Geo W live

[Evil Chris]

Will it be the same old rhetoric?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bus...q.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bush.iraq.ap/index.html)

...

[Bhelliom]

He's gotta do something new... people are starting to catch on... he's either going to pull out soon or send more troops over... my money is on the second one

[Red]

He's going to use the same scare tactics that he's been using to rationalize not leaving.

"Tapping into Americans emotions over terrorists attacks in the United States, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush will talk about insurgents killing innocent people and how stopping the violence "will be a major blow to the ambitions of the terrorists."

"This is a time of testing," McClellan said. "It is a critical moment in Iraq. The terrorists are seeking to shake our will and weaken our resolve. They know that they cannot win unless we abandon the mission before it is complete."

[DrGuile]

What Iraq terrorists?

[Anthony]

We are at the beginning of many "Resource Wars".

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I worry about my children.

[TheEnforcer]

Which line of thinking will GW take here tonight in regards to Iraq and the insurgency that we've heard the admin use in the past week or so... Will he be optimisitc and follow Dick "last throes" Cheney or will he be worried and follow the words of Donald "12 years" Rumsfeld.

[Bhelliom]

He'll say its going to end soon while at the same time ask for more troops and the draft

[Rolo]

Yes, lets blame Bush - its all Bush fault... if the US had not invaded Iraq, then it would still have been one of the most beautiful, peaceful, enlightened, and free places in the univers. The iraqis are the most tried people in human history - no other people have ever in our history been thru so many difficulties, problems and setbacks! Of all wars in the last 100 years, this have been the most horrific of them all - in both numbers and cruelty!!!

If the beloved Sadam was still in power, then there would atleast be enough power to do proper electric torture on the people, and not those inhuman human pyramids!!! There would also be stability in the region, since no one would dare to lift a finger, or risk a chemical attack.

The freedom fighters have to cut of the heads of civilians, because there are no other way - it says so in the Koran. The americans are showing their disrespect for the Koran by not cutting of the heads of civilians. Islam is the religion of peace - if you do not belive this slogan, then you will go to hell!!!!




yes, this was irony ;-))

[PornoDoggy]

Bush has nobody to blame for this but himself. They had no plan at all for how to handle Iraq after the war. Maybe they believed all the flatulence they were passing about parades in the street. Maybe their true concerns were revealed when the first building defended in Baghdad was the Oil Ministry. Whichever the case, as many have been screaming since the beginning, there were not enough boots on the ground to properly occupy Iraq. The resulting anarchy lead to a domestic insurgency that operates with, or along side, a foreign element (which I believe is greatly exagerated).

I think it is safe to say that Iraq would not be a trining ground for al Quaida et al if Saddam were still in power. I suspect that the troops now in Iraq could do a much better job working the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, not to mention the other huge areas of Afghanistan that are only remotely under central control.

[Evil Chris]

You read well PD. I'd add however that I do believe that everything that has happend in Iraq over the past couple of years have gone precisely to plan. A longer, drawn out conflict (and subsequent cleanup) is much more profitable than a swift Desert Shield/Storm "war". Casualties are not only expected, they are guaranteed throughout. Thus making the American economy more important than the lives of it's servicemembers.

[PornoDoggy]

I don't agree with you on this part, Chris. I don't think they were at all prepared for what they encountered in Iraq. I really think these fools were niave enough to believe that we'd be greeted as liberators, the religious/ethnic divisions would all just disappear, and we'd be in place to roll on into Damascus.

Any responsible postwar analysis of this clusterfuck will result in a larger military - and not just the fighting forces. I suspect there has been more waste, fraud, and outright graft in this war since WWI, or the early (pre-Truman commission) years of WWII. There is simply far too much outsourcing going on, and it's got to be costing more than if the services had the assets to do the work themselves.

The other thing that damned well better come under an electron microscope are the plethora of private "security" companies. I suspect they've caused more damage than they have done good, and in more places than just Falujeah.

[Dravyk]

Rumsfeld also told an interviewer this month that Iraq is "statistically" no safer today than it was before the ouster of Saddam Hussein, although he maintains progress is being made.

