VICTORY in Iraq now in sight

[bush_cheney2004]

what kind of pathetic jerk is going to lay Afghanistan on someone without knowing that someone's position

None of this is a joke, except to those people MLK referred to as the sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid.

It's not all about you (or me)....I don't give a damn what your "position" is. Canada is supporting a military mission in Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO, with much "meatgrinding".

So who will you "impeach"? Or shall we just enjoy the pretzel logic with salt and mustard?

[Black Dog]

Shorter bc2004: "Neener neener neener."

Because, as everyone knows, everybody who oppossed the invasion of Iraq supported NATO's bombing camapign in the Balkans, the Iraq sanctions, the illegal no-fly zones, the bombing of Iraq under 42, the continued campaign in Afghanistan etc etc. Or maybe not. In any case, if some poster's rationale for oppossing Bush is not technically accurate, that does not neccessarily invalidate teh conclusions. Fallacious arguments can still lead to correct conclusions.

But let's get beyond all that: what's your solution?

[Guthrie]

what kind of pathetic jerk is going to lay Afghanistan on someone without knowing that someone's position

None of this is a joke, except to those people MLK referred to as the sincerely ignorant and conscientiously stupid.

It's not all about you (or me)....I don't give a damn what your "position" is. Canada is supporting a military mission in Afghanistan under the auspices of NATO, with much "meatgrinding".

So who will you "impeach"? Or shall we just enjoy the pretzel logic with salt and mustard?

and now you contradict yourself --- pathetic

[bush_cheney2004]

Shorter bc2004: "Neener neener neener."

Because, as everyone knows, everybody who oppossed the invasion of Iraq supported NATO's bombing camapign in the Balkans, the Iraq sanctions, the illegal no-fly zones, the bombing of Iraq under 42, the continued campaign in Afghanistan etc etc. Or maybe not. In any case, if some poster's rationale for oppossing Bush is not technically accurate, that does not neccessarily invalidate teh conclusions. Fallacious arguments can still lead to correct conclusions.

But let's get beyond all that: what's your solution?

We already have the "solution" by default....the continued and acceptable level of misery for the sake of selfish interests, whether that be Canadians raining American made GBUs on Serbs for the sake of human rights or Americans raining GBUs on Iraqis for WMD or regional control of crude oil and geopolitics. It has been the messy but preferred solution for many years. Peace at any cost rarely achieves such an objective.

Opposing Bush is not only short term, it is also short sighted. I suspect that some detractors would change their tune a bit had Sunni and Shiite shared a Coke and a smile after the invasion in March 2003. So perhaps the WMD pretext for war (also employed by President Clinton) is less the issue. Such bleeding hearts squirmed equally when there was no military intervention in Rwanda. A picky bunch are these peaceniks.

But I do appreciate your understanding of my logical "position" wrt technicalities and consistency, even as you reject any such notions for the validation of present American foreign policy.

[Black Dog]

We already have the "solution" by default....the continued and acceptable level of misery for the sake of selfish interests, whether that be Canadians raining American made GBUs on Serbs for the sake of human rights or Americans raining GBUs on Iraqis for WMD or regional control of crude oil and geopolitics. It has been the messy but preferred solution for many years. Peace at any cost rarely achieves such an objective.

Well I have to at least tip my hat to your honesty. You're still a monster. I will say, too, the fact you neglected to ask what the question is shows the depth, or lack thereof, of your thinking. Bravo for saying nothing at all.

Opposing Bush is not only short term, but it is also short sighted.

Do tell.

I suspect that some detractors would change their tune a bit had Sunni and Shiite shared a Coke and a smile after the invasion in March 2003.

Since that was never a great possibility, your "observation" is moot.

To perhaps the WMD pretext for war (also employed by President Clinton) is less the issue. Such bleeding hearts squirmed equally when there was no military intervention in Rwanda. A picky bunch are these peaceniks.

I think many would argue that the moral course depends on the situation in question. Or, more simply, that the examples of Iraq and Rwanda are apples and oranges. There's nothing incosistent or illogical about supporting military intervention in some contexts but not others.

But I do appreciate your understanding of my logical "position" wrt technicalities and consistency, even as you reject any such notions for the validation of present American foreign policy.

See above. Your observations, such as they are, are facile.

[bush_cheney2004]

I think many would argue that the moral course depends on the situation in question. Or, more simply, that the examples of Iraq and Rwanda are apples and oranges. There's nothing incosistent or illogical about supporting military intervention in some contexts but not others.

