Why We Lost: An Indepth Analysis of America's Top to Bottom Failure in the Iraqi War

[dclary]

Catchy Title, eh?

Okay Libs, and Neocons. Let's have an exercise. Assume for a minute (just for the sake of the discussion, if you don't personally believe it to be true) that we have either lost, or are imminently about to lose the Iraqi War.

Why?

What happened?

I'd like to explore every single possibility, and to begin with, here are the factors I see. Maybe some are more important than others: as with any chaos-theory equation, it's nearly impossible to tell.

Anyway, please catch me if I'm wrong, please prop me if I'm right, and I'm open to hear any and all suggestions or ideas.

The War's failure can not be blamed on any one thing. Instead, we see by looking at the entire scope of the war that in EVERY possible instance, at EVERY level of command there was a systemic failure that prevented us from having even a chance of winning.

PREWAR
1) The reasons for war
This is one of Greg's main points. The United States did itself, its allies, and the world a massive disservice by changing the focus of its reasons for war as intelligence on the ground did not match up with pre-deployment intelligence (i.e. no WMDs)

2) Prewar intelligence
We were wrong about troop strength, wrong about locations of wmds, presence of wmds, insurgent resourcefulness and tenacity. Intelligence was doctored in places, bungled in places, and underscored the CIA's massive failure in building out middle-eastern intel networks.

3) Prewar diplomacy
By adopting an attitude of war before gathering allies, and by entering UN negotiations with a mindset of "The UN is obsolete" we failed to garner the military alliances we enjoyed in Gulf War I.

In the same vein, we did not attempt to augment existing sanctions or strength our stranglehold on Iraq through tighter regulations before moving straight to war.

WAR IN IRAQ
4) D-Day Strategy
The utter audaciousness of a strategy called "shock and awe" might have worked for farmboys in Kansas, and this seems to have been designed by them. For a land that had known intense, deadly war with both Iran in the 80s, and the US alliance in the 90s, bombs bursting in air was more a daily nuisance than a morale-destroying "look at how bad-a$$ed we are" testosterone display

5) Resource Planning
Almost to a man, the generals in charge of implementing the Pentagon's plans complained they did not have enough manpower. This is the General's basic rallying cry, and has been the complaint of every U.S. General since Washingto looked woefully over Valley Forge. Rather than kvetching, these men needed to prove their politcally gained stars on their shoulders had not been given in vain

6) Underestimating the Enemy
Knowing that they could never beat the US toe-to-toe (we had proved that to them during Gulf I), Republican Guard elements were trained to disperse and start up resistance groups within every community in Iraq. It was a brilliant strategy, and the US was caught completely flatfooted by it. 4, 5, and 6 all point directly to Pentagon strategists. These men, some of whom had done great work in pointing the US toward a leaner, meaner, stronger military through greater technology and firepower, showed complete and utter failures of basic strategy and tactics knowledge.

7) Inadequate Equipment
The problems with lowest-bidder contracting became immediately evident. The Hummer, a primary choice for troop deployment and transportation in Iraq was woefully inadequate against the new breed of landmines devised by the enemy. In addition, shortages of body armor, lack of air conditioning in prefab buildings that rose past 130 degrees farenheit during the hottest part of the summer: all these contributed to the complete and utter failure, and led inevitably to our losing this war.

8) Imbedded Journalists
At first, this seemed like an excellent idea, and if the war had proceeded exactly like Washington and the Pentagon had hoped, it would have been. However, a journalist's job is to get a story, and "we're winning the war, everything's great" ain't one. Placing 1000 reporters all so desperate for a peabody that they'd go under fire in Iraq meant 1000 men prying into every possible nook and cranny for something to go wrong. And in every war, something goes wrong.

9) Our Troops
God bless 'em. 99% of the volunteer United States Armed Forces are upstanding, honorable soldiers, each of whom took a sacred oath to protect the US and its interests at home and abroad. Unfortunately, with 300,000 troops in the field of operations, that's still 3000 bad eggs to begin with, and the potential for many others to be influenced by them.

Our troops did permanent, irreparable damage to the United States and our middle east relations with incidents like Abu Ghraib, and the many incidents of killing innocents and surrendering/unarmed enemy combatants.

THE WAR AT HOME
10) Horrible Propaganda
In "Flags of our Fathers" Clint Eastwood shows how a simple event became a propaganda bonanza for the US government, and the US has been aggressively trying to manufacture events like these to bolster support for the war back home, to an audience far more jaded and cynical than anyone in the 40s could have been. The "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier stunt, among others, only added fuel to the political dissent that grew as the war progressed.

11) President Bush
President Bush won his first term partly because people found him friendly and forthcoming. As this war has progressed, Bush has been increasingly reticent, aloof, and capable of little more than repeating tired phrases over and over again. There is none of the passion or charisma that our previous war-time presidents have displayed. As the war has progressed, the american people's opinion of bush has collapsed, due almost entirely to his inability to appear competent, a very bad thing during war.

12) Congress, Senate, Democrats and Republicans.
At the 2004 elections, the Democratic party made a key switch and declared themselves against the war in Iraq. Since then, they have been banging the "no more war" drum as fiercely as any peace activist ever could. To the detriment of the United States, and especially its president, the DNC has worked to thwart many of the war-efforts the republicans put forth.

Unfortunately, that's also due to the fact that Republicans are dumbasses who can't figure out how to pay for a war without simply printing more money, devaluing our currency and borrowing to make up the difference.

13) The Media
As per the imbedded journalist point above, our media machine runs on soundbites, and bad-news soundbites ALWAYS sell better than good-news. American new crews obsessed over finding inaccuracies, errors, abuse, any possible scandal relating to the war.

14) The American People
As a result of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton perfoming picture-perfect invasions and mini-wars, the American people have become complacent. They want short, bloodless, easy wars, and have no stomach for the harsh realities of what war's really about. Mark my words: the United States will NEVER win a war again, as long as there's so many weak-willed babies at the polls.



Any one of these things could go wrong or fail in a war, and the war could still be won. In fact, many of them could fail, and still afford a nation a chance for victory.

However, when you experience top-to-bottom failure like this, there is nothing more you can do but capitulate.

The war in Iraq is lost, and the worst part is, it would have been even if the Iraqis had not devolved into base sectarian violence.


What do you think?

[dclary]

Would you change that to numbers instead of letters? I'm already mixing them up.

Edit: the war is not lost. This is going to be a long. 'I will return.

Done. And again, as stated in the opening 'graph, this analysis is based on an assumption of loss. It might not be lost -- but if it's not, it's entirely because of things that have not happened yet, because what has happened has been pushing us straight to a notch in the "L" column.

[MattW]

I think the biggest combo is 5 and 6 (or E and F).

Part 1: Without enough men, we were still able to crush the RG in any open engagement due to technological superiority, but they got wise. At first contact, we should have hit them with a soft front - one that holds them in place, while the real hammer envelopes their positions. Instead, they dissolve into the populace.

Part 2:known conventional weapons caches were left unguarded for days after the invasion. This put heavier munitions and even more small arms into the hands of insurgents. With no fixed battlefield, artillery shells have been improvised into something useful.

Part 3: lack of manpower to secure the borders. Foreign fighters, trainers, and experts flow in. More muntions flow in, with expertise in arming and tactical depoloyment.

All of the above intensified and prolonged the shooting war, and has made rebuilding and nation building extremely hazardous.

One caveat was with the preplanning. The first shots of the war were airstrikes against supposed lcoations where the Hussein family was holed up - starting a whole series of events, possibly precipitously.

As far as political support, America likes winners and has no patience. We would have supported assaulting the moon for at least 18 months. If we're not all eating moon cheese by then, support starts to dwindle without good communication and willingness to make politcal compromises (which we know no modern politican is capable of).

