All in Favor, say "Aye"

[LoungeMachine]

1] Continue to lose an average of a soldier a day, and a hundred civilians.

2] Continue to spend a billion dollars a week.

3] Continue to be stuck in a civil war with no exit strategy whatsoever other than the tired old "we'll stand down when they stand up"

4] Continue to cling to the belief we are fighting terrorism and not instigating it with stories of abuse, rape, and murder.




:gulp:

[Dan]

Make Love not War People.

[ELVIS]

That should go over good with Islamic militants...:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
1] Continue to lose an average of a soldier a day, and a hundred civilians.

2] Continue to spend a billion dollars a week.

3] Continue to be stuck in a civil war with no exit strategy whatsoever other than the tired old "we'll stand down when they stand up"

4] Continue to cling to the belief we are fighting terrorism and not instigating it with stories of abuse, rape, and murder.




:gulp:

5) Conttinue to believe that Likud Zionfascists and PNAC traitors are completely blameless, but the rest of the 6 billion people on earth are always wrong.

[Dan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
That should go over good with Islamic militants...:rolleyes:

Well they can put their guns down for Shag or two.:)

[m_dixon1984]

6) Continue spouting the same tired anti-bush, anti-US foreign policy propaganda without any truly original insight or opinion.


The anti-everything stance is just as bad as the pro-everything stance. You're sheep as well, just following a different shepherd.

M.

[binnie]

Cutting and running doesn't seem like a good option to me.

Our governements went into this war promising the Iraqi people order, democracy and freedom, and they are gonna have to keep forces there until it is sorted out.

If we leave now, the "democratic government" in Iraq won't last a month: we have civil war and possible genocide. Seems to me another dictator of the Saddmn ilk would gain power, with a serious grudge to the West.

Pulling out would be the final insult to the Iraqi people: you can't walk into a country blow the fuck out of it, then leave now can you?

A timtalbe is a viable option, but how do you put a time limit on controlling insurgency? It doesn't seem practical to me.

Seems that if we really want a democratic and stable Iraq, it will be the long hall - I would be surprised if troops were there in 30 years time in some capacity or another, you only have to look at Northern Ireland to see that (I know its not the best comparison, I'm merely stating that ethnic and religious disputes don't calm easily)

Now I was anti the war in the first place, I think it has been handled appalingly and I am sad at the heavy losses of Amercian and British troops, not to mention the huge suffering of the Iraqi people. But it seems to me that if we want to show the Middle East that our way is the "Better way" (for want of a beeter term) we have to stick it out and make it work.

Alternatively, could we consider getting the UN to move in in a peace keeping capacity, at least that might not seem like an occupation to the Iraqi people? I haven't heard any reports suggesting that this has been discussed....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by m_dixon1984
6) Continue spouting the same tired anti-bush, anti-US foreign policy propaganda without any truly original insight or opinion.

Really, why don't you defend it then? What are your thought on it?



The anti-everything stance is just as bad as the pro-everything stance. You're sheep as well, just following a different shepherd.

M.


Like your thoughts on Israel? You're one to talk...

[binnie]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
1] Continue to lose an average of a soldier a day, and a hundred civilians.

2] Continue to spend a billion dollars a week.

3] Continue to be stuck in a civil war with no exit strategy whatsoever other than the tired old "we'll stand down when they stand up"

4] Continue to cling to the belief we are fighting terrorism and not instigating it with stories of abuse, rape, and murder.




:gulp:


Couple of point Lounge, you have raised a very important issue here.

The money, in my opinion is irrelevant - wars are expensive the US and UK are tow of the worlds richest countires and it seems to me our duty to deliver the "free Iraq" that was promised.

Yes, we are fanning terrosim, not fighting it. But it seems to me that the role in Iraq is to keep order.

Now I know at present it doesn't seem to be very successful, but imagine if there was no impediment to terrorist or other insurgent actions - I think it would descend to civil war in a simialr way to Yugoslavia did.

The situation is impossibly ugly, but I can't help thinking it would be much worse with no western pressence.

What ids really needed is the time to train up effective military and poilce made up of Iraqi's, and the framework for them to work.

A strategy is needed, not a war on terror - we should be helping to build up organisation and infrasturcture, not hunting invisible enemies.

hats off for raising this issue Lounge...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by binnie
Couple of point Lounge, you have raised a very important issue here.

