Sure looks like it.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/abandoning_an_a.html
There have been several reports in the last couple of weeks about service people openly questioning their mission. I feel so sorry for our service people in Iraq.
I think it is telling that not one White House official or Bush cabinent member has any immediate family in Iraq.
Sounds like a story to try to distract people from John Kerry's remarks. CNN and TIME are so biased.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Sounds like a story to try to distract people from John Kerry's remarks. CNN and TIME are so biased.
LOL! Yeah, they're not "fair and balanced" like Fox, are they Cubs? [}:)]
But I agree with you. Abandoning a U.S. soldier isn't NEARLY as important as a politician committing a bushism. (Assuming, of course that the politician isn't Bush himself or any right wing Republican. THEY should not be held accountable for ANYTHING they say.) And human life is nowhere NEAR as important as right wing spin.
And in case you're not sharp enough to figure it out, I AM being sarcastic. People like you that are so eaten up with party politics that you can't see anything except the south end of George Bush's next turd don't have a clue what is and isn't important. The only thing that's important to people like you is controlling every aspect of not only OUR society but societies of the world. If you had your way, we'd all be forced to live by your extreme right wing ideals. Fortunately for all of us, there's room for EVERYONE'S views...even yours.
Cubs, the story developed Tuesday about the same time the Kerry faux pas became public. Also, Andrew Sullivan is a conservative.
Unless, you know, you think the Iraqi prime minister ordered the dismantling of the barricades after getting a phone call on the hotline from ol' buddy John.
If you believe that, then I've got some beachfront property in Oakhurst to sell you.
[}:)]
There was talk on last Sunday's news shows about how Bush has changed his language on Iraq recently. He's gone from holding out the ideal of "a democracy" to instead looking forward to a "stable Iraq," signaling another lowering of expectations.
I think about today's service people and I'm reminded of talk about how my generation was deprived of its heroes because my generation fought in Vietnam and that was finally a discredited war. Our vets never got to feel the kind of unabashed pride that World War II vets felt for their service in World War II – a more noble war.
I hope this missing service man in Iraq is found alive.
Bush has pretty much abandoned the whole "stay the course" line too. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem with this. You make adjustments and outright changes as conditions change and as you realize your mistakes. But in this situation, it just reveals more hypocrisy than anything else. This is exactly the kind of thing that the Republican spinmeisters managed to label as "flip flopping" in order to win the election. If it was sauce for the goose then its sauce for the gander. But Bush could still pull it out in my view, at least to some extent if he would just step up to the plate once in a while and actually take RESPONSIBILITY for muckin' it all up. Hell, my respect for him would shoot way up even if he watered it down and just said "we've made some serious mistakes and now we're taking steps to try to correct those mistakes". But it'll never happen. It just seems to be beyond the ability of a right winger to accept responsibility for anything.
I enjoy the fact that "stay the course" had the shortest "stay."
The soldier left the area he was supposed to be at and got abducted (or ran off). The checkpoints were up for a week disrupting the city but finding nothing. I would assume that the Iraqi government "showing us who's boss" would go far to fostering internal confidence in their government. The whole thing could've been staged for their benefit for all we know.
Either way, you can't lock down a city forever just in case one guy who went awol may be in there.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
There was talk on last Sunday's news shows about how Bush has changed his language on Iraq recently. He's gone from holding out the ideal of "a democracy" to instead looking forward to a "stable Iraq," signaling another lowering of expectations.
Therein lies the problem of imposing American-style politics and the American way of life on countries who don't understand nor want our way of politics and culture.
It's obvious, looking back at the on-set of the Iraq invasion, that Bush and his advisors thought this would be a six month "milk run". Had it played out that way Bush would look like a great humanitarian.
I've become more weary the last six months of the continued conflict. I've listened to the more rational comments on here against the war and it's changed my viewpoint somewhat. I don't think there is any American who is happy we are still in Iraq and facing escalating casualties. I'm ready for our troops to come home, but the idea of leaving the area un-stabilized is chilling.
Right, wrong, or otherwise, we have created the instability in Iraq with our actions and we have a responsibility to help re-stabilize it.
I still find it no small coincidence that we've not had another attack here at home while our troops have been overseas.
Honest question to Conan:
American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.
So what would the difference be?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Honest question to Conan:
American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.
So what would the difference be?
Two things:
Somewhat controlled anarchy versus complete anarchy. Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Honest question to Conan:
American soldiers are in Iraq, and that country is about as unstable as it can get.
So what would the difference be?
Two things:
Somewhat controlled anarchy versus complete anarchy. Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.