[Unique]

dc - it's good to see you putting your writing skills to good use.
You bring up valid points. That's not to say I agree with all your points but you have been using both your left and your right eye. For that, I commend you.

As BoP said, this could be a long one. (And I don't mean the war) As for the war, how do you 'lose' a goat rope?

[greglondon]

Assume for a minute ... that we have either lost, or are imminently about to lose the Iraqi War.

Why?

The war was planned three times,
1991 by Bush Senior,
1999 by war game planning in the desert, and
2003 by the generals who knew Bush Junior was itching to invade.
All three times, they came back with the same thing:

(1) We need to go in with several hundred thousand troops
to maintain a secure occupation, to prevent violence from
flaring out of control, and to to prevent civil war from erupting.

(2) with all the different factions within Iraq, with the long
history of differences, fighting, and grudges, even under the
best conditions of invasion, the probability of civil war boiling
over beyond our control is high.


So, if Iraq spirals out of complete control, part of the blame
is that Bush ignored the basics and went in with only one-fourth
the manpower. Another part of the blame goes to Bush,
because he didn't balance his lust for invasion with any of its
consequences, such as the prediction that even under the
best circumstance, there was a high probability for civil war.

Inspections were much cheaper and much more effective
than the damage that could be inflicted by invading and
sparking civil war, let alone the cost of the invasion and
occupation itself.

So most of the problem comes down to bad leadership
making bad decisions based on gut feelings rather than on
hard intel from the CIA or the plans from the Pentagon.

This thread ignores bad choices and basically poses the
notion of "well, forget it was a stupid thing to do, how
would you win?" We might have won if we went in with
half a million troops and secured the country from infighting,
if we had gone in without killing civilians in our operations,
if we had gone in without wiping out so much civilian infrastructure
that basics like water and electricity are still a problem,
if we didn't have massive problems like Abu Graib come up.

Basically, if we had followed the plan and if we had executed
it flawlessly, then maybe, maybe, maybe, we might be in
the process of pulling out of a peaceful, democratic Iraq.

We didn't follow the plan, and what was done was a failure
to take care of civilians, get their infrastructure back up
after we bombed the hell out of it, and we failed to maintain
basic human integrity by having Abu Graib occur under our
watch.

But then again, even if we had followed the general's plans
flawlessly, gone in with enough troops, taken care of civilians,
and not had any crap like Abu Graib, then we still might
have failed because civil war might still erupt.

That seems to be one of the non-reality-based fantasies:
That a war can be executed completely within our control,
that with sufficient firepower, we can accomplish anything.
It's a fallacy.

[dclary]

This thread ignores bad choices and basically poses the
notion of "well, forget it was a stupid thing to do, how
would you win?"

I was hoping it pointed out the bad choices as well. Your assertion, then, is that the war was *never* winnable, even if these 14 points had been addressed?

[dclary]

that with sufficient firepower, we can accomplish anything.
It's a fallacy.

The problem with declaring this a fallacy is that it flies in the face not only of common wisdom, but of historical fact.

[dclary]

I take that back. As worded, you're correct. "Anything" is too vague.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I vote for #14.

even my husband, a vet of the first Gulf War agrees - his war set the precedent for fast, bloodless engagements. Now the US loses a single soldier and the cry is to "run away!".

we Canucks don't have half your military and we keep losing men in Afghanistan that we can't afford - and we're not crying like babies.

if this current generation had been around on D-Day with the same media coverage, the invasion would have been deemed a failure and a cry going up to pull them all back and let England sink.

[dclary]

D -

I was hoping you might add the most important reason, at least to me.

Iraq is considered a Congressionally Approved Military Engagement.

But it has never been declared a war. I think the big problem starts there.

Congress hasn't declared a war in 60 years, BoP, but we've been involved in lots of them since then.

Granted, our record's not been stellar since then either, but I didn't see that as a reason for losing.

[dclary]

I vote for #14.

even my husband, a vet of the first Gulf War agrees - his war set the precedent for fast, bloodless engagements. Now the US loses a single soldier and the cry is to "run away!".

we Canucks don't have half your military and we keep losing men in Afghanistan that we can't afford - and we're not crying like babies.

if this current generation had been around on D-Day with the same media coverage, the invasion would have been deemed a failure and a cry going up to pull them all back and let England sink.

I just saw Flags of our Fathers, Sheryl, and I can't imagine what the press would do if we had a battle on the scale of Iwo Jima in Iraq. Sh*t gold bricks, I'd guess. 6800 dead, 20,000 wounded in 30 days of fighting, most of them in the first 72 hours.

[MattW]

I just saw Flags of our Fathers, Sheryl, and I can't imagine what the press would do if we had a battle on the scale of Iwo Jima in Iraq.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041011-085231-5401r.htm

[robeiae]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041011-085231-5401r.htmThat's pretty good, pretty sad, and pretty scary, all at once.

Good thread start, Dclary. I am formulating a reply. :)

[greglondon]

I was hoping it pointed out the bad choices as well. Your assertion, then, is that the war was *never* winnable, even if these 14 points had been addressed?

I said, even if we did everything perfectly according to the
best plans, civil war was POSSIBLE, not inevitable.
If you keep not bothering to read my posts,
then I'll start not bothering to reply.

[greglondon]

if this current generation had been around on D-Day with the same media coverage, the invasion would have been deemed a failure and a cry going up to pull them all back and let England sink.

oh, this is so much hogwash I'll be stuck eating bacon for a year.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. And I knew we'd have
some casualties. But I also knew that things would be worse if
we did nothing there. Of course, my plan was that we wouldn't
end up splitting off most of our forces there and sending them to
Iraq. And now we're having trouble holding Afghanistan too.

This fiction that to oppose a stupid war is crying like a baby has
been worn out. A stupid war is a stupid war. Afghanistan made
sense given the facts. Iraq did not. I opposed the Iraq war not
because I was crying like a baby, but because it was @ssinine
to invade with one-quarter the needed force when even a full
army would have trouble keeping things together.

You're going to have to cry me a different story.
This one doesn't fly anymore.

[dclary]

Excellent link Matt, thanks.

[dclary]

4) I think this is irrelevant. The bombings did not produce anti-American sentiment for those against Hussein.



No, but between this, and "bunker buster" cluster bombs, it was exceedingly apparent that our generals honestly thought we could scare them into surrendering. They were woefully wrong.


Your Bush I point is an excellent one.

[Joe Unidos]

The reasons that we have lost/will lose the war in Iraq are even simpler than your analysis makes them. They are the same reasons that support for the war has disappeared. They are the same reasons the war in Vietnam was lost:

The American people will spare no expense, in life or expenditure, to defend themselves. No actual threat, no popular support. The primary goal in any just war is to render the enemy nation incapable of harming you. In that respect, the war in Iraq was over before it began. That is why the fabricated reason for going to war had to be created. That is why, when these reason were proved to be false, the American people felt the war was a fraud. A politically-motivated attack to bring about regime change failed in Vietnam and will fail in Iraq because, as the actual commanders charged with winning the war pointed out in both instances, it is not an achievable military objective.

As has been the case for the past four years, the only question left is how to clean up the mess that the Bush Administration created through some combination of incompetence and deception.

[dclary]

oh, this is so much hogwash I'll be stuck eating bacon for a year.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. And I knew we'd have
some casualties. But I also knew that things would be worse if
we did nothing there. Of course, my plan was that we wouldn't
end up splitting off most of our forces there and sending them to
Iraq. And now we're having trouble holding Afghanistan too.

This fiction that to oppose a stupid war is crying like a baby has
been worn out. A stupid war is a stupid war. Afghanistan made
sense given the facts. Iraq did not. I opposed the Iraq war not
because I was crying like a baby, but because it was @ssinine
to invade with one-quarter the needed force when even a full
army would have trouble keeping things together.