[JR]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jun 28 2005, 06:36 AM
Will it be the same old rhetoric?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bus...q.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/28/bush.iraq.ap/index.html)

...
Chris. Its usually "the same old rhetoric" that works best.

"the people are stupid and if you just repeat the same slogans to them over and over, they'll believe them."

Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf

not comparing Bush to Hitler - but i think the statement is very true. People seem to get most upset when you change your position.

[PornoDoggy]

I do intend to watch the speech. I'm curious as to this feeling of deja vu will continue wants he starts talking.

I have a feeling that I've seen LBJ and Richard No Dick Nixon give this speech before. Stay the course ... we are winning ... if you don't agree with me you are commie pinko hippie faggot ... pay no attention to those flag-draped coffins behind the curtain ...

[Evil Chris]

Well whatever is said, I won't be watching. I have more important stuff to do tonight... like my Tuesday night baseball game. (old timers league!) B)

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 28 2005, 03:08 PM
I do intend to watch the speech. I'm curious as to this feeling of deja vu will continue wants he starts talking.

I have a feeling that I've seen LBJ and Richard No Dick Nixon give this speech before. Stay the course ... we are winning ... if you don't agree with me you are commie pinko hippie faggot ... pay no attention to those flag-draped coffins behind the curtain ...
"Hey hey, LBJ. How many kids you kill today?"

[PornoDoggy]

If Bush had the military that LBJ did, there wouldn't be nearly the outcry.

You don't have ten people from the same town in the same unit, or 60 people from a rural region, off to war at the same time until you start calling up the reserves.

Of course, if GW had the draft that Nixon did at the end, we never would have had a war. Not nearly enough white-bread exemptions built into it - it would have stricken fear into the hearts of soccer moms everywhere.

There aren't many direct comparisson between 'Nam and Iraq as far as the tactical situation on the ground. We are facing nothing like the NVA here, and so far the terrorists have nothing like the organization of the VC. The comparisson (and the problem) comes into the large areas of the country left effectively lawless for a long period of time. Huge caches of arms left unattended and freely looted made the insurgency's lack of an arms dispenser (China, Soviet Union, et al) moot.

Iraq = clusterfuck

Vietnam - clusterfuck of galactic proportions

[Rolo]

Its still winnable - there is political progress in Iraq with a new constitution in August/September, but ofcourse there is no guarantee that it will get broad support. However every time a new major political turn point is there, then its possible to make compromises, which played correctly, will divide the opposition into smaller and smaller groups - its call democracy, and its seldom pretty in the beginning (just think of the wars and revolutions we have seen in the western world).

Yes, Bush missed alot of things when dealing with Iraq after the war, however the recent change in tone might be the start of a more flexible strategy. Bush will be in Europe next week for the G-8 meeting, and later that week he will visit and have talks with some of the european allies who have trops in Iraq....

[JR]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 28 2005, 03:15 PM
Its still winnable - there is political progress in Iraq with a new constitution in August/September, but ofcourse there is no guarantee that it will get broad support. However every time a new major political turn point is there, then its possible to make compromises, which played correctly, will divide the opposition into smaller and smaller groups - its call democracy, and its seldom pretty in the beginning (just think of the wars and revolutions we have seen in the western world).

Yes, Bush missed alot of things when dealing with Iraq after the war, however the recent change in tone might be the start of a more flexible strategy. Bush will be in Europe next week for the G-8 meeting, and later that week he will visit and have talks with some of the european allies who have trops in Iraq....
i do not believe this anymore. different region, different mentality. 3 major ethnic groups all support a state as long as its dominated by their group. they are obviously ready to fight and die for this.

Iraq will survive only with the creation of a brutal, secret police and police state imho. one that snatches suspected terrorists out of their beds at night and shoots them behind the same house. one thing i learned in Russia is that it can take many decades to change the mentality of a people that was shaped over only many decades.
iraqi's want "freedom" but their version of "freedom" is defined by which ethnic group is in charge... not by the existence or non-existence of a peice of paper declaring certain freedoms to exist.

