Comments on: Bush Plan Meets With Global Skepticism

Allies Welcome Troop Increase; Many Iraqis, Others Feel Influx Will Only Increase Violence

[kokopelli872]

I have not yet had the chance to study Strategy and Tactics yet, however I intend to attend VMI next year, then perhaps I will have more of a say in these matters. However, I do spend a lot of time researching the History of the Region, and I think if we did pull out, Iraq could turn into a Regional Conflict. In my opinion, the best way to make things better over in Iraq is to separate it into Three separate states with shared oil revenue. The President however did not approve of such a movement. That is idealistic however, because the Kurds and Shiite wouldn't be very happy about sharing oil revenue with neighboring Sunni state. I do not support the President and his Neo-Con posse, but I do not support the idea of failure in Iraq either.

[exusmcsgt]

"I do approve of the Presidents plan. Retreating is simply not an option."

Posted by kokopelli872 at 06:58 PM

kokopelli872-

If you spent any time at all studying strategy and tactics you would realize that, under this scenario, victory is not an option.

[lieberman18]

nyckate,

Antonio has more brains and more guts than a pathetic ranting bimbo like you would ever have in three lifetimes.

Have you yelled at Hillary lately? Of course not. Too clueless to do so. Go play with the rest of the Fascist clowns, and be a hypocrite about 9/11.

[lieberman18]

The last poster is the typical kind of clown who has never read a history book, nor understood how the world operates. Oh, its Bush the Coward, NOT Clinton the Pervert, the Draft Dodger, the Liar Under Oath. It's not about character, its about being hedonistic and being stupid.

Oh get this one. Under Clinton no one died. No one that is, except scores of South Sudanese slaughtered, slaved, and starved by Islamofascists. No one but those black people in Rwanda - Memo to Steppin' Fetchits Obama and Keith Ellison...where were you two little boys back then? Hanging out with your new brother, KKK Byrd? - No one except the 2000 Serbian men, women and children buried under a carpet of American high explosive courtesy of the draft dodging pervert.

And...over a dozen Americans at the First WTC bombing; the men in the Khobar Towers, the embassy personnel and innocent Africans at the bombed embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and lastly the men of the U.S.S. Cole.

But Clinton was too busy with Monica sucking the cigars to deal with terrorism. Oh, but we must'nt offended Yasser. Wouldn't be prudent.

Care to deal with those facts, Neo-Fat coward and liar? There's much more but you're too stupid to get it. Just another clown...

[kokopelli872]

Sorry all, I did not intend to publish that twice.

[kokopelli872]

I just want to clear some things up for some people. I read some posts that stated "bush never lied" and "congress has to approve of the war". First things first, I should bring it to everyone's attention that were not officially at "War". The President never officially declared War, and nor did Congress approve of a "War". The situation in Iraq is described as a "Conflict". The President himself refers to it as a "Conflict", not a "War". To fully understand the conflict, you have to realize the steps that led up to the invasion. The United Nations sent in inspectors to search for the WMD Saddam was allegedly in possession of, allegations made by none other than the President and his Neo-Con advisers. We pulled them out and said Iraq wasn't complying with us. Next when Iraq asked for the weapons inspectors to come back in, we invaded. This may lead one, such as myself, to think that there were no WMD in Iraq in the first place, and those certain individuals in the Oval Office, really didn't want the American people to know that. Lastly, Congress never approved of a war. They gave the President the approval to use Military force if, and only if, Iraq posed a threat to the United States. (Not United States Interests, foreign and domestic.) Ergo, we are involved in an illegal war that has only gone downhill. However, I do trust the new Defense Secretary and I do approve of the Presidents plan. Retreating is simply not an option.

[kokopelli872]

I just want to clear some things up for some people. I read some posts that stated "bush never lied" and "congress has to approve of the war". First things first, I should bring it to everyone's attention that were not officially at "War". The President never officially declared War, and nor did Congress approve of a "War". The situation in Iraq is described as a "Conflict". The President himself refers to it as a "Conflict", not a "War". To fully understand the conflict, you have to realize the steps that led up to the invasion. The United Nations sent in inspectors to search for the WMD Saddam was allegedly in possession of, allegations made by none other than the President and his Neo-Con advisers. We pulled them out and said Iraq wasn't complying with us. Next when Iraq asked for the weapons inspectors to come back in, we invaded. This may lead one, such as myself, to think that there were no WMD in Iraq in the first place, and those certain individuals in the Oval Office, really didn't want the American people to know that. Lastly, Congress never approved of a war. They gave the President the approval to use Military force if, and only if, Iraq posed a threat to the United States. (Not United States Interests, foreign and domestic.) Ergo, we are involved in an illegal war that has only gone downhill. However, I do trust the new Defense Secretary and I do approve of the Presidents plan. Retreating is simply not an option.

[defirststate]

antoniorego is 100% correct. Bush and his devout followers will certainly be remembered in history. Hitler with his brownshirts, Lenin and Stalin are not likely to be forgotten. Bush's name will take its rightful place in history along with them, in whose footsteps he's attempting to follow.