You're going to have to cry me a different story.
This one doesn't fly anymore.

Greg, the only problem I have with your argument is your propensity to use figures that may or may not be inflated to match your intent, so I have difficulty accepting your troop requirement numbers as being accurate.

[dclary]

The reasons that we have lost/will lose the war in Iraq are even simpler than your analysis makes them. They are the same reasons that support for the war has disappeared. They are the same reasons the war in Vietnam was lost:

The American people will spare no expense, in life or expenditure, to defend themselves. No actual threat, no popular support. The primary goal in any just war is to render the enemy nation incapable of harming you. In that respect, the war in Iraq was over before it began. That is why the fabricated reason for going to war had to be created. That is why, when these reason were proved to be false, the American people felt the war was a fraud. A politically-motivated attack to bring about regime change failed in Vietnam and will fail in Iraq because, as the actual commanders charged with winning the war pointed out in both instances, it is not an achievable military objective.

As has been the case for the past four years, the only question left is how to clean up the mess that the Bush Administration created through some combination of incompetence and deception.


Good points, Joe

[whistlelock]

I think most of the failure can be put at the adminstrations feet.

Not in the sense of he's the President and ultimatly responsible for the actions of this country, but in a very real and literal sense.

they screwed this up from beginning to end.

Honestly, who thinks you can topple a butral government that uses death to keep it's people on a leash?

And the propaganda? Horribly managed. During WWII there was almost total media control of war footage. Americans didn't see a picture, still, or movie clip of a dead American soldier for years into the war.

Same thing with the first Gulf War. the media was told where and when it could be, and what they could take pictures of.

Media control= popular war.

Compare Vietnam and this Gulf War. No media control= unpopular war.

We are generations raised on emotional manipulation via the tv and movie screen. We can spot a staged image or situation quickly. And if it isn't better then what Hollywood could do- we call shenanigans.

Landing a jet on a Aircraft carrier with a big banner? Oh, yeah. A real Warrior Prince there Dubya.

Not even Teddy Rosevelt would have pulled something like that.

Everything about this war was horribly mismanaged and planned. The prewar, war, and post war. All of it.

[Joe Unidos]

True.

But just wanted to add, Joe, that the military objective would have been obtainable had we had Iraqi support. American public support was less a factor initially and would still be had our troops been embraced. But they weren't, in large part due to George I. The problem we now have is a civil war and a country not ready for democracy. We can only clean up the mess with the aid of an Arab consortium which would include Iran.

But that's really the whole point. "Creating a pro-Western Iraq" is simply not a military objective. The idea that the invaded populace is to blame for not embracing the invaders is, to me, a little silly --as was the assertion that we would be "welcomed as liberators."

"We would have have had an easy time of the invasion if the country we had invaded had made it easy for us" is not a satisfactory post-mortem on the failure of the operation, I don't think.

[robeiae]

The reasons that we have lost/will lose the war in Iraq are even simpler than your analysis makes them. They are the same reasons that support for the war has disappeared. They are the same reasons the war in Vietnam was lost:

The American people will spare no expense, in life or expenditure, to defend themselves. No actual threat, no popular support.Eh. It's not wholly wrong, but it's also not wholly right. A for instance, you say? WWI. You don't actually think the Central Powers posed an imminent threat to the U.S., do you?
A politically-motivated attack to bring about regime change failed in Vietnam and will fail in Iraq because, as the actual commanders charged with winning the war pointed out in both instances, it is not an achievable military objective.Yet, it seems to have been an achievable objective for the Soviets and Red Chinese. Why is that?

Good post, Joe.

[Bravo]

well this is a refreshing thread dclary.

can you also start a thread on why we lost afghanistan?

that would prob make my week.

thank you

[greglondon]

Greg, the only problem I have with your argument is your propensity to use figures that may or may not be inflated to match your intent, so I have difficulty accepting your troop requirement numbers as being accurate.

The troop numbers I use are from three different invasion plans by
the generals that all came up with a number somewhere around 400k.

I think Shinseki said "several hundred thousand", the 1999 plan came
up with 300k, and 1991 we went into kuwait with half a million and didn't
want to invade with that level.

Ignoring troop level disparity, all the military plans say that civil war is
a probable outcome. Even if 100k was enough, civil war beyond our
control was still a possibility.

The war, in its best start condition, had a good probability of
being unwinnable. And Bush was too much a moron to understand that.

[Joe Unidos]

Yet, it seems to have been an achievable objective for the Soviets and Red Chinese. Why is that?[/size]

Because neither the Chinese nor the Soviets made any pretense that their incursions were not simply open-ended, deliberate occupations: "We're here, we're in charge, these are the new rules." In fact, the Soviet problem in Afghanistan is the most direct corollary, IMHO, insomuch as they too were spread too thin. Ultimately, however, their goal-oriented program achieved most of its goals relative to the reasons for the invasion, they simply lacked the military assets to really seal the deal.

[Bravo]

dclary, for you:

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/


it's honestly an excellent timeline.

[Sheryl Nantus]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20041011-085231-5401r.htm

so true.

for some perspective, Canada has just over 2,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan with the NATO forces. We've lost 43 so far. That's about 2% of our total forces.

the US current troop strength is approximately 300,000 in Iraq. A 2% loss would be 6,000 dead. Thank GOD losses aren't near that number, but from the wailing and gnashing of teeth you'd think it would be.

Canadians support the war on terror and we're losing a greater percentage of our troops. We don't have the best equipment nor do we have the fancy gadgets.

but at least we're not whining about it as loudly as some Americans are.

[robeiae]

Because neither the Chinese nor the Soviets made any pretense that their incursions were not simply open-ended, deliberate occupations: "We're here, we're in charge, these are the new rules." In fact, the Soviet problem in Afghanistan is the most direct corollary, IMHO, insomuch as they too were spread too thin. Ultimately, however, their goal-oriented program achieved most of its goals relative to the reasons for the invasion, they simply lacked the military assets to really seal the deal.A fair assesment.

Which leads to exactly to one place, imo (well, two): Germany and Japan. Do it right, stick it out. One generation is a minimum requirement. But that will never play in today's world, will it? Suppose Iran launched a military strike against Israel and a U.S. Navy battlegroup. We'd respond, but would we really be willing to stick it out? My survey says "no."

[Bravo]

Canadians support the war on terror and we're losing a greater percentage of our troops. We don't have the best equipment nor do we have the fancy gadgets.


what part of the war on terror do you guys support?

[dclary]

The troop numbers I use are from three different invasion plans by
the generals that all came up with a number somewhere around 400k.

I think Shinseki said "several hundred thousand", the 1999 plan came
up with 300k, and 1991 we went into kuwait with half a million and didn't
want to invade with that level.

Ignoring troop level disparity, all the military plans say that civil war is
a probable outcome. Even if 100k was enough, civil war beyond our
control was still a possibility.

The war, in its best start condition, had a good probability of
being unwinnable. And Bush was too much a moron to understand that.

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong. I'm saying that by manipulating numbers in other threads you make all your numbers suspect.

And while I won't call you a non-patriot or whatever for it, calling Bush a moron? 3rd grade at best. Maybe he is. He's still president, and you're sucking on a Coors Light at 7 in the morning, posting messages that a total of 9 people are ever going to read.

[Sheryl Nantus]

what part of the war on terror do you guys support?

the part where they go and die.

you know, the part *you* don't like.

[robeiae]

11. You took him off ignore and Haskins is back.

[dclary]

what part of the war on terror do you guys support?

"We support your war of terror! May George Bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in Iraq!" -- Borat, at a rodeo somewhere in Texas.

[Bravo]

.