Saddam will can only be replaced by another Saddam.

i believe its possible this conflict that will not end in my lifetime.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jun 28 2005, 06:15 PM
Its still winnable - there is political progress in Iraq with a new constitution in August/September, but ofcourse there is no guarantee that it will get broad support. However every time a new major political turn point is there, then its possible to make compromises, which played correctly, will divide the opposition into smaller and smaller groups - its call democracy, and its seldom pretty in the beginning (just think of the wars and revolutions we have seen in the western world).

Yes, Bush missed alot of things when dealing with Iraq after the war, however the recent change in tone might be the start of a more flexible strategy. Bush will be in Europe next week for the G-8 meeting, and later that week he will visit and have talks with some of the european allies who have trops in Iraq....
Seems to me that somebody needs tuning up - Cheney and Rummy are playing the same song in very different keys right now. Maybe you can be Mr. Mary Sunshine and read hope into the recent change of tone - me, I think they've struck more cords than a third-rate drunken jazz pianist on heroin trying to improvise.

The major difference between Yugoslavia ten-twelve years ago and Iraq today that I see is that the ethnic tensions in Yugoslavia were simmering under the surface, whereas in Iraq they are very close to blowing up in the streets (if they aren't already).

The structures we are attempting to build in Iraq today won't be strong enough to withstand a serious attack on it without our physical presence for one hell of a lot longer than the American people are going to be willing to committ.

One of the reasons for that is the constantly changing tone. They've put out more fucking reasons for this war than Johnson and Nixon combined did for the Vietnam war. You can fool some of 'em some of the time, but you can't fool all of 'em this fucking long.

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by JR@Jun 28 2005, 06:47 PM
i do not believe this anymore. different region, different mentality. 3 major ethnic groups all support a state as long as its dominated by their group. they are obviously ready to fight and die for this.
It's ironic that America is always a target, as it's the British and French and others who screwed up the Middle East (and long ago before America was involved.) Talking about the time of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, Britian in Eqypt, Lawrence of Arabia, and all the things of that time with the colonialism.

Basically, Britian, France and others pre-WWII carved up the mid east the way they wanted. One of the thngs was Iraq.

"But you can't put Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis together in one country" they tried to explain to the colonial empires.

Natch, the west (in this case Western Europe) ignored it, either because the west did not understand, or because they thought it would be "fun to keep the three of them together fighting as nothing would ever come of them." Who knows which is the reason.

And they did that all along the mid east. Now I'm not saying Islamic fundamentalism isn't a problem. Nor that this is the only problem. But the whole, "let's draw a circle here, group a bunch tribes together that hate each other together, and call it a country" crap, is a legacy that we see today causing everyone problems.

[JR]

I think you CAN do it Dravyk. You can do it quite successfully. All you need is a a police state, a massive secret police force, kidnappings, torture rooms, rape rooms, public executions, public political executions, gas some entire villages, strafe crowds of protesters with helicopter gunships, a few occasional genocides and so on. It was a formula that worked quite well and kept the peace.

[PornoDoggy]

blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11, and most of all blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11!! 9/11!! 9/11!! 9/11!!!

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 28 2005, 10:09 PM
blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11, and most of all blah blah blah blah blah blah 9/11!! 9/11!! 9/11!! 9/11!!!
awesome cliffnotes PD! :salute:

[Vick]

Hmmm Chris please keep us updated on what Canadians do :P ah ha ha ha ha

[ThrobX]

Same shit, different... er, wait, not really anything different at all. What a shocker. :zzz:

[PornoDoggy]

I was right ... I have seen that speech before.

The background was classic Johnson after about 1966 - when he became afraid to leave the White House and 75% or more of his speeches were in front of military audiences.

The speech itself, though ... it couldn't have been more Nixon if it had included a reference to a fucking cloth coat and a little dog too. "We're turning over the war to the Iraqanese, we've integrated Americans into some of their units, their troops are fighting well along side ours, and there is light at the end of the tunnel."

"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" is a very clever phrase - but really, in this sound-byte era, it's too long. I'd suggest something shorter - perhaps "Iraqiazation."

