PDA

View Full Version : Another Dixie Prediction Goes Horribly Wrong



Cypress
08-21-2006, 01:50 PM
-DIXIE, August 10 2005, on Iraq: " how utterly desperate the anti-war crowd is. Still trying to lie and mislead people with propaganda like this, and still chanting to "bring them home" when it's clear, they are coming home soon, the job is almost complete! Our forces will come back home when the job is finished, and not because you pinheads 'spirited' them back with your war protests."

-GEORGE BUSH, August 12 press conference: “We're not leaving Iraq so long as I'm president”…"That would be a huge mistake."

LadyT
08-21-2006, 01:53 PM
-DIXIE, August 10, on Iraq: "… how utterly desperate the anti-war crowd is. Still trying to lie and mislead people with propaganda like this, and still chanting to "bring them home" when it's clear, they are coming home soon, the job is almost complete! Our forces will come back home when the job is finished, and not because you pinheads 'spirited' them back with your war protests."

-GEORGE BUSH, August 12 press conference: “We're not leaving Iraq so long as I'm president”…"That would be a huge mistake."

oops!

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-21-2006, 02:00 PM
Right... we aren't going to be leaving Iraq in the next 2 years. In fact, we are likely to have a military presence in Iraq for decades to come, since we are building military bases there, and we still have forces in Germany and Japan.

Our military objectives have been met, the completion of training is currently taking place, and when we are finished... probably in the next 12-16 months, we will beging to draw down our forces and "come home" as I stated. You pinheads are so myopic, you can't understand a thing.

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 02:02 PM
Dixie Where do you get your good drugs ?

Cypress
08-21-2006, 02:04 PM
Right... we aren't going to be leaving Iraq in the next 2 years. In fact, we are likely to have a military presence in Iraq for decades to come, since we are building military bases there, and we still have forces in Germany and Japan.

Our military objectives have been met, the completion of training is currently taking place, and when we are finished... probably in the next 12-16 months, we will beging to draw down our forces and "come home" as I stated. You pinheads are so myopic, you can't understand a thing.

Right... we aren't going to be leaving Iraq in the next 2 years. In fact, we are likely to have a military presence in Iraq for decades to come

And to think, only two years ago I was called a treasonous traitor for suggesting bush wanted to use Iraq to build permanent US military bases, while NeoCons lecture me that we would leave their country "as soon as possible."

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-21-2006, 02:10 PM
Right... we aren't going to be leaving Iraq in the next 2 years. In fact, we are likely to have a military presence in Iraq for decades to come

And to think, only two years ago I was called a treasonous traitor for suggesting bush wanted to use Iraq to build permanent US military bases, while NeoCons lecture me that we would leave their country "as soon as possible."


Well, since we are in a War on islamofascism, and since Iraq happens to rest in the heart of the Islamofascists, it works out very nicely for us. Sorry it doesn't bode well for you and the terrorists. There is a vast difference in redeploying combat forces and maintaining military presence, apparently you don't know the difference and think they are all the same.

And yes, you are pretty much treasonous traitor scum, in my opinion.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 02:13 PM
So, yet another Dixie prediction gone horribly wrong, comes to light:


Bush does and did intend on establish a permanent american military prescence in iraq for decades to come.

And silly me, I was almost convinced two years ago by NeoCons lecturing me that we would leave Iraq "as soon as possible" , and not use it for a permanent military presence.

Cypress
08-21-2006, 02:22 PM
So, yet another Dixie prediction gone horribly wrong, comes to light:


Bush does and did intend on establish a permanent american military prescence in iraq for decades to come.

And silly me, I was almost convinced two years ago by NeoCons lecturing me that we would leave Iraq "as soon as possible" , and not use it for a permanent military presence.

for example, mere months ago Dixie was screaming "Liar!" at those who said we were building permanent military bases:

*************************************

1) AnyOldIron: 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq--Long-term military presence planned

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm [/b]

"Now U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years."


2) -DIXIE responds: “Please point out where Rumsfeld indicates we will be in Iraq for decades? I don't see that! As I said, you twisted his words and made a false assumption from what he said. Why did you LIE?”


http://fullpolitics.com/post.php?action=reply&fid=3&tid=10225&repquote=237819

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 02:24 PM
Seriously, why does anyone expect logic from dixie ?