[dclary]

and oh yea, and you cant expect every1 to believe its about freedom when the nation is sitting on the world's third largest oil resevoirs. :rolleyes:

Actually, Iraq is 4th.

And Saudi Arabia, Canada and Kuwait are 1st, 2nd, and 5th, and we have all three in our back pocket. Why would we need #4?

[Bravo]

the part where they go and die.


cute.

but i was asking what part of the war on terror.

youre really not saying a majority of canadians support the iraq war are you?


you know, the part *you* don't like.

even cuter.

okay you can go back to making fun of us americans again.

[Robert Toy]

I guess everyone has forgot about Darfur - Sudan has lots of oil.

Oh, no sorry the U.N. is handling that. :)

[dclary]

I guess everyone has forgot about Darfur - Sudan has lots of oil.

Oh, no sorry the U.N. is handling that. :)

I'm using the Wiki chart, that must stick it in "other" category.

[Bravo]

Actually, Iraq is 4th.

And Saudi Arabia, Canada and Kuwait are 1st, 2nd, and 5th, and we have all three in our back pocket. Why would we need #4?

you might be right dave.

maybe it wasnt about oil at all.

im not gonna get into this again, but let's just say that you can keep telling yourself that, but no1 in iraq believed it.

and in the end of the day, that's all that mattered.

[robeiae]

rob, for some1 as smart as you, you seem to insist on forgetting that japan and germany invaded other nations.
1) Japan's invasion of other nations is not what prompted our war with them.
2) I'm not trying to compare the reasons for the invasions, only the methodology, so I'm not forgetting anything.

iraq did not invade any1.

iraq did not invade any1.

just repeat that over and over.

they invaded kuwait in '91, and paid dearly for it.The people in charge never paid for it. We erred greatly by failing to do what we knew was right. And Iraq never ceased military hostilities against us, never mind how feeble those hostilities were. They continued to view us as their enemy. You disagree?
then the ppl suffered under sanctions for the next 14 years and paid even more for that invasion. and you can now come back and say the sanctions werent that bad or that it was all hussein's fault, but at the end of the day, they suffered. and they resented america for that.Like the Germans suffered and resented the French and Brits after WWI? Hey, if we're talking about my opinions, understand that I think the sanctions were a joke, insofar as they led to the suffering of everyday people, while the leadership continued to live high on the hog. Like in North Korea.

and finally, you dont liberate a nation when you are supporting some of the worst dictators and hypocrites of the world.And I have said that we should support such people where, exactly?

and oh yea, and you cant expect every1 to believe its about freedom when the nation is sitting on the world's third largest oil resevoirs.I believe it's about our national interests. Please don't confuse me with others.

[TheGaffer]

I didn't even read the rest of the thread after this first post.

I'll say it this way: you hit it all pretty well, Clary. I have specific disagreements, so see below.


Catchy Title, eh?

Okay Libs, and Neocons. Let's have an exercise. Assume for a minute (just for the sake of the discussion, if you don't personally believe it to be true) that we have either lost, or are imminently about to lose the Iraqi War.

Why?

What happened?

I'd like to explore every single possibility, and to begin with, here are the factors I see. Maybe some are more important than others: as with any chaos-theory equation, it's nearly impossible to tell.

Anyway, please catch me if I'm wrong, please prop me if I'm right, and I'm open to hear any and all suggestions or ideas.

The War's failure can not be blamed on any one thing. Instead, we see by looking at the entire scope of the war that in EVERY possible instance, at EVERY level of command there was a systemic failure that prevented us from having even a chance of winning.

PREWAR
1) The reasons for war
This is one of Greg's main points. The United States did itself, its allies, and the world a massive disservice by changing the focus of its reasons for war as intelligence on the ground did not match up with pre-deployment intelligence (i.e. no WMDs)

--Yep. It points to, unfortunately, an obsession to do this no matter what. I've written on AW in the past that I thought it was a combo of a) the need to hit something hard after 9/11 b) bush's desire to "get" saddam c) the utopia imagined by the neocons to remake the middle east, and with oil as sort of an underlying kind of thing to consider, but not the primary thing. But basically, you've got to be smart by doing this, and they weren't.

2) Prewar intelligence
We were wrong about troop strength, wrong about locations of wmds, presence of wmds, insurgent resourcefulness and tenacity. Intelligence was doctored in places, bungled in places, and underscored the CIA's massive failure in building out middle-eastern intel networks.

--Yep. And the intelligence we did have that turned out to be correct was ignored or stashed away in favor of the "Office of Special Plans" that was designed to stove-pipe analysis direct to Dick Cheney, who could then run around like a chicken-minus-head on every bit of info that he deemed pertinent.

3) Prewar diplomacy
By adopting an attitude of war before gathering allies, and by entering UN negotiations with a mindset of "The UN is obsolete" we failed to garner the military alliances we enjoyed in Gulf War I.

--Yep.

In the same vein, we did not attempt to augment existing sanctions or strength our stranglehold on Iraq through tighter regulations before moving straight to war.

--Yep.

WAR IN IRAQ
4) D-Day Strategy
The utter audaciousness of a strategy called "shock and awe" might have worked for farmboys in Kansas, and this seems to have been designed by them. For a land that had known intense, deadly war with both Iran in the 80s, and the US alliance in the 90s, bombs bursting in air was more a daily nuisance than a morale-destroying "look at how bad-a$$ed we are" testosterone display

--Yep.

5) Resource Planning
Almost to a man, the generals in charge of implementing the Pentagon's plans complained they did not have enough manpower. This is the General's basic rallying cry, and has been the complaint of every U.S. General since Washingto looked woefully over Valley Forge. Rather than kvetching, these men needed to prove their politcally gained stars on their shoulders had not been given in vain

--"Hi, I'm Donald Rumsfeld, and I'd like to sell you a bridge." Yep.

6) Underestimating the Enemy
Knowing that they could never beat the US toe-to-toe (we had proved that to them during Gulf I), Republican Guard elements were trained to disperse and start up resistance groups within every community in Iraq. It was a brilliant strategy, and the US was caught completely flatfooted by it. 4, 5, and 6 all point directly to Pentagon strategists. These men, some of whom had done great work in pointing the US toward a leaner, meaner, stronger military through greater technology and firepower, showed complete and utter failures of basic strategy and tactics knowledge.

--Yep.

7) Inadequate Equipment
The problems with lowest-bidder contracting became immediately evident. The Hummer, a primary choice for troop deployment and transportation in Iraq was woefully inadequate against the new breed of landmines devised by the enemy. In addition, shortages of body armor, lack of air conditioning in prefab buildings that rose past 130 degrees farenheit during the hottest part of the summer: all these contributed to the complete and utter failure, and led inevitably to our losing this war.

--Yep.

8) Imbedded Journalists
At first, this seemed like an excellent idea, and if the war had proceeded exactly like Washington and the Pentagon had hoped, it would have been. However, a journalist's job is to get a story, and "we're winning the war, everything's great" ain't one. Placing 1000 reporters all so desperate for a peabody that they'd go under fire in Iraq meant 1000 men prying into every possible nook and cranny for something to go wrong. And in every war, something goes wrong.

--Meh. If we'd romped and had 500K troops, this wouldn't have done anything, one way or another.

9) Our Troops
God bless 'em. 99% of the volunteer United States Armed Forces are upstanding, honorable soldiers, each of whom took a sacred oath to protect the US and its interests at home and abroad. Unfortunately, with 300,000 troops in the field of operations, that's still 3000 bad eggs to begin with, and the potential for many others to be influenced by them.

Our troops did permanent, irreparable damage to the United States and our middle east relations with incidents like Abu Ghraib, and the many incidents of killing innocents and surrendering/unarmed enemy combatants.

