Iraq

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
Late Edition - Wolf Blitzer

I would be interested in seeing if all of you Bush apologists care to comment on today's late Edition interview with Sy Hersch. If you missed it, here are the transcripts:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/27/le.01.html

Hersh comes in about a quarter of the way down.

FWIW, I am reading even the posters on ignore this time, and may even respond if something intelligent is posted:D.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I'm confused how does this work. Are you presenting the links as your opinion? Are you then asking us to respond to your opinion?

Or are you saying you have no opinion and would like us to give our opinion so that you can then determine what your opinion is?

what is a bush apologist? I don't believe I have heard anyone on this board apologize for Bush? Was this term meant to be a derogatory term towards someone on this board?
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Ultimately, the chief beneficiaries of the war in Iraq may be Iraq's fellow members of the "axis of evil."
I guess that would be his opinion. But those that would think that might have a rude awakening. Never under estimate the resolve and courage of the American people.

that Europeans and other well-meaning foreigners are naive and decadent wimps
The truth is what it is. When the men folk are too busy popin each other, I guess that does lead to spinelessness. As far as decadence, is he saying they are not world leaders?

Interesting how a few riots and bombings have chaged the way they look at things now though.

d
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
danny,

One would be hard pressed to believe that the 'Axis of Evil', in general, has not benefited from the Iraq War. Syria and Iran certainly don't have to worry about being invaded in the near future, and Syria has become a staging ground for terror attacks. Iran is pouring its money and ideology into Iraq, and has great influence on the shape of politics in Iraq. They were enemies when Saddam was in power, now they are influential in shaping the political future of Iraq.

North Korea has seen that the US is too weak to threaten them halfway around the world, and pursues its nuclear program with impunity.

As for your second quote, re-read that paragraph in the article, he is saying that is what our leaders (Bush Doctrine) think of the Europeans, but as that doctrine becomes unraveled, the US will have to re-think its attitude towards Europe, and perhaps seek their co-operation.
 

tieguy

Banned
susiedriver said:
danny,
One would be hard pressed to believe that the 'Axis of Evil', in general, has not benefited from the Iraq War. Syria and Iran certainly don't have to worry about being invaded in the near future, and Syria has become a staging ground for terror attacks. Iran is pouring its money and ideology into Iraq, and has great influence on the shape of politics in Iraq. They were enemies when Saddam was in power, now they are influential in shaping the political future of Iraq.

Syria has always been a destabalizing force in the middle east. A reasonable argument could actually be made for the point that Syria is now being held in check. the same can be said for Iran which at this point cannot even influence its own people and has become totally out of touch with Iranians the majority of whom are now pro-western in philosophy.Many have labeled the US's efforts in Iraq as nation building. In fact its an exercise in region building. With our military so close destabalizing countries like Syria and Iran have had to tread lightly. A special forces expression comes to mind "when you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow". syria has been put on notice and has made a remarkable effort at toning down their previous activities.

North Korea has seen that the US is too weak to threaten them halfway around the world, and pursues its nuclear program with impunity.

North Korea? North Korea has been a thorn in our side for at least 55 years. I am always amazed at people who throw up north Korea as if it is some type of new threat to this world. If I remember correctly our fathers and grandfathers fought a war against north korea that was not resolved.

As for your second quote, re-read that paragraph in the article, he is saying that is what our leaders (Bush Doctrine) think of the Europeans, but as that doctrine becomes unraveled, the US will have to re-think its attitude towards Europe, and perhaps seek their co-operation.
For what purpose? Europe has become such a non-player in world affairs that we longer bother keeping troops there. Certain leaders may attempt to thrust theirselves into world prominence but reality shows europe is no longer of any benifit or threat to us. Who threatens europe with the collapse of the soviet empire? Only internal strife in those countries brought on by an extremist movement towards liberalism. France is a classic example of todays europe. An extreme swing towards liberalism has left that country so impotent that they struggle to suppress the civil kaos brought about by ethic strife. As a result France continues to burn while impotent leadership struggles to suppress it. As such France will never be fully ready for a position as a world leader when they cannot suppress a simple brush fire of discontent. It will not be necessary that the US reaches out to europe for europe will find they need to swing back politically and align theirselves with the US in order to survive. Europes shining moment was during the Iraq war debate. Since then they have lost ground on all fronts.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
tie,

It is extremely difficult to read the red typeface. Try blue, if you insist on using something other than black, the use of italics will help to differentiate your comments from those you are commenting on, as well.
tie said:
the same can be said for Iran which at this point cannot even influence its own people and has become totally out of touch with Iranians the majority of whom are now pro-western in philosophy.
What do you base this on? The overwhelming election of a hard-liner as President of Iran? The enormous influence of the Shi'a clerics?

tie said:
With our military so close destabalizing[sic] countries like Syria and Iran have had to tread lightly
Is that why Iran has restarted its nuclear program? In fact the USA is now in direct talks with Iran, through Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, further legitimizing President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's regime. In the meantime, Iran continues to provide support to the insurgency in Irag.