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-21-2006, 02:25 PM
So, yet another Dixie prediction gone horribly wrong, comes to light:


Bush does and did intend on establish a permanent american military prescence in iraq for decades to come.

And silly me, I was almost convinced two years ago by NeoCons lecturing me that we would leave Iraq "as soon as possible" , and not use it for a permanent military presence.


Well of course, stupid... why do you think the Pentagon announced the building of the bases? Just to get a "rise" out of you? No one with any common sense, that I know of, has indicated we didn't plan to have a military presence in Iraq, it's one of the primary reasons we took Saddam out! This doesn't mean we will forever have combat forces committed to Iraq, that will end as soon as their work is complete, in about 12-16 months. This is the "as soon as possible" part you heard from "neocons."

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 02:30 PM
two years ago, and then dixie says 12-16 months. ????

Cancel7
08-21-2006, 06:14 PM
two years ago, and then dixie says 12-16 months. ????

Yes. Why? Whats your definition of "soon"? Usually if someone asks me when I'm getting home, or when I might be planning on unplugging my curling iron so they can use the bathroom, (to do whatever weird stuff men do in there) and I say "soon" I usually mean right about in three years.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-21-2006, 08:14 PM
Yes. Why? Whats your definition of "soon"? Usually if someone asks me when I'm getting home, or when I might be planning on unplugging my curling iron so they can use the bathroom, (to do whatever weird stuff men do in there) and I say "soon" I usually mean right about in three years.


I guess we're going to be coming home soon from Germany, right? I mean, WWII has been over a while.

In context, Bush just gave you a resounding FU. As long as he is president, there will be no Cut-Run-Surrender-Retreat-Defeat Policy in Iraq. I thought this was common knowledge? I thought you guys understood that by now? Oh... and you know something else? Unlike John Kerry and Bill Clinton, when Bush tells you, he means it.

Jarod
08-21-2006, 08:16 PM
I love to watch Dixie spin in circles...

uscitizen
08-21-2006, 11:25 PM
he is right on one thing though Bush has given us all a big FU.
And that includes Dixie, he is just not smart enough to realize it.

zoombwaz
08-22-2006, 12:20 AM
Well, since we are in a War on islamofascism, and since Iraq happens to rest in the heart of the Islamofascists, it works out very nicely for us. Sorry it doesn't bode well for you and the terrorists. There is a vast difference in redeploying combat forces and maintaining military presence, apparently you don't know the difference and think they are all the same.

And yes, you are pretty much treasonous traitor scum, in my opinion.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, your predictions have a 0% accuracy rate, and yet you go on and on and on. oblivious to your ignorance and Bush administration's lies. I don't know if you have kids (and I hope you don't. The last thing society needs is your deleterious chromosomes passed on to create another generation of imbeciles). but when a kid's story about his involvement in a recent contretemps changes several times, he's lying. The rationale for invading Iraq has changed several times. They're lying. The "war on islamofascists" is just their most recent lie, and what's more, it's one of their dumbest yet, because several despotic Islamic regimes are Bush allies: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Uzbekistan. Just who and what are these "islamofacists" you're babbling about? Which sect are they? Which country do they run?
You do realize that fascism is the joining of right-wing politicians with right-wing corporations, and is more accurately descriptive of George W. Bush and his corporate cronies. And speaking of the Shrub, his near constant violation of the terms and ideals of the Constitution, despite his oath to preserve, protect, and defnd it. Makes him th traitor, not Cypress. When are you going to buy a clue? We know you can't grow one, but that's no excuse for being so goddamn dumb

AnyOldIron
08-22-2006, 01:50 AM
It's ironic that Dixie accuses others of supporting terrorism yet is such a fan of Israeli attacks on civilians with the purpose of bringing about political change through intimidation (ie terrorism).

That's Dixie though, loopy as a bucket of snakes...