--My first disagreement. I'm of the opinion that a lot of what went on was as a result of lack of oversight and discipline starting from the top with Pres. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. It seems to me there was a bit of an "anything goes" attitude. Lack of discipline at the top of an organization trickles down through the rest of it. Now, probably most of the soldiers tried to resist this, simply b/c their training from years past in a sense kept them in line. But if the guys at the top either A) don't give a darn or B) are more permissive in this behavior (promoting the head at Gitmo to go to Abu Ghraib???) then that's what you end up with -- and the basest elements go off and indulge themselves, as they did.

THE WAR AT HOME
10) Horrible Propaganda
In "Flags of our Fathers" Clint Eastwood shows how a simple event became a propaganda bonanza for the US government, and the US has been aggressively trying to manufacture events like these to bolster support for the war back home, to an audience far more jaded and cynical than anyone in the 40s could have been. The "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier stunt, among others, only added fuel to the political dissent that grew as the war progressed.

--It's been a PR campaign from the beginning. Shock and Awe was arguably a campaign for support here, not to scare them over there. They put themselves in a position where they were more or less guaranteeing perfection and a swift exit. When that didn't happen - and then they denied that reality - people got disenchanted. And Bush never recognized the reality, not really, anyway.

11) President Bush
President Bush won his first term partly because people found him friendly and forthcoming. As this war has progressed, Bush has been increasingly reticent, aloof, and capable of little more than repeating tired phrases over and over again. There is none of the passion or charisma that our previous war-time presidents have displayed. As the war has progressed, the american people's opinion of bush has collapsed, due almost entirely to his inability to appear competent, a very bad thing during war.

--Yep. Nothing to add here.

12) Congress, Senate, Democrats and Republicans.
At the 2004 elections, the Democratic party made a key switch and declared themselves against the war in Iraq. Since then, they have been banging the "no more war" drum as fiercely as any peace activist ever could. To the detriment of the United States, and especially its president, the DNC has worked to thwart many of the war-efforts the republicans put forth.

--Sorry, I don't agree. If the Democrats had shown more spine back in 2002 to ask tough questions about this, maybe some of this would have been headed off, somehow. So I blame them there. But I don't know what the Dems have done that have actively hurt the operation in Iraq, which was already bogged down. And I'm not sure what "war efforts" the Republicans have put forth - the armed forces were/are already there; the GOP was mostly responsible for "clapping louder."

Unfortunately, that's also due to the fact that Republicans are dumbasses who can't figure out how to pay for a war without simply printing more money, devaluing our currency and borrowing to make up the difference.

--Yep.

13) The Media
As per the imbedded journalist point above, our media machine runs on soundbites, and bad-news soundbites ALWAYS sell better than good-news. American new crews obsessed over finding inaccuracies, errors, abuse, any possible scandal relating to the war.

--Sure, but Abu Ghraib isn't a tea party. The contracting abuses. Hiring people who were ideologically driven to support the admin to run things in the Green Zone rather than competent administrators. The lack of security. 100 people dying in Iraq every day. There's too much there, dude. Too many things to try to offset with stories of schools being painted. The coverage was largely favorable through Uday and Qusai's deaths, if you remember, somewhat less when saddam was captured. But there's a reality now that's hard to deny. 150 people kidnapped and the possible perps are the police? That's not made-up.

14) The American People
As a result of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton perfoming picture-perfect invasions and mini-wars, the American people have become complacent. They want short, bloodless, easy wars, and have no stomach for the harsh realities of what war's really about. Mark my words: the United States will NEVER win a war again, as long as there's so many weak-willed babies at the polls.

--I disagree but in a different way. I'm of the opinion this war should never have happened (and by "war" I mean the actions in Iraq). What did we do about it? Protested a little. I voted against them. I did nothing else. And that country is chaos now. And I did nothing. Part of the contract the President has with the American people is not to use our troops cavalierly, and in this situation, he did. You don't hear people moaning about the troops lost in Afghanistan -- lots of people wish we had more there, or had done more there, or something.

Any one of these things could go wrong or fail in a war, and the war could still be won. In fact, many of them could fail, and still afford a nation a chance for victory.

However, when you experience top-to-bottom failure like this, there is nothing more you can do but capitulate.

--Yep.

The war in Iraq is lost, and the worst part is, it would have been even if the Iraqis had not devolved into base sectarian violence.


What do you think?


To me it starts from the top. Ill-concieved, ill-managed, ill-executed, and the person leading the charge seems utterly uninterested in the entire enterprise, with the exception of "getting" Hussein. But a nice post overall, Clary.

[dclary]

--I disagree but in a different way. I'm of the opinion this war should never have happened (and by "war" I mean the actions in Iraq). What did we do about it? Protested a little. I voted against them. I did nothing else. And that country is chaos now. And I did nothing. Part of the contract the President has with the American people is not to use our troops cavalierly, and in this situation, he did. You don't hear people moaning about the troops lost in Afghanistan -- lots of people wish we had more there, or had done more there, or something.


I agree with you here... plain and simple, it's American apathy -- either in support or against the war. It's an unwillingness to accept bloodshed if you're for it, or an unwillingness to do what it takes to stop the bloodshed. I would rather have a neighbor who's as gung-ho for ending the war as I am for pursuing it, than a neighbor who is indifferent or just complains a lot.

[greglondon]

I'm not saying your numbers are wrong. I'm saying that by manipulating numbers in other threads you make all your numbers suspect..

Ah, an ad hominem attack. Sorry I missed that.

And while I won't call you a non-patriot or whatever for it, calling Bush a moron? 3rd grade at best. Maybe he is. He's still president, and you're sucking on a Coors Light at 7 in the morning, posting messages that a total of 9 people are ever going to read.

I know you are, but what am I?

[dclary]

Ah, an ad hominem attack. Sorry I missed that. No worries. I get that a lot.
I know you are, but what am I?

LOL!

Ok, you made me laugh. Well done.

[greglondon]

It's an unwillingness to accept bloodshed if you're for it

complete and utter hogwash.
It's casting any criticism of any war as being nothing more than,
what was that phrase, "crying like a baby".

But keep saying it and maybe it'll come true.

WAAAAHHHH!

OK, you can stop saying it now.

[Bravo]

1) Japan's invasion of other nations is not what prompted our war with them.

youre right, it's b/c they attacked us.

iraq didnt.

my point was that we came in after the japanese ppl were at war for several years and were sick of it.

not to mention, that japan had a much more deveveloped legislative and legal system than iraq ever did.

which meant that it was far easier to develop democratically.

2) I'm not trying to compare the reasons for the invasions, only the methodology, so I'm not forgetting anything.

the methodology cant be compared. you cant compare japan & germany's reconstruction to iraq.


The people in charge never paid for it. We erred greatly by failing to do what we knew was right.

what was right?

let's be clear here: the only reason why bush sr didnt overthrow hussien after the war and when the shiites revolted was b/c he needed hussein as a check against iran and shiite power.

that's the only reason. not b/c our allies said no or any of that other crap.

idealistically, i agree, we shouldve supported the shiite uprising, b/c that was a massive internal movement that could've brought the end.


And Iraq never ceased military hostilities against us, never mind how feeble those hostilities were. They continued to view us as their enemy. You disagree?

what do you mean? do you mean b/c they occassionally turned on their radar as we enforced non-sanctioned "no-fly" zones in their country?


Like the Germans suffered and resented the French and Brits after WWI? Hey, if we're talking about my opinions, understand that I think the sanctions were a joke, insofar as they led to the suffering of everyday people, while the leadership continued to live high on the hog. Like in North Korea.

good to hear.

And I have said that we should support such people where, exactly?

you didnt. but the rest of the world knows about it, and sees it, just not everyday americans.

which makes them look for reasons other than for freedom.