The money, in my opinion is irrelevant - wars are expensive the US and UK are tow of the worlds richest countires and it seems to me our duty to deliver the "free Iraq" that was promised.

There was little if anything said about "freeing Iraq" initially, it was all about some absurdest notion of preventing Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists.


Yes, we are fanning terrosim, not fighting it. But it seems to me that the role in Iraq is to keep order.

Um, then we're not very good at it then...


Now I know at present it doesn't seem to be very successful, but imagine if there was no impediment to terrorist or other insurgent actions - I think it would descend to civil war in a simialr way to Yugoslavia did.

The situation is impossibly ugly, but I can't help thinking it would be much worse with no western pressence.

We're already in a civil war, and the U.S. is essentially aiding terrorist militia-death squads posing as Iraqi security forces. Why should we pay for that?


What ids really needed is the time to train up effective military and poilce made up of Iraqi's, and the framework for them to work.

A strategy is needed, not a war on terror - we should be helping to build up organisation and infrasturcture, not hunting invisible enemies.

hats off for raising this issue Lounge...

They've been trying to "train" up an Iraqi force for about three years now, apparently, it's not working...

[m_dixon1984]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really, why don't you defend it then? What are your thought on it?





Like your thoughts on Israel? You're one to talk...

I have an opinion on Bush and US foreign relations, and trust me they aren't far removed from the rehashed Chomsky op-eds you post. It's the fanatical BCE/PNAC conspiracy theories that I have a hard time swallowing and will continue to post smart ass responses to. If I start to see some original postings from you, where you've done more than spout someone else's position, then maybe then I'll grace you with some of what I've come to believe.

You've obviously decided that I'm some right-wing nut and you've obviously based this opinion on the fact that I don't automatically agree with the left-wing biased pieces you regularly post (left-wing may not be the best description but it's the best I have today). The trouble is you're so wrapped up in having an opposite opinion that you've stopped being critical or skeptical of the media that support your own position.

You have some insight into my position on Israel? I'm not sure I have a firm position on Israel. I know that I'm quite sure Israel is currently overacting but I'm also sure that countries that choose to be represented by terrorists have likely not embraced a peaceful coexistence. Just because I don't believe all the anti-Israeli rhetoric doesn't mean I give them my full support. I also don't think now is the time to bring up the history of US-Israeli-Mid-East relations. It's not that I entirely disagree with the anti-Israeli position it's that I don't feel re-hashing these things brings us closer to solving todays crisis. Today Israel and Hezbollah are firing rockets at each other and arguing over how US foreign policy for the past 50 years is to blame is not ever going to get us closer to ending the violence. Both sides get support and have gotten support from outside sources and both are heavily influenced by those benefactors. Who's more to blame? Irrelevant. Rockets are still killing civilians, on both sides.

I'm sickened, again, that while the rest of the world demands an end to the violence not one of them is stepping forward to offer support in maintaining a peace. Seems to me that all that is going to happen right now, with only the US being directly involved in talks, is more years of the same unsettled situation and in the end the violence will surely return. The US of course will be to blame but that's because they get involved while other nations sit back and do absolutely nothing. Am I critical of the US? Surely. But not nearly as much as I am of the ambivalence of most other western nations, my own included.

M

[FORD]

How is something a "fanatical conspiracy" when it has been openly published, was written from 1995-2000 and was signed by all the very same individuals who ended up being in the Bush Jr/Cheney cabinet?

Is www.newamericancentury.org a "left wing biased" conspiracy site?

NO, it's the Likud Zionfascists, declaring their agenda in plain sight, just as Hitler did in his book "Mein Kampf".

The agenda says they will invade Iraq. It says they will use Lebanon to get to Syria. It says that they will need an event such as "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to decieve the American people into supporting this fascist insanity.

I didn't write these things. Left wing conspiracists didn't write these things. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfoshitz, Douglas Feith, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, And the rest of the treasonous bastards destroying this country did. And it's still there in plain sight for anyone to read.

Funny how the corporate whore media pretends it doesn't exist at all, which means your typical Busheep will NEVER know about it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by m_dixon1984
I have an opinion on Bush and US foreign relations, and trust me they aren't far removed from the rehashed Chomsky op-eds you post.

Rehashed? I've never posted a Chomsky-esque op-ed. I haven't even read much of Noem. I post mainstream news articles, and the occasional op-ed, then I put forth my own opinion via critical thinking. I rehash nothing.