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-22-2006, 07:16 AM
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, your predictions have a 0% accuracy rate, and yet you go on and on and on. oblivious to your ignorance and Bush administration's lies. I don't know if you have kids (and I hope you don't. The last thing society needs is your deleterious chromosomes passed on to create another generation of imbeciles). but when a kid's story about his involvement in a recent contretemps changes several times, he's lying. The rationale for invading Iraq has changed several times. They're lying. The "war on islamofascists" is just their most recent lie, and what's more, it's one of their dumbest yet, because several despotic Islamic regimes are Bush allies: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Uzbekistan. Just who and what are these "islamofacists" you're babbling about? Which sect are they? Which country do they run?
You do realize that fascism is the joining of right-wing politicians with right-wing corporations, and is more accurately descriptive of George W. Bush and his corporate cronies. And speaking of the Shrub, his near constant violation of the terms and ideals of the Constitution, despite his oath to preserve, protect, and defnd it. Makes him th traitor, not Cypress. When are you going to buy a clue? We know you can't grow one, but that's no excuse for being so goddamn dumb


I hope you feel better after that! You should, it was a lot of spewing rhetorical shit to get off your chest. I'm sorry you don't like the word "islamofascist" or how it's being used to delineate between regular everyday Muslims and radical wacko Muslims who want us dead. I know that it really frosts your cookies that we took away your rhetoric about hating all Muslims, as well as most of your excuses and explanations for the terrorists actions.

The "rationale" for taking out Saddam has never changed. There were and are, several key reasons it needed to be done, and needed to be done soon, and all of them have been presented to you, but somehow, you are too retarded to comprehend 'multiple reasons' for going to war, and you assume there could only be one reason. You have been too busy hating Bush to pay attention to our mutual enemies, and you've listened to propaganda so long, you've become completely brainwashed. I can't help you, it's way too late for that, I can only hope that you will come to your senses someday. I would hate to think, after we take care of the terrorists, we are going to have to deal with militant liberals next.

Gaffer
08-22-2006, 09:52 AM
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, your predictions have a 0% accuracy rate, and yet you go on and on and on. oblivious to your ignorance and Bush administration's lies. I don't know if you have kids (and I hope you don't. The last thing society needs is your deleterious chromosomes passed on to create another generation of imbeciles). but when a kid's story about his involvement in a recent contretemps changes several times, he's lying. The rationale for invading Iraq has changed several times. They're lying. The "war on islamofascists" is just their most recent lie, and what's more, it's one of their dumbest yet, because several despotic Islamic regimes are Bush allies: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Uzbekistan. Just who and what are these "islamofacists" you're babbling about? Which sect are they? Which country do they run?
You do realize that fascism is the joining of right-wing politicians with right-wing corporations, and is more accurately descriptive of George W. Bush and his corporate cronies. And speaking of the Shrub, his near constant violation of the terms and ideals of the Constitution, despite his oath to preserve, protect, and defnd it. Makes him th traitor, not Cypress. When are you going to buy a clue? We know you can't grow one, but that's no excuse for being so goddamn dumb

I guess this is a s good a post as any to single out. There are a number of equally stupid posts in this thread but this is the most recent and really stands out for its simple mindedness.

"Who and what are islamofacists?" The simple explaination is iran. Facism is considered to be a rightwing nomenclature in most meanings of the word. It is most normally used to name anti-semetic groups. In the way it is used as with islam is that they are a hate group. But they hate not just jews, but Christians and Hindus and Budhists and liberals as well. Its the most commonly known hate name that people can put on the these islamist. because that is what they preach and practice,,,hatred. You can spin it anyway you want but its a religious war. the western world verses islam. Your very way of life is at risk here and your blind Bush hatred keeps you from seeing that.

None of you ever even tries to look at the big picture. None of us even have access to most of that big picture. There's a lot going on you will never see and its going on in your behalf. It will be 20 to 30 years before many of the things going on now will come to light.

There will be US bases in iraq for many years to come. Deal with it. There will eventually be a war with iran and probably syria. Deal with it. Bush has two more years as president and will continue his policies regardless of polls. deal with it. If the libs don't come up with concrete ideas of things to do concerning the world and islam then they will not be in a position of power. Deal with it.

Dixie i don't think we have much to worry about as far as militant liberals. It would be like fighting the french. They like to name call but they would never stand up for themselves.

maineman
08-22-2006, 11:18 AM
actually..giving "fascism" a flavor of antisemitism is as much a convenient, opportunistic bastardization of the word as "islamofascist" is.

and using that word to describe a plethora of diverse and mutually exclusive organizations within the world of Islam is even more pathetic.