I agree that we can't cut and run, but it's terribly frustrating to hear Bush say recently that Rumsfield and Cheney need to stay.
"Rummy you're doing a fine job" is as laughable as when he said "Brownie your doing a great job".
I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.
Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.
Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.
But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.
Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.
Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.
But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.
At this point, I don't know how you could really define a "win" in Iraq.
Essentially, we accomplished the objective of removing Hussein from power, and now we are ebroiled in a civil war that has gone on, more-or-less for centuries, and for all intents and purposes will continue for centuries.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I agree. I'm frustrated when the president keeps saying we're "winning" the war, when it's apparent to anyone with half a brain that we're not. The lives of Iraq citizens, at this point, should be getting better, not getting worse.
Why he keeps Rumsfeld around is beyond any comprehension.
Bush doesn't want to change because it's an appearance of weakness.
But that reluctance to change and adjust to a rapidly deteriorating situation is killing him.
At this point, I don't know how you could really define a "win" in Iraq.
Essentially, we accomplished the objective of removing Hussein from power, and now we are ebroiled in a civil war that has gone on, more-or-less for centuries, and for all intents and purposes will continue for centuries.
A win in Iraq would have been finding the WMD's which is why everyone invaded in the first place. To pretend that anyone is in Iraq for any other reason is rewriting the recent past.
The civil war is not centuries old as the country was created in the 20th century and has remained relatively stable internally until the invasion.
I don't know what would be best to stay and try and sort out the mess or go and cut our loses. I do however blame the republican party for getting the US and its allies in a situation where cut and run or stay and die are the only options left. No one can win the war now, but the biggest loser will be the Iraqi people who are living in a much more dangerous and violent country than was previously.
SI- Go back to your history books. The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been battling for centuries. You also neglect to acknowledge that removing Saddam Hussein from power was as much an objective as finding WMD's.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
SI- Go back to your history books. The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been battling for centuries. You also neglect to acknowledge that removing Saddam Hussein from power was as much an objective as finding WMD's.
My history books seem to indicate Iraq was a stable part of the Ottoman empire until it was dismantled post world war 1. Please tell me if I'm reading the wrong kind of history books.
There were weapons inspectors in Iraq, we were told missiles could be launched in 45 minutes. I remember Hans Blix looking very hard for the weapons. If it was an objective of the Iraq war to remove Saddam it was kept hidden from the American people, its allies and the UN until later on. The main reasons for the war were 'Saddam has links to Al Qaeda' and 'He has some WMDs'. Both of these were found to be untrue.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
SI- Go back to your history books. The Sunnis and Shi'ites have been battling for centuries. You also neglect to acknowledge that removing Saddam Hussein from power was as much an objective as finding WMD's.
Why didn't Bush Jr. know about the Sunnis and Shi'ites battling for centuries instead of letting Rumsfield convince him it was going to be a cakewalk? Removing Hussein from power is all well and good, but having a strategy after the war would have been nice. What happened to the Powell doctrine, why was it thrown out for the half-baked plan by Rumsfield? We could have quelled a lot of the violence if we had enough troops. Instead we invaded a country without any plan to occupy, thinking they were going to give us a parade in six short months.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.
How do you know that? Because the Bush Administration told us? Didn't the Bush Administration also tell us that we had proof that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and was a direct threat to the U.S.? How do we know this business about Iran isn't more "faulty intelligence"?
Yep. I would rather have order in Iraq with Saddam Hussein contained and still in power, than have total chaos in Iraq and the U.S. taking orders from Ayatollah Al Satyr. We never should have abandoned the Powell doctrine.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Iran, the real problem in the Middle East, doubling it's size overnight.
How do you know that? Because the Bush Administration told us? Didn't the Bush Administration also tell us that we had proof that Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and was a direct threat to the U.S.? How do we know this business about Iran isn't more "faulty intelligence"?
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, nor listen to the president to figure out who the new bully is on the block in the Middle East. Or is that all intelligence clap-trap that Iran is working on nuclear weapons?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
You don't have to be a rocket scientist, nor listen to the president to figure out who the new bully is on the block in the Middle East.
There's always gonna be a bully in the Middle East. Before we de-stabilized Iraq, it was the other bully in the Middle East. The two bullies were so busy snarling at each other that they were both neutered to some extent.
quote:
Or is that all intelligence clap-trap that Iran is working on nuclear weapons?
I dunno. Neither do you. We know that they're working on things that MIGHT be precursors to nuclear weapons but I haven't seen any evidence (other than speculation) that it's intended for anything other than what they claim it's intended for. Do you have some evidence that it is? If so, please share it with us. We were told at one point (by Bush) that Iraq was six months away from having a nuclear weapon. That turned out to be pure bullcrap. How do we know this is not more bullcrap?