I believe it's about our national interests. Please don't confuse me with others.

that was actually meant to be addressed to the american public not to you directly. oops.

and dammit.

look what youve done dclary!

hmph.

gnite.

i gotta run away from the computer

[Joe Unidos]

A fair assesment.

Which leads to exactly to one place, imo (well, two): Germany and Japan. Do it right, stick it out. One generation is a minimum requirement. But that will never play in today's world, will it? Suppose Iran launched a military strike against Israel and a U.S. Navy battlegroup. We'd respond, but would we really be willing to stick it out? My survey says "no."

I would humbly offer that I find it curious that you would extrapolate what the reaction of the world and the will of the American people would be to justified, extended military action (your hypothetical Iran example) based not on your own cited examples of Germany and Japan, but on the unjustified invasion of Iraq. It is not, IMHO, a question of changing times, it is a question of purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that the American people would still rise to any challenge --they just won't fight a war for no reason.

[Bravo]

I would humbly....


humily hates joe unidos and we love him for that.

dont pretend like you two have made up.

:D

[SC Harrison]

There are a lot of good points being made here, and I would have to agree this war was "unwinnable" from the start, at least as far as Bush envisioned it.

Setting aside the misguided idea that Democracy would spring from the ashes as soon as the King was usurped, I have a couple of observations from a military-specific viewpoint:

Iraqi units, especially the ones thick with Baathists, should have been teased into action outside of urban areas so our forces could closewith and destroy them. Any surrendering soldier who failed to produce a weapon should be placed into custody pending the location and securing of said weapon.

Speaking of, I want to echo what Matt said above. Our blinder-wearing drive to locate WMDs caused a brain-fart on a tremendous scale. Any and all weapons, ammunition or explosives should have been immediately secured or effectively blown in place. Every single commander who left one of the caches unsecured should be Court-Martialed, even if it happened 2-3 years ago. Why? Because artillery shells are still being used for IEDs, and they're still killing more of our people than any other single threat.

[billythrilly7th]

We lost the war because Al Queda and Jihadists and insurgents know, as they've stated clearly in their own speeches, if they just keep the destruction rolling, the American people, spurred on by the media and anti-war crowd will lose their will and crumble. It's Vietnam Syndrome 101. I knew it back on around 9/15/01.

And no doubt we should have had more troops and better planning to try and nip that in the bud. Personally, I would have liked to have seen 300-400,000 even at the start. And now in hindsight, it's clear we should have had enough troops to circle around the country preventing foreign fighters from flowing in and had enough to secure Baghdad with overwhelming troop presence. We also should have laid the hammer down on the militias right off the bat. Why Muqtada Sadr is still alive, I'll never understand.

But, despite those mistakes, we could have still won(AND STILL CAN and now that the dems are invested in success instead of failure, we have a shot) if the American people stayed united.

The jihadists and insurgents would have gone ...:Shrug: I can't believe it. They're sticking together and not backing down and not losing their will. Maybe it's time to choose a new battle. But instead they watched Bush's poll numbers fall and relentless media reports of only negative stories and the Cindy Sheehan's and Michael Moore's wreak havoc on the psyche of the country sending us spiraling into the abyss of retreat. And the insurgents can taste victory while we bicker.

Oh well.

In this day and age of fast food, TIVO, I want it and I want it now, America can only win wars if they are fast, easy and with minimal casualties. Like in Kuwait.

"Done!! Over!!! We rock!!"

The good thing is that future leaders of this country have learned excellent lessons that they will take into account when they have to make tough decisions in the future.

Thank you.

[dclary]

complete and utter hogwash.
It's casting any criticism of any war as being nothing more than,
what was that phrase, "crying like a baby".

But keep saying it and maybe it'll come true.

WAAAAHHHH!

OK, you can stop saying it now.

No, please reread it.

I said that Americans who support the war can't stomach the bloodshed, and Americans who don't lack the gumption to fight against it. Nowhere did I say criticizing the war was crying. In fact I said I'd rather have an active critic than a complainer.

[greglondon]

Our blinder-wearing drive to locate WMDs caused a brain-fart on a tremendous scale. Any and all weapons, ammunition or explosives should have been immediately secured or effectively blown in place.

could have done that with continued inspections.

[Joe Unidos]

humily hates joe unidos and we love him for that.

dont pretend like you two have made up.

:D

My messageboard enemy is not the rational arguments of my ideological opposites, it is foolish sloganeering and illogical nonsense.

:)

[greglondon]

I said that Americans who support the war can't stomach the bloodshed, and Americans who don't lack the gumption to fight against it.

Yeah, I know what you said. You bifurcated a complex issue into two simple choices. I supported invading Afghanistan and I still support it
as being the better of two lousy choices.

[dclary]

Yeah, I know what you said. You bifurcated a complex issue into two simple choices. I supported invading Afghanistan and I still support it
as being the better of two lousy choices.

I'm not talking about the Afghanistan war at all.

[Bravo]

My messageboard enemy is not the rational arguments of my ideological opposites, it is foolish sloganeering and illogical nonsense.

:)


much better.

:roll:

[dclary]

I better have some freakin' rep points in my UCP from starting this very good discussion when I wake up.

[robeiae]

It is not, IMHO, a question of changing times, it is a question of purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that the American people would still rise to any challenge --they just won't fight a war for no reason.Quite obviously, I disagree. Strongly.

"The American People" does not have a collective will, nor does any other "People." Further, such a construct is not static, by any stretch of the imagination. I'd like to believe in some kind of "American Spirit," but I see little evidence of its existence in today's world. What evidence there is is routinuely ridiculed, marginalized, and/or used by those in power or with positions of authority.

Changing times can and do change everything, by definition (except in Switzerland, of course--which is funny, considering Swiss movement watches and all). It is not a foregone conclusion that the United States can exist in perpetuity, not by a long shot. Look at Europe. They've enjoyed "peace" for how long? Fifty some years. Wow. I have little doubt that within the century, the lines we have become accomstomed to will no longer exist. For all my railings against Marxism as an ideology, there is some truth, therein (truth that came from British economists, to be sure). Control of resources and population growth are not laughing matters and there will be both predictable and unpredictable pressures put on the U.S. and other nations in the future.

Still, I idealistically hope that my analysis is wrong and yours is right, but I also idealistically believe that the United States government should act whenever its interests are best served by doing so. What can I say? I'm an idealistic and cynical realist.

There, now you've soured my mood. I hope you're happy.:)

[robeiae]

dont pretend like you two have made up.

:DAre you talking about me and Joe? I'm lost on this one.:Shrug:

[robeiae]

the methodology cant be compared. you cant compare japan & germany's reconstruction to iraq.Yes I can. The first two were handled much better than the last is being handled.
what was right?Taking down a piece of filth that saw the U.S. as his arch-enemy (after Iran and Israel, to be sure).

let's be clear here: the only reason why bush sr didnt overthrow hussien after the war and when the shiites revolted was b/c he needed hussein as a check against iran and shiite power.

that's the only reason. not b/c our allies said no or any of that other crap.

idealistically, i agree, we shouldve supported the shiite uprising, b/c that was a massive internal movement that could've brought the end.I think I've voiced my low opinion of Bush, Sr. on more than one occasion. And you've asked for my opinions, which can certainly be as idealisitic as yours, with regard to what we should have done, no?
what do you mean? do you mean b/c they occassionally turned on their radar as we enforced non-sanctioned "no-fly" zones in their country?Yes. What can I say? DClary and Billy are leftist peaceniks, compared to me. :D

you didnt. but the rest of the world knows about it, and sees it, just not everyday americans.What's right is still what's right, no matter what others think. Read my sig lines. I'm pretty clear about this.

[Bravo]

Are you talking about me and Joe? I'm lost on this one.:Shrug:

lol, no.

i was joking about joe and humility.

actually, you and joe are pretty similar, now that i think about it.