Cypress
08-22-2006, 11:30 AM
I guess this is a s good a post as any to single out. There are a number of equally stupid posts in this thread but this is the most recent and really stands out for its simple mindedness.

"Who and what are islamofacists?" The simple explaination is iran. Facism is considered to be a rightwing nomenclature in most meanings of the word. It is most normally used to name anti-semetic groups. In the way it is used as with islam is that they are a hate group. But they hate not just jews, but Christians and Hindus and Budhists and liberals as well. Its the most commonly known hate name that people can put on the these islamist. because that is what they preach and practice,,,hatred. You can spin it anyway you want but its a religious war. the western world verses islam. Your very way of life is at risk here and your blind Bush hatred keeps you from seeing that.

None of you ever even tries to look at the big picture. None of us even have access to most of that big picture. There's a lot going on you will never see and its going on in your behalf. It will be 20 to 30 years before many of the things going on now will come to light.

There will be US bases in iraq for many years to come. Deal with it. There will eventually be a war with iran and probably syria. Deal with it. Bush has two more years as president and will continue his policies regardless of polls. deal with it. If the libs don't come up with concrete ideas of things to do concerning the world and islam then they will not be in a position of power. Deal with it.

Dixie i don't think we have much to worry about as far as militant liberals. It would be like fighting the french. They like to name call but they would never stand up for themselves.

There will be US bases in iraq for many years to come. Deal with it. There will eventually be a war with iran and probably syria. Deal with it.

Damn, well done! Such honesty! I really appreciate it.

I can't tell you how many times over the past three years on these boards that republican posters screamed "LIAR!" at me, when I said one of Bush's goals in Iraq was to establish permanent bases, and that bush was hankering for more wars with Syria and Iran.

thank you!

Gaffer
08-22-2006, 11:26 PM
There will be US bases in iraq for many years to come. Deal with it. There will eventually be a war with iran and probably syria. Deal with it.

Damn, well done! Such honesty! I really appreciate it.

I can't tell you how many times over the past three years on these boards that republican posters screamed "LIAR!" at me, when I said one of Bush's goals in Iraq was to establish permanent bases, and that bush was hankering for more wars with Syria and Iran.

thank you!

well I guess I made your day. But I will qualify things a bit for you. There will be bases in iraq not because Bush planned it that way. But because they will be needed to keep peace in the region and for future efforts against iran and syria.

He's not planning to take them down as a great conspiracy that has been plotted for years. They will force our hand by attacking Israel or attacking shipping in the gulf or any number of other offensive actions.

As for the others calling you a "LAIR" well they recongnize you for what you are. I would add fool to that as well and suggest you crawl back under that rock with howard dean. Your irrelevant.

OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 11:08 AM
well I guess I made your day. But I will qualify things a bit for you. There will be bases in iraq not because Bush planned it that way. But because they will be needed to keep peace in the region and for future efforts against iran and syria.

He's not planning to take them down as a great conspiracy that has been plotted for years. They will force our hand by attacking Israel or attacking shipping in the gulf or any number of other offensive actions.

As for the others calling you a "LAIR" well they recongnize you for what you are. I would add fool to that as well and suggest you crawl back under that rock with howard dean. Your irrelevant.
Gods I hope you're still around when we close those bases and write them off as a bad idea. That should be really entertaining.

:micro:

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 11:14 AM
A permanent presence would not even be considered if Bush had not invaded Iraq in the first place. It is all Bushofascism.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 11:19 AM
well I guess I made your day. But I will qualify things a bit for you. There will be bases in iraq not because Bush planned it that way. But because they will be needed to keep peace in the region and for future efforts against iran and syria.

He's not planning to take them down as a great conspiracy that has been plotted for years. They will force our hand by attacking Israel or attacking shipping in the gulf or any number of other offensive actions.

As for the others calling you a "LAIR" well they recongnize you for what you are. I would add fool to that as well and suggest you crawl back under that rock with howard dean. Your irrelevant.

But I will qualify things a bit for you. There will be bases in iraq not because Bush planned it that way.

LMAO! Put down the kool aid man!

I'm so sure, putting permanent bases in Iraq just "recently" occured to bush. That it wasn't planned from the beginning. LOL

Face it dude, people like you spent the last three years calling anyone who said bush was using iraq for permanent bases, a "liar". And then when we're proven right, you quietly try to backpedal and tapdance away from your original postion.

OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 11:43 AM
But I will qualify things a bit for you. There will be bases in iraq not because Bush planned it that way.

LMAO! Put down the kool aid man!

I'm so sure, putting permanent bases in Iraq just "recently" occured to bush. That it wasn't planned from the beginning. LOL

Face it dude, people like you spent the last three years calling anyone who said bush was using iraq for permanent bases, a "liar". And then when we're proven right, you quietly try to backpedal and tapdance away from your original postion.
True.

I also believe, however, that the next administration, no matter who the president is, will eventually close the bases or hand them over to Iraq. They're just not tenable, politically. At least, I hope the next administration will be forced to abandon them.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-23-2006, 11:46 AM
Face it dude, people like you spent the last three years calling anyone who said bush was using iraq for permanent bases, a "liar". And then when we're proven right, you quietly try to backpedal and tapdance away from your original postion.

Well, that's because you ARE a liar, dufuss! Bush didn't "use" Iraq to put permanent bases there! What happens with you idots, is you get convoluted in your own rhetoric and false logic, and everything is digested through that.

Iraq has ALWAYS been a key aspect in the overall global war on Islamofascism. Primarily from a national security aspect, and well-established justification and reasoning in the task of eliminating Saddam Hussein, but more importantly, and I pointed this out on multiple occasions, because Iraq sits in the heart of the radical Islamic element we are at war with. Strategically, you just about couldn't pick a better base of operations to wage such a war. We simply couldn't stage attacks on terror groups from Kuwait, it's too small and too vulnerable, and too dependent on the Persian Gulf for access. We can't impose upon Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, or Turkey, to allow us to stage attacks on terrorist groups from their countries, because of the inherent danger to the people there, and the risk of jeopardizing relations with vital allies in the region.

Iraq provides the best strategical base to take out Iran or Syria, as well as defending Israel from further attack. So now we have a defiant dictator who has been given last chance after last chance, we have a secular government regime without ties to the Muslim religious faith, which we can take out because there will be no resounding religious outcry, as say...Pakistan or Syria, and everyone in the region pretty much despises Saddam anyway, and we have a very advantageous strategic location to wage war on the Islamofascist elements we are at war with in the region, when it's all said and done. At the end of the day, Iraq will prove to be the key strategical move that defeated Islamofascism in the War on Terror.

The down-side, is the sectarian violence, which has been fomented completely by the radicals (aka: the enemy) to prevent us from establishing this stronghold in the middle east. You have been brainwashed by propaganda to believe a whole different thing, I am sure, so I won't waste any more time on this. The point is, Iraq, as a strategic point in the war on terror, has always been vital and important... it was part of what we were telling you when you were looking through your soda straw at OBL and WMD's, and not seeing the Big Picture.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-23-2006, 11:48 AM
True.

I also believe, however, that the next administration, no matter who the president is, will eventually close the bases or hand them over to Iraq. They're just not tenable, politically. At least, I hope the next administration will be forced to abandon them.

You're an idiot if you believe that will happen, regardless of what party wins.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 11:54 AM
True.

I also believe, however, that the next administration, no matter who the president is, will eventually close the bases or hand them over to Iraq. They're just not tenable, politically. At least, I hope the next administration will be forced to abandon them.

Its possible that permanent bases in iraqi kurdistan are tenable. I think that's why John Murth's redeployment strategy makes the most sense. Franly, I think even a Democratic president would keep bases in Iraqi kurdistan.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 11:57 AM
Ummm, Dixie? It only took you four years, to admit what I said back in 2003.

I called Bullshit on the WMD-reason for war back in 2003. I said the REAL reason bush wanted to go into iraq was for strategic, geopolitical reasons - implmenting a NeoCon "theory" that you just outlined with regard to syria and iran.

And I clearly remember being called a liar by Bush fans, for calling bullshit on the WMD, and correctly stating the real strategic reasons.