Well, I'll admit my Arabic sucks, so I can't say for sure that President nut-job in Iran is or isn't saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map or that he's make provocative comments about a "surprise" in relation to their nuclear capabilities.
Of course, if we're worried about Iran having nukes, we shouldn't post documents on the Internet that help them.
[:(]
That has GOT to be some sort of subterfuge. I sh!t down both legs when I heard that on the Today Show.
You guys can have at Bush II for being stupid all you like, but no one could possibly be stupid enough to post instructions on how to build nuclear weapons on the internet or a site that could be accessed via the internet unless it's a subterfuge of some sort.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well, I'll admit my Arabic sucks, so I can't say for sure that President nut-job in Iran is or isn't saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map or that he's make provocative comments about a "surprise" in relation to their nuclear capabilities.
Sorry, Conan, I must not have been clear. I was asking whether you have any EVIDENCE, not speculation.
Wait. I DID ask for evidence and not speculation.
Does the fact that you offered nothing but speculation means that you don't have any real evidence either?
As far as Israel is concerned, what does that have to do with this?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Of course, if we're worried about Iran having nukes, we shouldn't post documents on the Internet that help them.
[:(]
If you're talking about the plans for building a crude nuclear device, that's been on the Internet for years. I'd find a link for you but, even though I got rid of the plants DECADES ago, I still don't like the thought of the federales snooping around my house. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well, I'll admit my Arabic sucks, so I can't say for sure that President nut-job in Iran is or isn't saying Israel needs to be wiped off the map or that he's make provocative comments about a "surprise" in relation to their nuclear capabilities.
Sorry, Conan, I must not have been clear. I was asking whether you have any EVIDENCE. Does the fact that you offered nothing but speculation means that you don't have any real evidence either?
As far as Israel is concerned, what does that have to do with this?
Papa, certainly you are pulling my chain, you couldn't possibly be that obtuse.
Sorry I don't have that sort of security clearance, nor does anyone on this forum that I'm aware of.
Connecting the dots of what interpreters have been saying Iran's leader has been saying, he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map, they are working on nuclear research which has not only the U.S. worried, but the EU. They have been purposefully cagey about what their intentions are with their continuing research on uranium enrichment. If they are totally clean on their nuclear research, then why are they making bellicose comments like having a "nuclear surprise" and why defy of IAEA edicts and policies?
No one in any article I can find can conclusively state that Iran is enriching uranium soley for peaceful purposes. If they were enriching it soley for the purpose of energy, then why the veil of secrecy?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525931298&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Papa, certainly you are pulling my chain, you couldn't possibly be that obtuse.
I'm not pulling your chain at all...at least not on THIS. [}:)]
Nor am I being obtuse. It's just that I operate on the philosophy of "fool me once..." Bush lied to us about exactly this kind of thing so I don't take him at his word on ANYTHING.
quote:
Sorry I don't have that sort of security clearance, nor does anyone on this forum that I'm aware of.
Connecting the dots of what interpreters have been saying Iran's leader has been saying, he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map, they are working on nuclear research which has not only the U.S. worried, but the EU. They have been purposefully cagey about what their intentions are with their continuing research on uranium enrichment. If they are totally clean on their nuclear research, then why are they making bellicose comments like having a "nuclear surprise" and why defy of IAEA edicts and policies?
I don't recall hearing anything about a NUCLEAR surprise. Got a link? As far as the rhetoric of their "leader" I expect that a lot of that is meant for internal consumption. It makes him look good to his "constituency" to talk bold and tough to the U.S.
quote:
No one in any article I can find can conclusively state that Iran is enriching uranium soley for peaceful purposes. If they were enriching it soley for the purpose of energy, then why the veil of secrecy?
Are you kidding? Try going up to the front gate of any nuclear energy plant in the U.S. and tell 'em you wanna go in and look around.
quote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525931298&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm
I'll take a look at the links this evening.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Papa, certainly you are pulling my chain, you couldn't possibly be that obtuse.
I'm not pulling your chain at all...at least not on THIS. [}:)]
Nor am I being obtuse. It's just that I operate on the philosophy of "fool me once..." Bush lied to us about exactly this kind of thing so I don't take him at his word on ANYTHING.
quote:
Sorry I don't have that sort of security clearance, nor does anyone on this forum that I'm aware of.