Of course, that is the rub, isn't it? Such a delicious dilemma is this Iraq thingy going back to 1991, with enough twists and turns to upset the staunchest "human rights" wonk all the way to oil barons. Accordingly, we do support (or not support) military intervention in accordance with personal judgement and context. To the dead, however, it matters not that they died from blue bombs or red bombs. To those who are smug in their inconsistent consistency (i.e. Rwanda).....salute!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear bush_cheney2004,

To those who are smug in their inconsistent consistency (i.e. Rwanda).....salute!

Indeed, the Rwandan genocide was a shame (though you may view death as irrelevant unless it is your own, but then again, why would one care!), and though Canada was one of the few that tried to make a difference, I was disappointed at their lack of producing results. However, it leads me to a question for you. Evidently, some one in the US chain of command, when asked why no US troops were sent to Rwanda, replied that an 'informal cost analysis' was done. It was determined that some 80,000+ Rwandans would have to die before it was 'worth' the life of 1 US soldier.

So, the question is, what is the formula you use?

I suppose another parallel you might consider is that from a strictly amoral standpoint, Hitler's attempted eradication of the Jews was folly only insofar as he lost some great scientific minds, and could have developed the atomic bomb first, and won his war. Do you view the 'Holocaust' as merely an economic mistake?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, the question is, what is the formula you use?

I suppose another parallel you might consider is that from a strictly amoral standpoint, Hitler's attempted eradication of the Jews was folly only insofar as he lost some great scientific minds, and could have developed the atomic bomb first, and won his war. Do you view the 'Holocaust' as merely an economic mistake?

Firstly, I am sure that many Canadians would agree that the best domestic effort was not made for Rwanda, starting with General Dallaire. Perhaps his anger and depression was compounded by fact that Clinton and Blair did find the resources to bomb and strangle Iraq, and not without Canada's assistance (sanction enforcement). Similar resources were also available to bomb Serbs for 79 days in 1999.

WRT Hitler, his "erradication" campaign was not limited to Jews. His most brutal of policies was similar to concentration camp efforts in the USA and Canada (e.g. Ukrainians, Japanese, Citizens), save for degree and intended genocide. Economics can drive governments to do grave things, from slavery to conquest of indigenous people to nuclear war. It is fundamentally amoral.

Which formula do I use? The one that represents the locus of the past, present, and future.

[blackascoal]

I don't spend much time arguing with the right-wing. What's the point? They are a disaster and America now clearly recognizes that. Even republicans are jumping ship like rats. They have been a complete and total failure on every level.

They say mindless shit like "George W. Bush didn't start the Iraq War, but he may damn well finish it."

Just mindless. The world knows who started this war and there isn't a chance in hell that Bush will finish it.

Think the American people blame Clinton for the failure of Iraq? .. SEE: 2006 elections.

The point of this thread was to expose the backdoor oil deal that the Bush Administration went to war to get. Nearly half a trillion dollars, thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis .. to rape Iraq of its resources. It demonstrates that 9/11, WMD, "terrorism", or suppression of the Iraqis had nothing to do with this mass-murder.

As soon as the US gets kicked the fuck up out of Iraq, the Iraqi people will never allow this robbery to stand. It doesn't matter what the puppet government agrees to, the Iraqi people and the Iranian leaders .. who are the real beneficiaries of this disaster .. will never accept and will wipe their asses with the paper these contracts are written on.

Iran will then not only be in control of their own oil resources, but will have a big hand in the oil resources of Iraq.

The war on Iraq was a plan devised by idiots and in spite of the comments by the forever-delluded, the American people have had enough of the ignorance of the right-wing.

Why argue with them?

What's the point?

They have failed at everything.

[bush_cheney2004]

As soon as the US gets kicked the fuck up out of Iraq, the Iraqi people will never allow this robbery to stand. It doesn't matter what the puppet government agrees to, the Iraqi people and the Iranian leaders .. who are the real beneficiaries of this disaster .. will never accept and will wipe their asses with the paper these contracts are written on.

Money talks...your bullshit walks.

These are not Canival cruise ships:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Qaiq.jpg/800px-

http://supertankers.topcities.com/17a20160.jpg

[blackascoal]

The point of this thread was to expose the backdoor oil deal that the Bush Administration went to war to get. Nearly half a trillion dollars, thousands of US troops dead, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed, and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis .. to rape Iraq of its resources. It demonstrates that 9/11, WMD, "terrorism", or suppression of the Iraqis had nothing to do with this mass-murder.

Money talks...your bullshit walks.

These are not Canival cruise ships:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Qaiq.jpg/800px-

http://supertankers.topcities.com/17a20160.jpg

"Bush-Cheney" ..

Now there's a combination that's real popular

What was that shit you said .."bullshit walks".