OrnotBitwise
08-23-2006, 11:58 AM
Its possible that permanent bases in iraqi kurdistan are tenable. I think that's why John Murth's redeployment strategy makes the most sense. Franly, I think even a Democratic president would keep bases in Iraqi kurdistan.
I hope you're wrong, but I agree that it's possible. I *hope* and believe that there will be enough political pressure to force closure. Of course, the apologists will whine about how we need to get something out of the debacle.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-23-2006, 12:17 PM
Ummm, Dixie? It only took you four years, to admit what I said back in 2003.

I called Bullshit on the WMD-reason for war back in 2003. I said the REAL reason bush wanted to go into iraq was for strategic, geopolitical reasons - implmenting a NeoCon "theory" that you just outlined with regard to syria and iran.

And I clearly remember being called a liar by Bush fans, for calling bullshit on the WMD, and correctly stating the real strategic reasons.


No, you had some wacko theory about PNAC, which is not relevant. The WMD threat was real, he had them, he used them, and would have had them and used them again, he wasn't going to stop and the UN wasn't going to prevent him from it, just like the nut in Iran isn't going to stop. The legal justification was there, the UN agreed, then failed to back what they said.

I said all along, the WMD thing was a farce, as far as making it The Reason for War, and I've been saying it all along as well. So it looks like we were both right, huh?

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 12:22 PM
Iraq has ALWAYS been a key aspect in the overall global war on Islamofascism
//

ROFLMAO, the islamo term has been in existance for what 5 days ?
Dixie is such a stupid arrogant fool.

Cypress
08-23-2006, 12:22 PM
No, you had some wacko theory about PNAC, which is not relevant. The WMD threat was real, he had them, he used them, and would have had them and used them again, he wasn't going to stop and the UN wasn't going to prevent him from it, just like the nut in Iran isn't going to stop. The legal justification was there, the UN agreed, then failed to back what they said.

I said all along, the WMD thing was a farce, as far as making it The Reason for War, and I've been saying it all along as well. So it looks like we were both right, huh?

BINGO! DING, DING, DING.

Well done Dixie.

Yes, we agree that Bush either lied about WMD, or misled the american people about the real reasons for invading Iraq.

Dixie - In Memoriam
08-23-2006, 01:20 PM
BINGO! DING, DING, DING.

Well done Dixie.

Yes, we agree that Bush either lied about WMD, or misled the american people about the real reasons for invading Iraq.


I guess you must have selective reading ability. Bush didn't lie about anything, nor did he mislead anyone about the real reasons. They were there, they were legitimate, it was the legal basis on which we took the action taken, and it was substantiated. There were WMD issues, there were ties to terrorism, there was the cumulative defiance by Saddam to comply with world order, and there was also the opportunity to rid the world of a ruthless tyrant pain in our ass, as well as establish a base to fight terror, and gain an oil-rich ally. All of these, and more, comprise the "reasons for Iraq" not just one of them, as you continue to insist. The legal justifications and reasonings presented to the UN are not ALL the reasons and justifications for going to war in Iraq, that is your own misconception, and has been all along. The UN can't authorize us to invade Iraq so that we can establish a base to fight terrorism, that doesn't fly, you have to have a valid reason and justification, and that was Saddam's non-compliance with the UN and intrest in WMD's and terror. So, it's no big surprise the establishing of bases in Iraq wasn't one of the stated objectives to the UN in presenting our "case for war" in Iraq.

uscitizen
08-23-2006, 01:25 PM
I said all along, the WMD thing was a farce, as far as making it The Reason for War, and I've been saying it all along as well. So it looks like we were both right, huh?
//

LIar liar pants on fire :)

maineman
08-23-2006, 01:28 PM
removing Saddam has allowed the rise of Iranian hegemony and is directly responsible for the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon...and our actions have destroyed any influence we may have had with the arab world necessary to stop it.

Rice was an ineffective joke in her sad attempts at "shuttle diplomacy" THe arab world universally dislikes and distrusts us..and that is all Bush's fault

Cypress
12-18-2006, 09:33 PM
IRAQ

-DIXIE, August 10, 2006: "….how utterly desperate the anti-war crowd is. Still trying to lie and mislead people with propaganda like this, and still chanting to "bring them home" when it's clear, they are coming home soon, the job is almost complete! Our forces will come back home when the job is finished, and not because you pinheads 'spirited' them back with your war protests."



