Quagmire....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surasak

Link?

---

All you have to do is go to the thread about What book are you reading and check out the book I mentioned by David Gergen ...

Sorry, but I'm not a google warrior and I have little respect for people like you or stroller who think links find on google are gospel.

I base my posts on things I've read and formed my opinion from. If you don't like it ... I still sleep peacefully every night.

---

MARY MAPES.

Not MARLA MAPLES.

God, you can't even get your facts straight.

---

You know what we say, right ? Close enough for government work ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Stroller ... did you see that post from LOM to Boon Mee ?

---

He did, and he edited out the insult as a good mod should.
And I aint gonna whine about it :finger:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Stroller ... did you see that post from LOM to Boon Mee ?

---

He did, and he edited out the insult as a good mod should.
And I aint gonna whine about it :finger:

---

Oh, forgot to say :finger: right back atcha, buddy!:D

The fanatical Muslims despise America because it's all lap-dancing and gay porn; the Europgeeks despise America because it's all born-again Christians hung up on abortion; the anti-Semites despise America because it's controlled by Jews. All typical bullshit anti-American sentiment.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2006/11/35.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkman

1. Why is it considered treason to not support the Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr government in Iraq?

---

12 pages of rubbish later I had to bump this back up for you Milkman ... seems like alot of my fellow posters never got your real point of this question:

That it is al-Maliki and al-Sadr who are getting Iraqis killed ... NOT AMERICANS.

Read again, and apply logic and reason before interpreting others' comments. :rolleyes:

Better still, address the question... ;)

HEH :cool:

Oh gawd, not another right-wing blog, Booner.
Maybe I'll start quoting Indymedia just to balance it out a bit...

Here we are:
The US fascists are ready to take on Iran to divert attention from the killings and destruction they cause in Iraq, just in time before the elections:

Quote:

---

Protest Against Bush Attack on Iran at Norfolk Atlantic Fleet Naval Base

On Sunday 1 October 2006, about 20-30 activists showed up [HRIMC report] [CASMII report] at the Norfolk Naval Base protesting against the sending of an armada of professional mass murderers' ships, led by the USS Eisenhower, to the Persian Gulf in order to kill people in Iran. One sailor driving into and out of the base confirmed that her group of murderers was being sent to the Gulf. Ironically, Eisenhower was the US president involved in Operation Ajax which in 1953 overthrew the elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh.
...

---

Independent Media Center | www.indymedia.org | ((( i )))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

Ironically, Eisenhower was the US president involved in Operation Ajax which in 1953 overthrew the elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh.

---

Bullshit ... never happened that way. Mossadegh got thrown out because Iran Nationalized the oil industry and threw the British out ... and therefore had no oil revenue for the country. Ike tried to work with Mossadegh ... but he was eventually thrown out by one of his fellow generals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkman

1. Why is it considered treason to not support the Nuri Al-Maliki and Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr government in Iraq?

---

12 pages of rubbish later I had to bump this back up for you Milkman ... seems like alot of my fellow posters never got your real point of this question:

That it is al-Maliki and al-Sadr who are getting Iraqis killed ... NOT AMERICANS.

---

SK,

You still did NOT answer my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkman

SK,

You still did NOT answer my question.

---

It had no bearing on my statement.

Come on Benedict ... if the shoe fits then wear it. By celebrating the deaths of your fellow countrymen you are a traitor in my view. I'm not asking you to support al-Maliki. IMHO you have an obligation to your country. I believe you are capable of supporting an action, having prior knowledge, that would result in the death of your fellow Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

That it is al-Maliki and al-Sadr who are getting Iraqis killed ... NOT AMERICANS.

---

Because we all know it was al-Maliki and al-Sadr who overthrew the legitimate government of Iraq in 2003, thus, creating the current instability and lack of security for the Iraqi people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milkman

SK,

You still did NOT answer my question.

---

It had no bearing on my statement.

Come on Benedict ... if the shoe fits then wear it. By celebrating the deaths of your fellow countrymen you are a traitor in my view. I'm not asking you to support al-Maliki. IMHO you have an obligation to your country. I believe you are capable of supporting an action, having prior knowledge, that would result in the death of your fellow Americans.