As usual, Rev. Bush invoked the "immorality" of the insurgents and terrorists (while not distinguishing between them), as well as invoking the immorality of the Saddam regime. All of that is true - the insurgents, the terrorists, and the Saddamites have done and continue to do unspeakable things.

That's a dangerous card for him to play, however. Just exactly how moral is it to deliberately expose the Iraqi people to the current conflict? Depending on who you listen to, some sections of the Iraqi infrastructure (medicine, power generation, etc) are almost back to pre-war levels. Yes, Saddam's secret police struck fear into the Iraqis before we invaded, but multiple car bombs didn't go off on a daily basis in multiple places all across Iraq. You need to be careful playing the morality card when you are tap-dancing through the minefield of invoking 9/11 without admitting that the only reason al Quaida and the terrorists are operating in Iraq is because we let them in.

Deja-fucking-vu all over again. The quickest way to end this war is to reinstate a fair and equitable (i.e., no deferments, no jumping to the Guard and Reserves for fortunate ones and senator's sons) draft - because his base would crumble after that. Somewhere around here I still have my "Pigasus for President" button ...

[Jeremy]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 28 2005, 05:36 PM
It's ironic that America is always a target, as it's the British and French and others who screwed up the Middle East (and long ago before America was involved.) Talking about the time of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, Britian in Eqypt, Lawrence of Arabia, and all the things of that time with the colonialism.

Basically, Britian, France and others pre-WWII carved up the mid east the way they wanted. One of the thngs was Iraq.

"But you can't put Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis together in one country" they tried to explain to the colonial empires.

Natch, the west (in this case Western Europe) ignored it, either because the west did not understand, or because they thought it would be "fun to keep the three of them together fighting as nothing would ever come of them." Who knows which is the reason.

And they did that all along the mid east. Now I'm not saying Islamic fundamentalism isn't a problem. Nor that this is the only problem. But the whole, "let's draw a circle here, group a bunch tribes together that hate each other together, and call it a country" crap, is a legacy that we see today causing everyone problems.
Go read your history books again Drav, that's an overly simplistic summary.

Pay special attention to the chapters about the role of Woodrow Wilson and his concept of 'nationalism / nationhood' in the creation of nation states towards the end of and in the wake of WW1.

[PornoDoggy]

Dravyk,

I think Jeremy is wrong. You don't need to look that far back to figure out why U.S. is regarded the way it is in the Middle East. It's not Wilson - it's Guy Mollet, Anthony Eden and David Ben-Gurion.

It's not at all ironic that America is the target. France and Britian were completely discredited when, acting in concert with Israel, they attempted to take the Suez Canal back from Nasser, who had nationalized it. There's something a little ironic there, because not working through the United Nations was one of the problems General Ike had with the whole operation.

Even before that time, the U.S. had begun to act every bit as imperialistic as the limeys and the frogs had ever been - with a lot less skill. There was that whole thing with the guy that the Islamist's replaced in Iraq; the games over the damned Aswan dam John Foster Dulles played with Nasser; and, of course, Isreal.

But Jeremy - Please. Wilson was a man of his times and his culture. His rhetoric may have inspired some in what is now called the third world to aspire to independence, but there were plenty of other inspirations going on at the same time. Sun Yat Sen got the attention of the Asians, a variety of Arab leaders had been agitating for independence from the Turks before World War I, Ghandi was part of some peaceful hell-raising in South Africa before he returned to Indai, and then there were the followers of that German fellow - Karl somebody. Besides, everyone knew that Wilson's concept of 'nationalism / nationhood' didn't really extend much to non-whites.

Not that it would have mattered a tinker's damn if it did. The Republicans controlled Congress and, as they they are prone to do, stuck their heads either up their asses or in the sand, and pretended the world was going to go back to where it was before.

The League, unencumbered by the pesky Americans and their terribly annoying anti-colonialism, turned over most of the Middle East and North Africa to the U.K. and France as "Protectorates" (wink, wink).

[Jeremy]

PD - I was merely illustrating the point that saying "it's all the evil imperialist Brits & Frenchies fault" was a tad over-simplistic rather than casting blame in any single direction. I always think one always needs to delve back into the "why" to attempt to gain a better understanding of the "what happened" - and even then we may be ultimately clueless.