It's the fanatical BCE/PNAC conspiracy theories that I have a hard time swallowing and will continue to post smart ass responses to. If I start to see some original postings from you, where you've done more than spout someone else's position, then maybe then I'll grace you with some of what I've come to believe.

You see, this is where you expose yourself as talking out of your ass. When have I ever said anything about the BCE? That's Ford's thing, not mine. And PNAC is not a "conspiracy," you can read that they did indeed exist, and had been stumping for an Iraq War since early in Clinton's second term. To what extent they tried to hijack U.S. foreign policy as a cabal is arguable, but their existence and stated aims are not.


You've obviously decided that I'm some right-wing nut and you've obviously based this opinion on the fact that I don't automatically agree with the left-wing biased pieces you regularly post (left-wing may not be the best description but it's the best I have today).

Really, when did I accuse you of being a "right-wing" nut. I merely took issue with your typical general, in-specific cliche' posts in which you think you're railing against some status quo. My posts are typical left wing? Whatever, actually, they were moderate-conservative about 30-years ago...

If I seem to think you're a "right-wing" nut, perhaps it is because you seem to make factually incorrect gratuitous assertions and over-generalizations so common to so called conservative posters re. "liberals." I'm merely questioning your statements, not any perceived political inclination of yours. Try actually backing up what you say with more facts, and less factual errors. That's the danger of overgeneralizing.:) Well, I guess I'm just say pot-meet-tea kettle...


The trouble is you're so wrapped up in having an opposite opinion that you've stopped being critical or skeptical of the media that support your own position.

Really? You know my troubles? I don't think you really know me at all. The only one that seems to be wrapped up into having an 'opposite opinion,' you even said so yourself, and in fact, I'm very skeptical of the media. But I'll take the NY Times over NewsMax any day of the week.


You have some insight into my position on Israel? I'm not sure I have a firm position on Israel.

Well neither am I sure of my own position, but you seemed surely touchy when anyone ever engaged your 'Israel should kick-ass' pretensions. Besides, it's my country that gives them $3billion a year, and bears the brunt of the anger that our mindless pandering to their draconian, hypocritical policies entails in the Arab world. So I have a right as a taxpayer and citizen to question my gov't, and Israels actions...



I know that I'm quite sure Israel is currently overacting but I'm also sure that countries that choose to be represented by terrorists have likely not embraced a peaceful coexistence. Just because I don't believe all the anti-Israeli rhetoric doesn't mean I give them my full support. I also don't think now is the time to bring up the history of US-Israeli-Mid-East relations. It's not that I entirely disagree with the anti-Israeli position it's that I don't feel re-hashing these things brings us closer to solving todays crisis. Today Israel and Hezbollah are firing rockets at each other and arguing over how US foreign policy for the past 50 years is to blame is not ever going to get us closer to ending the violence. Both sides get support and have gotten support from outside sources and both are heavily influenced by those benefactors. Who's more to blame? Irrelevant. Rockets are still killing civilians, on both sides.

I'm sickened, again, that while the rest of the world demands an end to the violence not one of them is stepping forward to offer support in maintaining a peace. Seems to me that all that is going to happen right now, with only the US being directly involved in talks, is more years of the same unsettled situation and in the end the violence will surely return. The US of course will be to blame but that's because they get involved while other nations sit back and do absolutely nothing. Am I critical of the US? Surely. But not nearly as much as I am of the ambivalence of most other western nations, my own included.

M

Actually, it's not that anyone is accusing the U.S. of not getting involved, merely we go against world opinion while being obstructionist regarding U.N. resolutions. It is only the U.S., the U.K., and Israel herself that thinks a ceasefire should be delayed. And even the UK's Foreign Minister is now calling out the US's intransigence. It's interesting that on the one hand, Israel cites U.N. resolutions when it serves their needs, like regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah, but then patently ignores dozens of U.N. resolutions regarding it's unfair treatment of Arab-Israelis, etc.

I think you should apply some of your hyper-critical analysis to your own statements, or else run the risk of hypocrisy...

[Little Texan]

Originally posted by FORD
It says that they will need an event such as "a new Pearl Harbor" in order to decieve the American people into supporting this fascist insanity.