Wait until the wheels of justice turn toward conspirator-in-chief if you want to see someone do everytnig possible to get off. You can bet that he'll want to have every single one of the protections to his liberty that he's tried to take away from others. His new lawyer is familiar with protecting presidents, but defending a traitor might be a new experience for him. When you choose to compare Clinton's lie with your deceiver-in-chief, you might want to recall that Clinton lied about his $ex life, Bush has lied consistently, besides when Clinton lied nobody died. If you think you can say that about your hero, you're as delusional as he.

Much like your hero the coward-in-chief, you seem not to be actually fighting and choose to pursue your warmongering at risk to life and limb only if it's somebody else's life and limb being risked. It it also worth noting that using the caps lock makes your argument no more effective than does shouting in a debate. The weaker the point the louder its delivery, or the more caps.

[exusmcsgt]

"Iraqis have been talking about nothing else all day, and most of the people we've spoken to say they do not want more U.S. troops here. They don't believe this is going to help."

Our generals believe the surge will not help.

The American public believes that the surge will not help.

Who does? Bubba.

[nyckate]

antoniorego - you can continue to ignore polls - but the elections of 2006 here in US were real proof that Bush has lost confidence of the American people and that includes about half who had originally voted for him in 2004. That's not the fault of CBS or any other large corporate owned news media - its the fault of Bush the eternal failure. Problem is that you know that Bush bought large tracts of media time to fool ya'll - and you bought into it the same way you buy your beer nuts and ice cream and toilet paper.

[nyckate]

antoniorego - the empty spaces in your post indicate that you know you have nothing of value to say and simply take up space.

Bush has our troops in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII - and he's failed at every single turn - and the dishonesty of his speech, the sanitized version of Iraq show that he has no ability to succeed. Whcih is why over 70% of Americans have no confidence in him as well as much of the world. Whenhe has proven himself worthy and not a failure is when he will have the confidence of the nation. Till then you and he have a spot in history - as complete failures.

[meboard]

I aggree...

[clestes-2009]

Dubya is going to end up in the very situation he is trying to prevent. He claims we cannot retreat because that will enable the "terrorist" to move in.

What the hell does he think is going to happen when this last surge fails and the US is finally kicked out of Iraq. Does he think that the terrorist won't gain a foothold in the continueing chaos?

You're living in a dream world, dubya. No matter how you slice or dice it, we have already lost in Iraq. The additional troops won't bring stability to Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country. It will bring more dead US troops and spend a few hundred billion more dollars.

Your legacy is lost in the violent morass of Iraq, which you and your neocon advisors started!

[southpaw65]

By the way, setting off your posts with empty space to make them more noticeable only highlights the lack of intelligent content.
Posted by jimibear at 01:19 PM : Jan 11, 2007

The empty space in his post may have come out of his head that way....

[jimibear]

jairod, I don't think you and I are communicating clearly. I agree with you that Bush lied about the WMDs. I fully agree he should be impeached. Why are you now telling me to "get a grip"?

[jimibear]

Hey antoniorego - why don't you and the rest of your Bushie pals actually consider this:

The media is not biased against Bush. When they report anti-Bush sentiment, it's because everyone with any brains hates the guy. over 70% of the people in this country disapprove of the way he has handled Iraq, and it doesn't surprise me that in other countries, where they haven't been subjected to the Rove Propaganda Machine to such an extent, the figure is even higher.

You can't report support which doesn't exist. THAT would be biased.

The media not saying what you want to hear doesn't mean they are biased. It means you are out of touch with reality. Saying, "They don't report the support for Bush! They are biased!" is simply denial.

By the way, setting off your posts with empty space to make them more noticeable only highlights the lack of intelligent content.

[jairod]

jimibear, get a grip

[jimibear]

Jairod, I think you misunderstood my post. I in no way meant to imply that there were WMDs in Iraq.

I am familiar with what impeachment means. Yes, Bush should be impeached. After the impeachment investigations, it is to be hoped he will be removed from office, and he should then face criminal charges due to his lies to Congress.

[jimibear]

(cont.) Nero also famously fiddled while Rome burned. Many historians think that he also was reponsible for torching the city to give his people something other than rebellion to think about.

How much further back should I go? Do yo uwant me to talk about Caveman Chief Og telling his tribe-mates, "Must kill Bok-Bak. Him steal mammoth bones from cave" when in fact he didn't? That might be an example you are just about equipped to understand.

[jimibear]

jackmaggots, you would have done much better not to respond, as you performed the almost impossible feat of making yourself look more stupid than you already did.

Southpaw addressed your misunderstanding of a common platitude at least as well I might have. Let me just address your inept attempt at implying that I am short-sighted in my view of history.

From what did you get the idea that I was limiting myself to the history of the last 30 years? It is startling that you could get that out of my statement that corrupt despots throughout history have lied to their people to get them to go to war.

Try these two for starters, and Google can be your friend:

The War of Jenkins' Ear

Remember the Main

Those are just a couple. For something more recent, I might mention the plan, nixed by Kennedy so pre-Carter and recently arisen in de-classified documents, to fake an attack on Guantanemo Bay Naval Base and kill a bunch of US servicepeople so that we would have an excuse to invade Cuba. That was signed off on by top intel and military brass until JFK, to his lasting credit, told them to pi$$ up a rope.