WW was undoubtedly a man of his time - we all are, and we have to be careful not to impose our current moral values and knowledge when we look back at history: hindsight is of course 20-20 vision, and I'm sure he had the best intentions.

1880ish - 1940ish (and to-date probably) can be viewed as a whole as a time of struggle caused by the decline of the old guard (overtly imperialist, ruling elites) and the rise of the new, including fighting between differing economic and political ideologies. I blame that Guttenburg myself ;-))

Still and all, political history serves to inform decisions but it doesn't actually solve the problems of today.

[grimm]

to answer the question.. yes same old weak rhetoric. Bush looks like hes a rat lost in a maze of his own doing. his approval will go DOWN after this address. he looked sad, weak, very unpresidential.

[Dravyk]

Jeremy, didn't mean to make that sound like a simplistic answer. This is a posting board, and touching on anything like the MidEast, without writing a novel, is going to be merely one byte in a billion.

Meant only to say, when someone brought up how there is one country with a number of warring tribes in it, that the reason for that was how the map was drawn up by Westerners, with Britian and France in the lead. I also mentioned that was not all the problems there, simply one of them.

Am also saying that while I do not want Britain nor France bombed anymore than I want America bombed, that it's interesting that the Islamic fundamentalists seem to enjoy attacking the US only, when others had a hand in things there -- a big hand -- long ago.

[Jeremy]

Drav - I was in a distinctly grumpy mood this morning & didn't mean to make my point so harshly - my apologies :-)

As far as why the US & not anyone else comparatively, psych & propaganda majors would probably tell us that it's easier to hate / create hatred for one big boogeyman.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by JR@Jun 28 2005, 03:47 PM
Saddam will can only be replaced by another Saddam.

i believe its possible this conflict that will not end in my lifetime.
I belive that there are always more solutions to the same problem... given enough time, then everything from democracy to anarchy will probably work in Iraq (or any other country on this planet).

I´m not sure I will ever visit Iraq as tourist in my lifetime, but then again my parents where pretty amazed, when the Berlin Wall came down, and then spend the next summer driving thru parts of eastern europe :-)

[Rolo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jun 28 2005, 04:26 PM
Maybe you can be Mr. Mary Sunshine and read hope into the recent change of tone - me, I think they've struck more cords than a third-rate drunken jazz pianist on heroin trying to improvise.
Ofcourse they are politicians - do you really expect to hear the whole truth from them? No, they will give you *their version* of the situation... and so will every politician, religious leader, terrorist, journalist and man/woman/child on the street. Its your job to look thru the bullshit, and then stick to the facts.

Yes, there are people trying to create anarchy in Iraq, but at the same time there are people trying to make a new constitution. Its much easier to tear a building down, then it is to build it, so ofcourse the terrorists are getting more headlines now, but as we saw with the iraqi election, then iraqis have already surprised one time before, and the new constitution might be another possible surprise.

I guess what it really comes down to... Is Your Glass Half Empty or Half Full? :awinky:

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jun 29 2005, 05:41 AM
his approval will go DOWN after this address.
Why should he care - his time is up after this round? ;-)))

[grimm]

Originally posted by Rolo+Jun 29 2005, 08:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jun 29 2005, 08:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jun 29 2005, 05:41 AM
his approval will go DOWN after this address.
Why should he care - his time is up after this round? ;-))) [/b][/quote]
hes all about his LEGACY... ending with a less than 30% approval rate wont do much for your pride.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jun 29 2005, 09:23 AM
hes all about his LEGACY... ending with a less than 30% approval rate wont do much for your pride.
Well - I have never thought of Bush as someone who will go down in history (well, expect if PD and others are right for opening pandorasbox ;-)))... he does not have the charisma or vision... I´m still baffled that the last time it was a choice between Bush or Kerry - how could these two really be the best? :blink:

[Evil Chris]

I'm thinking that the worst will probably happen for George W Bush.

History will unfortunately remember him as "a great president who made important, initially unpopular decisions"... Hell he WANTS to be remembered as a "war president". He's said so himself.

He'll go down as a self-absorbed twat in my memory.