Can you point out where it says that on the PNAC site?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by m_dixon1984

The anti-everything stance is just as bad as the pro-everything stance. You're sheep as well, just following a different shepherd.

M.

You'll get no argument from me on that point.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Little Texan
Can you point out where it says that on the PNAC site?

Page 63 of their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" PDF doccument starts off with...

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor......

Another section of the same document discusses the use of biological weapons that will only attack certain genetics, and describes these weapons as "politically useful tools". (page 72)

It's really some sick shit.

[Little Texan]

Thanks

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by m_dixon1984
It's the fanatical BCE/PNAC conspiracy theories that I have a hard time swallowing and will continue to post smart ass responses to. If I start to see some original postings from you, where you've done more than spout someone else's position, then maybe then I'll grace you with some of what I've come to believe.

hey moron, where in lounge's post that you were initially responding to did he mention any "BCE/PNAC conspiracy"?


1] Continue to lose an average of a soldier a day, and a hundred civilians.

2] Continue to spend a billion dollars a week.

3] Continue to be stuck in a civil war with no exit strategy whatsoever other than the tired old "we'll stand down when they stand up"

4] Continue to cling to the belief we are fighting terrorism and not instigating it with stories of abuse, rape, and murder.


Do you see it in there?


No one really acts like that. ... Except FORD.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
Cutting and running doesn't seem like a good option to me.

Our governements went into this war promising the Iraqi people order, democracy and freedom,

They went into this war telling us that if we didn't then within 40 minutes Iraq could be sending long range missiles at us full of chemical/biological or nuclear weapons.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
Alternatively, could we consider getting the UN to move in in a peace keeping capacity, at least that might not seem like an occupation to the Iraqi people? I haven't heard any reports suggesting that this has been discussed....

Where is the UN going to find 200 000 troops to sort out a mess that the majority of the members think is the fault of the US and UK.

You think Germany or France is going to send half their troops into Iraq to be blown up by nutters that don't want peace?

That's why it hasn't been discussed...

[LoungeMachine]

The coalition of the willing has cut and run.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
Couple of point Lounge, you have raised a very important issue here.

The money, in my opinion is irrelevant - wars are expensive the US and UK are tow of the worlds richest countires and it seems to me our duty to deliver the "free Iraq" that was promised.

Yes, we are fanning terrosim, not fighting it. But it seems to me that the role in Iraq is to keep order.

Now I know at present it doesn't seem to be very successful, but imagine if there was no impediment to terrorist or other insurgent actions - I think it would descend to civil war in a simialr way to Yugoslavia did.

The situation is impossibly ugly, but I can't help thinking it would be much worse with no western pressence.

What ids really needed is the time to train up effective military and poilce made up of Iraqi's, and the framework for them to work.


After 3 years there are no effective military or police made up of Iraqis because the US government dismantelled them all and then tried to rebuild them. It's not going to happen at least in the next 10 years.

If we're not stealing there oil because we can't even get it out of the place then fuck it, what's the point?

If it's a moral thing then lets go invade Burma or another dozen other fucked up countries in the world.

At least in those the population might not hate our troops.

That can never happen though because wars are almost always about money and ruling class self interest. Don't kid yourself.


Cheers!

:gulp:

[Big Train]

I'm curious where the proverbial "better idea" is. It certainly is not residing on the liberal side. They have had years to formulate one, but they are still just jockeying off who is the best to play off Bush. And they suck at that too.

I'm open to any and every idea. Independent thinkers please step forward.

And perhaps a temporary break from the word "fascists" which has been beat into the ground?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm curious where the proverbial "better idea" is. It certainly is not residing on the liberal side. They have had years to formulate one, but they are still just jockeying off who is the best to play off Bush. And they suck at that too.

I'm open to any and every idea. Independent thinkers please step forward.

And perhaps a temporary break from the word "fascists" which has been beat into the ground?

Oh bullshit. There are several solutions being offered, read the board. And what is the status quo Bush idea anyways? Stay with a limited number of troops that cannot achieve anything more than staving off complete social break down? More of the same is no solution either, is it, sunshine?

[Seshmeister]

The better idea is pretty fucking simple for our governments.

Admit that they fucked up and get the fuck out of that shithole. Even by telling a 100 lies and spinning the truth like fuck they barely got 50% of the population onside. Al Queda, what little of it ever existed got their asses kicked in Afghanistan but then got a 1000% increase in supporters after the fuckups in Iraq.