I think you miss the point of the article (you did read it, right?) The United States is in the position that it actually strengthens the influence of it's enemies because it is stretched too thin, economically & militarily, to do anything.

"In part because of the military and financial overextension in Iraq (and Afghanistan), the likelihood of any coherent application of military power or even of a focused military threat against the remaining entities on the Bush administration's once-extensive hit list has substantially diminished. In the meantime, any country that suspects it may be on the list has the strongest incentive to make the American experience in Iraq as miserable as possible. Some may also come to consider that deterring the world's last remaining superpower can be accomplished by preemptively and prominently recruiting and training a few thousand of their citizens to fight and die in dedicated irregular warfare against foreign occupiers."
 

tieguy

Banned
susiedriver said:
tie,

Is that why Iran has restarted its nuclear program? In fact the USA is now in direct talks with Iran, through Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, further legitimizing President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's regime. In the meantime, Iran continues to provide support to the insurgency in Irag.
Ah yes . Keep your enemies close and your friends even closer. Negotiations over nuclear proliferation do not legitimize that leadership. In fact our diplomacy in such a case will involve asking them to stop while occasionally flexing the old biceps or sharpening up the old bowie knife. The subtle message delivered under the guise of diplomacy will encourage their considering the survival of Iranians over the need for nuclear weapons.

I think you miss the point of the article (you did read it, right?) The United States is in the position that it actually strengthens the influence of it's enemies because it is stretched too thin, economically & militarily, to do anything.

I believe you missed the point that I did not miss the point. I addressed it. Our military would never be strong enough to fight a multitude of wars in the world. We have assessed the various threats and we have our resources planted right where we need them. The liberal hawks such as yourself tend to provide us with a wonderfull contradiction in telling us how screwed up our foriegn policy is. They first strongly object to the use of troops in Iraq or anywhere for that matter.They then point out how we are now spread too thin to fight other squirmishes that may break out elsewhere. All the while the liberal hawk knows he/she would never support any military action anywhere else in the world as long as the republicans are in charge. Put Kerry in office that same liberal hawk would actually take lessons on how to wave a flag and how to support the military. But despite the liberals best effort to sell this concept as a failure of foriegn policy the US has in fact done a fine job of managing these various issues. Diplomacy where diplomacy is needed. Muscle where muscle is needed. Syria got the message real quick when we parked the 4th Mech on thier border and threatened to go for a ride. Hence region building at work. We can afford to play around with Iran and listen to their postering. while they export their brand of religion we will import the blue jeans , ipods and makeups that will eventually undermine their extremist regime. We in fact have a weapon much more powerfull than any nuc we have our western lifestyle. One the oppressed of the world learn to crave. Just ask the soviets. They lost an empire to it.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
tie,

Really, the red typeface has got to go.

When I spoke of direct talks, they have nothing to do with nukes. They have everything to do with the interaction of Iran with Iraqi politics, hence having Ambassador Khalilzad initiating the talks.

Our military has been strong enough in the past to carry on a legitimate two front war. The problem with you Neo-Cons is you refuse to listen to the military before you start off on your Crusades. Pax Americana is a pipe dream. Instead of building an empire you have destroyed a Republic.

Comparisons between the former Soviet Union and Iran don't hold up. Iran is a theocracy. Right now we are supporting known terrorists in Iran, trying to destabilize that country. We've tried that in the past, it doesn't work.

Right now, all our 'region building' is accomplishing is training a new generation of jihadists, who are better trained than the last generation.

American diplomacy has become a laughing stock in the world arena. Since the Neo-Cons purged Colin Powell, the State Department is no longer trusted. Bolton has even angered the Brits at the UN, soon we'll have no allies, apart from Mongolia.

Have you seen this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html

I know how you love to read my links:D
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
tie, would you pretty please consider using blue or black type so that your posts are somewhat readable? Italics would be fine also.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Susie (ex)Driver
 

dannyboy

From the promised LAND
Damn, lookie at the Christmas spirit on the board. Next thing you will see is Tie asking me to get out of the car and getting Susie to hitch a ride.

Whoda thought!

d Merry Christmas Mr Potter!
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
Go to user CP>Setting & Options>Edit Options>Miscellaneous Options>Message Editor Interface>Enhanced Interface

Make sure you then change you font to Comic Sans MS, click on the bold A and change your color to red.
That way I'll know just to skip over the worthless posts that add nothing to the discussion.
 

susiedriver

Well-Known Member
Dear Leaders Speech In Phoenix 11/28/2005

I see he's starting writing his own speeches:

I want you to know that Jon Kyl, United States Senator from Arizona, still listens to his mother. (Laughter and applause.) That's a pretty good sign, isn't it?...