Connecting the dots of what interpreters have been saying Iran's leader has been saying, he thinks Israel should be wiped off the map, they are working on nuclear research which has not only the U.S. worried, but the EU. They have been purposefully cagey about what their intentions are with their continuing research on uranium enrichment. If they are totally clean on their nuclear research, then why are they making bellicose comments like having a "nuclear surprise" and why defy of IAEA edicts and policies?
I don't recall hearing anything about a NUCLEAR surprise. Got a link? As far as the rhetoric of their "leader" I expect that a lot of that is meant for internal consumption. It makes him look good to his "constituency" to talk bold and tough to the U.S.
quote:
No one in any article I can find can conclusively state that Iran is enriching uranium soley for peaceful purposes. If they were enriching it soley for the purpose of energy, then why the veil of secrecy?
Are you kidding? Try going up to the front gate of any nuclear energy plant in the U.S. and tell 'em you wanna go in and look around.
quote:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525931298&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm
I'll take a look at the links this evening.
Granted, some of it is trying to look like a hard-donkey, there is a web site maintained primarily by Iranian students that speaks to that effect. I'm also not discounting that there has been concern in Iran of an Israeli attack using U.S. Nuclear weapons.
It's all in the links I've posted. However, we aren't talking about individuals randomly driving up to gates of nuclear plants to have a look-see.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/index.html
It is my understanding that all countries with nuclear capabilities are subject to IAEA regulations and inspections. Refusing to allow inspections is akin to refusing a cop with a valid search warrant into your house. If you have nothing to hide, why would you refuse a
legal search of your property?
Continuing to enrich uranium beyond limits necessary for "peaceful" purposes which are set forth (3.5% is considered energy grade, 90% weapons grade. Iran is now at 5% and planning to add more centrifuges which would give them capability for even higher amounts) is akin to violating a court order- that's oversimplifying, but I don't know another way to put it.
If you are having trouble falling asleep tonight, here's more interesting reading:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-53.pdf
The International Atomic Energy Agency is hardly a GWB mouthpiece and not partisan.
I'm just questioning, why, if Iran has totally peaceful intentions with Uranium enrichment, why are they being secretive about it.
We don't need to re-tread on Saddam Hussein's little shell game he had going on in Iraq with the UN for ten years.
Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. [:D]
I sent him an email and told him to take care of it. He apparently dropped the ball. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Of course, if we're worried about Iran having nukes, we shouldn't post documents on the Internet that help them.
[:(]
I knew I'd read this somewhere before, the "internet" thing has been around awhile, this is dated 1999:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ja99stober
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Oh and as far as the title of the topic, I wasn't aware that the President was sent to find the soldier. [:D]
I sent him an email and told him to take care of it. He apparently dropped the ball. [}:)]
Dropped the ball in Iraq? Surely you jest! [}:)]
Conan, rather than doing a point-by-point, I'll say a couple of things and then I'll address a couple of things that you said.
First off, I'm NOT saying that Iran ISN'T developing nuclear weapons. In fact, I think there's a pretty good chance that they are. But we've seen what kind of a mess you make when you go around invading other countries based on speculation.
And I forgot what the second thing I wanted to say was. The medication wears off this late in the day.
quote:
It is my understanding that all countries with nuclear capabilities are subject to IAEA regulations and inspections. Refusing to allow inspections is akin to refusing a cop with a valid search warrant into your house. If you have nothing to hide, why would you refuse a legal search of your property?
I think that there's a cultural factor that comes in here. Whether Iran is subject to inspection by the IAEC, I don't know and I'll tell ya up front that I haven't looked at your links yet. But I will. Now, if they're NOT subject to it (by virtue of not being a signatory to a treaty or somehow otherwise agreeing to abide by it) then it would be the same as a cop coming to your front door without a warrant and demanding to come inside and look around. If they ARE subject to it, it may be a matter of exerting their sovereignty. I remember the same argument being used against Saddam. If he had nothing to hide, why did he resist the inspections? Well, who knows? What we DO know now is that he had nothing to hide. Yet he resisted the inspections. Go figure. My reckoning is that they see the inspections as being a U.S. thing and they're tired of being bullied by the U.S.
quote:
Continuing to enrich uranium beyond limits necessary for "peaceful" purposes which are set forth (3.5% is considered energy grade, 90% weapons grade. Iran is now at 5% and planning to add more centrifuges which would give them capability for even higher amounts) is akin to violating a court order- that's oversimplifying, but I don't know another way to put it.
But how do we know that since they won't allow inspections? I think 3.5% is an acceptable level for some types of nuclear reactors but not high enough for other types.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Dropped the ball in Iraq? Surely you jest! [}:)]
As ALWAYS. [}:)]