Do you mean like the parade of knuckledragging republicans that were pushed out the political door in 2006 .. directly due to the stupidity of the brainless twins you celebrate?

Or did you mean the parade of republicans .. that are left .. that are walking off the Bush plantation on Iraq and his "surge" of more IED fodder?

Perhaps you should go play with someone else dude because I'll be more than happy to pont out the abject and absolute failures of the knucklehead twins .. knowing that you don't have a response that rises above the 8th grade level.

Save your links dude .. I don't read that bullshit.

Not sure why others here argue with the mindless shit you post .. but I ain't (eb) the one.

Bush_Cheney ..

[bush_cheney2004]

Save your links dude .. I don't read that bullshit.

Not sure why others here argue with the mindless shit you post .. but I ain't (eb) the one.

Bush_Cheney ..

But you already have.....the links are photos of VLCC/ULCC.....no reading required (made it easy for you).

The Republicans don't feel nearly as bad as the Democrats did in 2002 when handed their ass. The US will survive either trend, as it has in the past.

Start walkin'

[blackascoal]

Save your links dude .. I don't read that bullshit.

Not sure why others here argue with the mindless shit you post .. but I ain't (eb) the one.

Bush_Cheney ..

But you already have.....the links are photos of VLCC/ULCC.....no reading required (made it easy for you).

The Republicans don't feel nearly as bad as the Democrats did in 2002 when handed their ass. The US will survive either trend, as it has in the past.

Start walkin'

NOPE .. your comments are far too dumb to argue with .. play with sometimes, mock sometimes, but never to be taken seriously. Additionally, you don't seem capable of answering questions .. knew that when you ran the fuck away and offered a "public law" as an answer to questions never asked.

There is no question that America will survive. In fact, things are looker much better even now as I watch the right-wing squirm and the world mock the idiocy of the Bush_Cheney Administration.

Oh, hell yes, we will survive and become a better nation now that the prowar .. as long as someone else does the dying .. politicians on both sides of the political aisle run for their political lives.

The sun seems brighter these days knowing that your Idiot-in-Chief has little to no support for anything he does .. knowing that he has the lowest support of any president in American history .. and the Dark Overlord of a vice-president carries about an 8% approval rating.

Now, did I argue with you, take you seriously, or did I just have fun mocking you?

[bush_cheney2004]

NOPE .. your comments are far too dumb to argue with .. play with sometimes, mock sometimes, but never to be taken seriously. Additionally, you don't seem capable of answering questions .. knew that when you ran the fuck away and offered a "public law" as an answer to questions never asked...

As they say....ignorance is no excuse....you didn't even know the damn law existed....years before Bush's term ever began. LOL!

Another lift today at Basra Terminal....keep walking.

[Guthrie]

and you don't seem to know the, 'law,' doesn't authorize any of the Buschistas transgressions in Iraq

[blackascoal]

and you don't seem to know the, 'law,' doesn't authorize any of the Buschistas transgressions in Iraq

No he doesn't and the question I asked him was what "public law" authorized that.

[bush_cheney2004]

and you don't seem to know the, 'law,' doesn't authorize any of the Buschistas transgressions in Iraq

Wrong...I stated as much in the original post. Still, it didn't seem to deter President Clinton either (Desert Fox). Impeach him again for that!

[stignasty]

Wrong...I stated as much in the original post. Still, it didn't seem to deter President Clinton either (Desert Fox). Impeach him again for that!

As always, Clinton is the straw that Bush supporters grasp for when all else fails.

[blackascoal]

Wrong...I stated as much in the original post. Still, it didn't seem to deter President Clinton either (Desert Fox). Impeach him again for that!

As always, Clinton is the straw that Bush supporters grasp for when all else fails.

Correct .. and without a doubt .. all else has indeed failed.

[frogs]

Wrong...I stated as much in the original post. Still, it didn't seem to deter President Clinton either (Desert Fox). Impeach him again for that!

Actually, if we leave all the soldiers over in Iraq indefinitely, then they wouldn't be here! So that's probly the second best scenario. But we should get Clinton back in office because at least he did something worthwhile. (BJ!). He should be proud of that, at a minimum. Although, truth be told, Monica was pretty skanky lookin. He coulda done a lot better.

[margrace]

denial of conspiracies is strong on here, wasn't Monica in the pay of the republicans.

[frogs]

"By the way: does anyone calling for impeachment actually know what that entails?"

~~~~~~~~~~

Monica knows!!!

[Guthrie]

I remember watching the Nixon impeachment hearings on tv

then there was the railroading of Clinton

I guess everyone has some idea of what it entails