Look, I don't know how many U.S. senators there are that like NASCAR. (Laughter.) I view that as a pretty good sign, to have a United States senator who follows NASCAR. It means he's down to earth. He doesn't walk around Washington with a lot of airs like some of them do...

These are serious times in which we live, and it requires serious, experienced people to deal with the problems that we're confronted with. And the biggest problem we got is we're still at war. I wish I could report to you we weren't at war, but there's an enemy that still lurks that wants to do harm to the United States of America. And they want to do us harm because we stand squarely for freedom and democracy and we're not going to change. You see, they can't stand the fact -- (applause) -- they can't stand the fact that we allow people to worship freely, or to speak their mind in the public square, or to print articles the way they want to print them in America. They have a different view of the world. They've got this vision of darkness that stifles dissent and stifles the freedoms that many of us take for granted...

The enemy has made Iraq a central front in this war on terror, so we must take it seriously...

Jon Kyl understands that in this war on terror it's important to have members of the United States Senate who understand mixed messages...

You know, I just recently came off a trip to the Far East...And it struck me that I was in a region of the world where there -- where wars had started.
 

tieguy

Banned
susiedriver said:
tie,
When I spoke of direct talks, they have nothing to do with nukes. They have everything to do with the interaction of Iran with Iraqi politics, hence having Ambassador Khalilzad initiating the talks.
and your point is? Iran is a neighbor and diplomacy will exist. Its actually part of the region building process I discussed earlier. You have reinforced my point.

Our military has been strong enough in the past to carry on a legitimate two front war.
I suggest you study your history a little more carefully ma'am. In fact the nazi's controlled most of the world and only started losing when they were forced to fight a two front war...legitimate or otherwise. In fact if they had not involved the americans and had not layed siege to st. petersburg we may all been speaking german.

The problem with you Neo-Cons is you refuse to listen to the military before you start off on your Crusades.
Sigh Neocons? I would think a neo-con knows and listens to the military better than you liberals who only know itfor the camoflauge fatigues you wear with your purple hair and nose rings.

Pax Americana is a pipe dream. Instead of building an empire you have destroyed a Republic.
you need to reread my post. I have no interest in promoting pax-americana nor do I have any interest in supporting a foriegn policy that looks to build an empire. Your criticism reflected on specific failures of foriegn policy. I addressed those points.

Comparisons between the former Soviet Union and Iran don't hold up. Iran is a theocracy. Right now we are supporting known terrorists in Iran, trying to destabilize that country. We've tried that in the past, it doesn't work.
You really need to spend as much time reading my response as you do your links. I never made the comparison of the soviet union to Iran nor of the two differing political systems. I have called our efforts in the middle east one of region building. Europe is in fact a fine example of this concept in practice. We built europe up to the point where it now can stand up on its own two feet with little military support on our part. In the process we slowly destablized the soviet union until it finally collapsed. Thats a point I don't think you can really debate. The same can be done in the middle east. It will take time. To be honest I'm not crazy about the idea that we constantly have to take a leadership position and risk our kids in such a venture. But I do believe it was only a matter of time before we found ourselves involved in that region. Whether now is the right time or not remains to be seen.

Right now, all our 'region building' is accomplishing is training a new generation of jihadists, who are better trained than the last generation.
Based on what? What the liberal press tells you? The fact is the news will not run any of the success stories in print or on tv because it does not sell news like watching the horrific results of a suicide bomber. There are many successes in Iraq that our sons and daughters in uniform are bringing about and will never get the credit for from you or your liberal con associates. I really wish you would try to expend as much effort giving our troops some credit for their sucesses as you do trying to bring them down.

American diplomacy has become a laughing stock in the world arena. Since the Neo-Cons purged Colin Powell, the State Department is no longer trusted. Bolton has even angered the Brits at the UN, soon we'll have no allies, apart from Mongolia.
No what has become a laughing stock is how easily people like you will turn on our troops in times like these. Even to the point of embarrassing our soldiors in that prison scandel last year. You liberal cons will eat your young if it means you get the opportunity to piss on your countries conservative ideals.

have you seen this article?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html

I know how you love to read my links:D
Indeed. Anextremely biased liberal con who is not only out of touch with america but his own country (Israel] and its beliefs when he wrote this. There in lies our difference. He apparently feels that Bush should beimpeached for his foriegn policy yet has apparently not made the same argument for the leadership of Israel who has clearly been much more aggressive in crossing the borders of other countries then the US will ever be.
 
Top