With such spectacular incompetant cuntups no wonder people like Ford think it's all a big deliberate cuntspiracy.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The coalition of the willing has cut and run.

The coalition of Bush Blair and half a dozen truck drivers from Eastern Europe looking for trade concessions. They should have realised that 'Yo Blair' got fuck all from sucking and swallowing Bush's cock in the 'special relationship' so they were hardly likely to get a reach around trade wise....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm curious where the proverbial "better idea" is. It certainly is not residing on the liberal side. They have had years to formulate one, but they are still just jockeying off who is the best to play off Bush. And they suck at that too.




You cannot be fucking serious:rolleyes:


Turn off Faux long enough, and you might just learn something.


Jesus Fucking Christ.


Right........NO alternatives to "stay the course" have been offered.

whatever:rolleyes:

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm curious where the proverbial "better idea" is. It certainly is not residing on the liberal side. They have had years to formulate one, but they are still just jockeying off who is the best to play off Bush. And they suck at that too.

A "better idea" requires an initial "good" idea, or any idea at all for that matter. Your leader has neither.

"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?" --George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

[binnie]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh




They've been trying to "train" up an Iraqi force for about three years now, apparently, it's not working...

I appreciate that, my point is that it would be a whole lot worse if they wern't there at all.

We owe it to the Iraqi people, who we have fucked over big time, to provide some semblance of order - however lomg it takes.

I don't see an alternative, can they sort this out themselves?

[binnie]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
They went into this war telling us that if we didn't then within 40 minutes Iraq could be sending long range missiles at us full of chemical/biological or nuclear weapons.

True, but when they failed to materilaise it quickly turned to "democracy, freedom, he's a Hitler, they abuse women, human rights," and whatever other rhetoric they could throw in there....


And the propaganda to the Iraqi's was always democracy, freedom etc etc....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by binnie
I appreciate that, my point is that it would be a whole lot worse if they wern't there at all.

We owe it to the Iraqi people, who we have fucked over big time, to provide some semblance of order - however lomg it takes.

I don't see an alternative, can they sort this out themselves?

The Iraqi people need to sort this out for themselves...

If they live in post-colonial land of arbitrarily drawn borders and forcibly mixed nationalities, then they need to either come to a national reconciliation, or break up ala Yugoslavia. Iraq is one state with three nations...

[m_dixon1984]

Very hard for the US to pull out of Iraq now. They'd end up being accused of abandoning the people all over again, ala Bush Sr.

However, if a civil war breaks out, and all indications are that there will be one, where does that leave the US? Between a rock and a hard place. I'm generally in agreement that the US should finish what they started. But how? A civil war would bring the kind of instability that would make any US involvement an exercise in futility.

I'm actually going to agree with Nickdfresh here, all previous bickering aside, that splitting the country up may be a solution. If this could be brokered by an international team, including mid-east and Arab nations, then it could succeed. It would also give the US an oppotunity to bug-out while saving face a little. National unity seems an unlikely proposition.

M

PS - Nickdfesh, I think I unfairly characterized you as a BCE/PNAC conspiracy theory supporter. After some reflection I've determined that I was mistaken. Your posts are often more moderate than others. My bad.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The Iraqi people need to sort this out for themselves...

If they live in post-colonial land of arbitrarily drawn borders and forcibly mixed nationalities, then they need to either come to a national reconciliation, or break up ala Yugoslavia. Iraq is one state with three nations...

That's true, they are three nations - however, look at the bloodshed and genocide that resulted from the Yugoslavia "sort out": tens of thousands of people butchered and women of all ages raped in order to anialate an ethnicity. If we leave the Iraqi people to do this themselves, we may be responsible for a similar situation.

Also, the US and UK started this - Saddam was a cruel tyrant, but at least he held a semblance of order. With no direction, we could end with carnage that would de-stabilize the middle east further.

The history of democracies show us that things are never easy: when you put power in the hands of the people, you autiomoatically raise the question of who are "the people", who has that right. In the early 20th century, democracy caused ethnic wars all over Europe (Yugolsavia, Greece, Macedonia all spring to mind) and that is being repeated in Iraq right now.

I agree that Iraq needs to sort it out themselves, but they need help to do so, I think a complete withdrawal would be an utter catastrophe.

I appreciate your views on this topic though: I may not agree with you, but you have really made me think.