:)

[Joe Unidos]

Quite obviously, I disagree. Strongly.

"The American People" does not have a collective will, nor does any other "People." Further, such a construct ...There, now you've soured my mood. I hope you're happy.:)

I would offer that the mess in Iraq right now is a direct result of the spirit of the American people, despite it having been incorrectly targeted. We felt threatened, and were more than happy to react militarily. The equally-encouraging flipside of that indomitable spirit is that, upon realizing that our reaction was (however much we may disagree on the genesis of the error) targeted erroneously, we wish to fix the error.

Without getting into a whole Marxist diatribe, the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is the last war of the past, not the first war of the future. In two hundred years, the commercially-motivated modernization of the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific Rim in the name of global capitalism will be historically far more significant that the war in Iraq and fundamentalist terror, IMHO.

[Bravo]

:)

[greglondon]

Originally Posted by dclary
I said that Americans who support the war can't stomach the bloodshed, and Americans who don't lack the gumption to fight against it.

I'm not talking about the Afghanistan war at all.

I don't lack gumption either. You've still bifurcated the issue.

[dclary]

Originally Posted by dclary
I said that Americans who support the war can't stomach the bloodshed, and Americans who don't lack the gumption to fight against it.



I don't lack gumption either. You've still bifurcated the issue.

Gumptionless. Completely and utterly.

Gumptionless. Gumptionless. Gumptionless.

Keep saying that until Lt. Dan grows another leg.

[Bravo]

on a side note.....


I don't lack gumption either. You've still bifurcated the issue.

i had to look that word up.

is that really proper usage though?

would "obfuscate" be better there?

maybe joe, rob, dclary, or spork will explain this.

thanks

[Joe Unidos]

lol, no.

i was joking about joe and humility. :)


why you hatin, Qaz?
:)

[billythrilly7th]

You've still bifurcated the issue.

I let the first one slide, but I gotta give you 15 yards...

http://www.celebrations-nationwide.com/60747.jpg

..for the second usage of "bifurcated."

Sorry.

[robeiae]

Without getting into a whole Marxist diatribe, the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is the last war of the past, not the first war of the future. In two hundred years, the commercially-motivated modernization of the Indian subcontinent and the Pacific Rim in the name of global capitalism will be historically far more significant that the war in Iraq and fundamentalist terror, IMHO.
I don't think we have a clue what the future holds. And the modernazation you are postulating is going to come at a tremendous cost. For all the blathering some do about China and it's economic potential, it has so much infrastructure to build, it's not even funny.

[billythrilly7th]

on a side note.....



i had to look that word up.

is that really proper usage though?


It's too late for explanations. He just put his team deep back into his own territory.

Not the way Coach Parcells would have wanted him to start the second half.

[Jcomp]

It's too late for explanations. He just put his team deep back into his own territory.

Not the way Coach Parcells would have wanted him to start the second half.

Screw Parcells. We should've had Romo starting after week 1.

(and now back to your regularly scheduled discussion)

[whistlelock]

but at least we're not whining about it as loudly as some Americans are. It's in our nature, we can't help it. Part of our national character to do it faster, better, and cheaper than anyone else.

[Bravo]

anything referencing sports players/coaches just flies over my head.

:Shrug:

[billythrilly7th]

anything referencing sports players/coaches just flies over my head.

:Shrug:

You should play for the NY MetroStars.

The only team that would take you.

[robeiae]

is that really proper usage though?
Yes and no. "Bifurcate" used to refer to a proper and/or legal seperation of an issue or the splitting of something long into two narrower parts (like a river that forks), but it has become an acceptable term for an either-or fallacy.

And since the entire country used and continues to use "gravitas" improperly, to the point that such usage is now accepted, who am I to complain.;)

[Bravo]

And since the entire country used and continues to use "gravitas" improperly, to the point that such usage is now accepted, who am I to complain.;)

how are you supposed to use it?

[billythrilly7th]

Arguing over whether he's using it right pales in comparision to the fact that he's using it at all.

If I wanted to hear words like "bifurcate" I'd go to an organic coffee shop.

Or college.

Please let's keep the vocabulary at a 7th-9th grade gym locker room level.

Thank you.
:)

[billythrilly7th]

how are you supposed to use it?

I don't know, but I know you lack it.

:)

[robeiae]

People don't "have gravitas" or "lack gravitas." Their words or actions can "carry gravitas" or "not carry gravitas" because of who they are.

[robeiae]

I don't know, but I know you lack it.See?

[billythrilly7th]

People don't "have gravitas" or "lack gravitas." Their words or actions can "carry gravitas" or "not carry gravitas" because of who they are.

Okay then...

Bravo = not carry
Billy = carry
:)

[Bravo]

lol.

eta: quick rob, need some big words to throw back at him. thanks

[billythrilly7th]

Where did all the southpaws go?

Hmmm...maybe I can take the morning off, Boss?

PM me.

[robeiae]

Dave, since Joe brought me down, I'm not going to post any direct response to your excellent first post. Instead, I'm going to answer cryptically with...a song! Consider it my reply to everyone else. :tongue

Your everlasting summer
You can see it fading fast
So you grab a piece of something
That you think is gonna last
You wouldnt know a diamond
If you held it in your hand
The things you think are precious
I cant understandAre you reelin in the years
Stowin away the time
Are you gatherin up the tears
Have you had enough of mine

You been tellin me youre a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time Ive known you
I still dont know what you mean
The weekend at the college
Didnt turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge
I cant understand

Are you reelin in the years
Stowin away the time
Are you gatherin up the tears
Have you had enough of mine
I spend a lot of money
And I spent a lot of time
The trip we made in hollywood
Is etched upon my mind
After all the things weve done and seen
You find another man
The things you think are useless
I cant understand

Are you reelin in the years
Stowin away the time
Are you gatherin up the tears
Have you had enough of mine

[billythrilly7th]

Okay, Thrilly out...robieae has the conn.

[TheGaffer]

Steely Dan blows.

[Joe Unidos]

I don't think we have a clue what the future holds. And the modernazation you are postulating is going to come at a tremendous cost. For all the blathering some do about China and it's economic potential, it has so much infrastructure to build, it's not even funny.

That's the whole point. American corporations are currently spending billions building the national adversaries of the future.

[greglondon]

is that really proper usage though?

would "obfuscate" be better there?

dclary bifircated the issue into two groups, first:
I said that Americans who support the war can't stomach the bloodshed.

and second:
and Americans who don't (support the war) lack the gumption to fight against it

I didn't support the war and fought against it with plenty of gumption.
The idiots in washington overruled sanity, though.

The point being that there aren't only two categories as dclary presents.

[robeiae]

That's the whole point. American corporations are currently spending billions building the national adversaries of the future.
Oh, I don't disagree with that. But they'll be adversaries because they'll still be on the short end of the stick, economically speaking, not because they have become the new economic superpower. That ain't happening.

[greglondon]

Please let's keep the vocabulary at a 7th-9th grade gym locker room level.

geez billy, I said "Bush is a moron" earlier, and dclary dings me for talking like a third grader.

Could you guys get together and agree what grade level of writing you're going to complain about? I can't keep up.

[MattW]

I can't keep up.7 > 3

[billythrilly7th]

geez billy, I said "Bush is a moron" earlier, and dclary dings me for talking like a third grader.

Could you guys get together and agree what grade level of writing you're going to complain about? I can't keep up.

I think, like I said, 7th-9th grade level would be perfect. At least for me.

But I don't speak for Clary.

And I don't speak Carrot.

:)

[J. Weiland]

the United States will NEVER win a war again, as long as there's so many weak-willed babies at the polls.

Let's just hope they never start another war again.

[billythrilly7th]

Let's just hope they never start another war again.

By my calculations, possibly just one more in the near future.