---

I am not celebrating the deaths of anyone, sir. Since the U.S. is dropping napalm (Mark 77 bomb) on civilians in Iraq, I do believe and "eye for an eye" is justified at times.

I simply don't support the global conquest of the PNAC and the Neo-Cons.

BTW, they are losing. :D

Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office

Quote:

---

Investigations led by a Republican lawyer named Stuart W. Bowen Jr. in Iraq have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.

Christoph Bangert/Polaris, for The New York Times
Mr. Bowen’s office has inspected and audited taxpayer-financed projects like this prison in Nasiriya, Iraq.



And tucked away in a huge military authorization bill that President Bush signed two weeks ago is what some of Mr. Bowen’s supporters believe is his reward for repeatedly embarrassing the administration: a pink slip.

The order comes in the form of an obscure provision that terminates his federal oversight agency, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, on Oct. 1, 2007. The clause was inserted by the Republican side of the House Armed Services Committee over the objections of Democratic counterparts during a closed-door conference, and it has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.

Mr. Bowen’s office, which began operation in January 2004 to examine reconstruction money spent in Iraq, was always envisioned as a temporary organization, permitted to continue its work only as long as Congress saw fit. Some advocates for the office, in fact, have regarded its lack of a permanent bureaucracy as the key to its aggressiveness and independence.

But as the implications of the provision in the new bill have become clear, opposition has been building on both sides of the political aisle. One point of contention is exactly when the office would have naturally run its course without a hard end date.

The bipartisan opposition may not be unexpected given Mr. Bowen’s Republican credentials — he served under George W. Bush both in Texas and in the White House — and deep public skepticism on the Bush administration’s conduct of the war.

---

Link and Entire: Congress Tells Auditor in Iraq to Close Office - New York Times
--
More corruption.

The scary thing is that people vote on bills that they never read.

the patriot act for example.

How many of those advocating "torture" have any knowledge of the military procedures which have been in place already to interrogate suspects?

How many of those advocating torture would be willing to endure anything the government declares for weeks or months on end?

It gets better: in 1999 the government concluded that an invasion of Iraq would likely fail even with 400,000 troops AND:

Quote:

---

_"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

_"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

_" Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

_"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

_"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

_"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

---

1999 war games foresaw problems in Iraq - Yahoo! News

OOF.

Quote:

---

"For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who's going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire." ~Dick Cheney, 1991

---

YouTube - Dick Cheney's Very Own Classic Definition of a Quagmire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stroller

How many of those advocating "torture" have any knowledge of the military procedures which have been in place already to interrogate suspects?

---

And "Waterboarding" is not torture.
Just makes the perp a little uncomfortable is all...:cool:

Of course it's not torture when the US does it, but when others do it to US citizens, it becomes a war-crime - naturally.

As we thusly have prosecuted when others do it in the past. Ooops.

NEW YORK TIMES PROVES THAT BUSH WAS RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ

So, the New York Times reports on its front page today that Saddam Hussein had the necessary information and expertise to build nuclear weapons as far back as pre-1991, and that the information is so damning even now that posting it on a public website fifteen years later could assist other regimes, including Iran, in building such weapons.

The Times has just confirmed two things: 1. President Bush was right when he said that Hussein was a threat to the world because, among other things, he would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and 2. congressional Republicans were right in demanding a more aggressive and thorough effort by the Pentagon to interpret the enormous number of documents captured from the Iraqi regime.

The Times's emphasis on "Republicans" demanding the release of these documents and the administration's posting them on a public website was an obvious attempt by the newspaper to cause some kind of eleventh-hour Republican embarrassment. The Times had hoped the weekend before the election would be spent debating the handling of this information rather than its existence and substance. But it was wrong. This is a stunning find that confirms a primary basis for the president ordering the military to remove Hussein from power. This finding also strikes a blow to the Democrat mantra that the president lied to get us into the war with Iraq.

The Democrats and their partners in the liberal media demand to know what the president plans to do to stop Iran and North Korea from securing nuclear weapons. Yet, when he did, in fact, stop Iraq from getting those same weapons, he is loudly denounced for it.

Source