and I both will be able to recognize the underlying commentary in that temper tantrum... I am sorry that you feel compelled to cater to what is popular Allison. Self-esteem is a serious issue for girls these days (don't I know it with 4 daughters), and your lashing out isn't going to get you any. Self-esteem comes from gaining respect through actions and deeds. Taking the "road less travelled" and succeeding, or taking an unpopular stand and convincing people that you were right. It is not bestowed upon you because you pander to the "popular" people who you aspire to be. I would also point out that it all begins with self respect, which stems from doing what you know is right - not what is popular.

I wish you luck with taking that journey, and I hope that you viewed this summary for what it was; an attempt to help.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ 02-05-2007, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Merl ]

--------------------
Doing a little research will not kill you - I have it on good advice that there has never been a recorded death due to reading and comprehending

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 172 | From: Gone for good | Registered: Jan 2007