Pentagon Report, December 2006: Iraq Violence Reaches Record Levels

The Pentagon said yesterday that violence in Iraq soared this fall to its highest level on record and acknowledged that anti-U.S. fighters have achieved a "strategic success" by unleashing a spiral of sectarian killings by Sunni and Shiite death squads that threatens Iraq's political institutions.

In its most pessimistic report yet on progress in Iraq, the Pentagon described a nation listing toward civil war, with violence at record highs of 959 attacks per week, declining public confidence in government and "little progress" toward political reconciliation.

"The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who briefed journalists on the report. "We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence. . . . That is the premier challenge facing us now."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121800791.html

uscitizen
12-18-2006, 10:09 PM
Nonsense it is just the isloamofascist AQ.
They will really start trouble once they get those WMD's back from those tunnels in Syria. Just you wait and see.

Gaffer
12-18-2006, 11:26 PM
Nonsense it is just the isloamofascist AQ.
They will really start trouble once they get those WMD's back from those tunnels in Syria. Just you wait and see.

I'm sure syria has plans for the WMD's. syria's just not going to flaunt the fact that they have them. And you will go blindly along believing they never existed.

Beefy
12-18-2006, 11:48 PM
I'm sure syria has plans for the WMD's. syria's just not going to flaunt the fact that they have them. And you will go blindly along believing they never existed.

Should we invade them, shock them, awe them, and thus liberate them for it?

AnyOldIron
12-19-2006, 04:35 AM
It is difficult to believe that people still think that the invasion of Iraq has had a positive effect on the battle against Islamic extremism, that it was good strategy.

That's dogmatism for you.....

HipLew
12-19-2006, 07:25 AM
whether it is positive against islamic extremeism remains to be seen. it ain't over yet. right now, they are killing each other, which may be interpreted as a good thing in the war against islamic extremeis; even the palestiians are at each other's throats which israel and tha administration loves.

you know the real reason we're there isn't cuz of saddam and wmd; it's cuz of iran and the admin's thoughts that our direct presence is necessary in the region to control, or at least have large influence, on the flow of oil.

the fact is that the reason we are still there after three years is not because we can't control iraq 9we could if we really wanted to). it is because the admin doe not WANT to leave yet; if we congtrolled and subdued iraq, then there would be no reason for us to stay, and then leaving would destroy the strategic value of our presence.

we ain't out of there until an admin decides we don't need to be there any longer, and just don't think cuz a dem gets elecgted pres that s/he will cut and run. once they are briefed on the reality of the situation, then that dem prez is going to think real hard before destroying any strategic value we have in the reason.

Gaffer
12-19-2006, 07:31 AM
Should we invade them, shock them, awe them, and thus liberate them for it?

Well if it was up to me we would. I'd let Israel handle most of it while we concentrate on iran.

uscitizen
12-19-2006, 07:32 AM
Hip, You mean any strategic value bush has not already destroyed with his blundering ?

AnyOldIron
12-19-2006, 07:34 AM
Well if it was up to me we would. I'd let Israel handle most of it while we concentrate on iran.

Your problem is that you don't understand the enemy you are fighting.

You should read:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Al-Qaeda-True-Story-Radical-Islam/dp/0141019123

AnyOldIron
12-19-2006, 07:40 AM
Hip, You mean any strategic value bush has not already destroyed with his blundering ?

The only strategic value in Iraq is held by the extremists.

AQ isn't a terrorist group anymore, it is a message, 'the struggle against zulm'.

We have handed the extremists another cause celebre to allow them to garner recruits, support and resources. We have reinforced the notion of 'the struggle against zulm'.

Until we recognise that we aren't fighting a group, or organisation, but an idea, we will continue to follow poor strategies and keep losing...

Cypress
12-19-2006, 07:43 AM
I'm sure syria has plans for the WMD's. syria's just not going to flaunt the fact that they have them. And you will go blindly along believing they never existed.

Astonishing.

Bush is spending a trillion taxpayer dollars, getting tens of thousands of american servicemen and women killed and wounded, and sacrificing our nation's moral authority....and he still let the WMD get away???

Why aren't you demanding Bush resign, for gross incompetence? Hell, Carter was virtually run out of office for crashing a couple of helicopters in the Iranian desert.

uscitizen
12-19-2006, 08:06 AM
umm, Carter was a Demoncrat Cypress......
And too honest for his own party to support him properly.