Pleeeease just one more. Pleeease, if Iran doesn't give up their nuclear weapons program, can we start one with them?

I PROMISE it will be the last one for awhile and we'll do it much better.

If Iran gives up their weapons program then I think we have some clear sailing for a while.

[J. Weiland]

By my calculations, possibly just one more in the near future.

Pleeeease just one more. Pleeease, if Iran doesn't give up their nuclear weapons program, can we start one with them?

I PROMISE it will be the last one for awhile and we'll do it much better.

If Iran gives up their weapons program then I think we have some clear sailing for a while.

You need to be put in the front line of an attack.

[dclary]

dclary bifircated the issue into two groups, first:


and second:


I didn't support the war and fought against it with plenty of gumption.
The idiots in washington overruled sanity, though.

The point being that there aren't only two categories as dclary presents.

Please forgive me for not including the following disclaimer:

"At no time, when referring to Americans, Frenchicans, Mexicans, Indianicans, Canuckleheadicans, or the Dutch do I now (or ever) mean ALL Americans, Frenchicans, Mexicans, etc.icans. Being human we are all different, and everyone's got their own stance on things. Peace to your mother."

Since we are a democracy, when I refer to a people, I mean a majority of the people, because you will never get "all" to agree on anything.

I am certain you fought against the war in Iraq. I've read your courage vow, and that alone is more than 95% of the people on your side have done. Won't you admit that? And if so, then will you admit that *most* americans who don't support the war aren't willing to do anything about it?

[dclary]

geez billy, I said "Bush is a moron" earlier, and dclary dings me for talking like a third grader.

Could you guys get together and agree what grade level of writing you're going to complain about? I can't keep up.

> 3 and < 10, please.

[J. Weiland]

[quote=dclary]Since we are a democracy[quote]

Doesn't that usually mean that all votes count?

[Joe Unidos]

Oh, I don't disagree with that. But they'll be adversaries because they'll still be on the short end of the stick, economically speaking, not because they have become the new economic superpower. That ain't happening.

As America's status as an economic superpower becomes increasingly dependent on paper power actually seated in offshore assets and resources, its actual ability to maintain control over those resources becomes increasingly tenuous. The domino effect is not one of ideology, it's one of, "Okay, we had a chat here in South America/India/Korea/etc --you leave, the oil and refineries and factories and equipment stay. Thanks for the memories."

This is where the disconnect between Corporate interests and national interests diverge and will continue to do so exponentially.

[Joe Unidos]

By my calculations, possibly just one more in the near future.

Pleeeease just one more. Pleeease, if Iran doesn't give up their nuclear weapons program, can we start one with them?

I PROMISE it will be the last one for awhile and we'll do it much better.

If Iran gives up their weapons program then I think we have some clear sailing for a while.

Do you promise to enlist? PLEEEEEEEASE? Or are you planning to chicken-hawk that one too?

:D

[billythrilly7th]

As America's status as an economic superpower becomes increasingly dependent on paper power actually seated in offshore assets and resources, its actual ability to maintain control over those resources becomes increasingly tenuous. The domino effect is not one of ideology, it's one of, "Okay, we had a chat here in South America/India/Korea/etc --you leave, the oil and refineries and factories and equipment stay. Thanks for the memories."

This is where the disconnect between Corporate interests and national interests diverge and will continue to do so exponentially.


Well, look at you,(hand wave) Mr. Smarty Pants.

[billythrilly7th]

You need to be put in the front line of an attack.

There won't be a front line with Iran.

One good lesson to come out of the Iraq war.

[SC Harrison]

I think, like I said, 7th-9th grade level would be perfect. At least for me.



Dude, have you taken a look recently at what these poor 7th-9th graders have to learn? Try to help one with his/her homework. I dare you.

I will freely admit I'm a rather simple-minded fool, easily entertained by things my brain assumes are miracles, like flocks of birds all changing direction together or symphony orchestra music coming out of a little box, but if we're going to shoot for a level people like me can easily grasp, the pre-k single-syllable flash cards might level the playing field sufficiently.

[billythrilly7th]

Dude, have you taken a look recently at what these poor 7th-9th graders have to learn? Try to help one with his/her homework. I dare you.

I will freely admit I'm a rather simple-minded fool, easily entertained by things my brain assumes are miracles, like flocks of birds all changing direction together or symphony orchestra music coming out of a little box, but if we're going to shoot for a level people like me can easily grasp, the pre-k single-syllable flash cards might level the playing field sufficiently.

I'll trust you on that.

I have not seen the 7th-9th grade curriculum. I thought I'd be able to handle it.

Probably not.

Damn.

[robeiae]

As America's status as an economic superpower becomes increasingly dependent on paper power actually seated in offshore assets and resources, its actual ability to maintain control over those resources becomes increasingly tenuous. The domino effect is not one of ideology, it's one of, "Okay, we had a chat here in South America/India/Korea/etc --you leave, the oil and refineries and factories and equipment stay. Thanks for the memories."

This is where the disconnect between Corporate interests and national interests diverge and will continue to do so exponentially.
Is this the fundamental cause of the British Empire's collapse?

Of course, this has been going on for quite some time. But the practice has failed to create vibrant economies because:

1) Profits from the seizures continue to line tha pockets of those in power. Infrastructure, except in limited areas, is ignored and general standards of living barely increase.
2) The nations are better off with U.S. corporate interests on their side, not ticked off at them.
3) Consumer needs are better served by maintaining this relationship, as well--and that's the road to real capital and wealth.
4) The govenrments risk becoming viewed as arbitrary and untrustworthy to international lenders, meaning an economic downturn could destroy all their gains.

[Joe Unidos]

Is this the fundamental cause of the British Empire's collapse?

Of course, this has been going on for quite some time. But the practice has failed to create vibrant economies because:

1) Profits from the seizures continue to line tha pockets of those in power. Infrastructure, except in limited areas, is ignored and general standards of living barely increase.
2) The nations are better off with U.S. corporate interests on their side, not ticked off at them.
3) Consumer needs are better served by maintaining this relationship, as well--and that's the road to real capital and wealth.
4) The govenrments risk becoming viewed as arbitrary and untrustworthy to international lenders, meaning an economic downturn could destroy all their gains.

But that is (IMHO) akin to insisting that the collapse of the British Empire didn't actually happen because Indian and Egypt didn't instantly become Superpowers. A lack of international emergence on the part of the colony does not invalidate the corresponding loss of Empire.

My point can be made best with an example: The British didn't dig up and take The Ochterlony Monument (named for a British General) with them when they withdrew from India --it's still there, renamed Shahid Minar (the Martyrs' Monument) to honor those Indians who had given their lives in the struggle against the British.

[greglondon]

I am certain you fought against the war in Iraq. I've read your courage vow, and that alone is more than 95% of the people on your side have done. Won't you admit that? And if so, then will you admit that *most* americans who don't support the war aren't willing to do anything about it?

Don't know. something like half of all eligible voters don't vote.
I doubt they were all against the war.
I do seem to recall some fairly large protests in the march 2003
timeframe or so, but maybe I'm imagining that.

I was vocally against invading Iraq around that time, but I honestly
didn't think Bush was going to be so blindingly drunk stupid that he
would pull the trigger when he did. My mistake was giving him far
more credit than he deserved. Won't make that mistake again.

[dclary]

Since we are a democracy

Doesn't that usually mean that all votes count?

Well, no. In a democracy the group of votes that equals the largest number of votes count. No one else's does.

We're actually a little better than a democracy in that we try to pay more than just lip service to the loser-groups.

[greglondon]

There won't be a front line with Iran.

One good lesson to come out of the Iraq war.

well, your boy Gates, the next sec/def analyzed invading Iran
about two years ago as part of a large group of people looking
at Iran going nuclear. They came back with the recommendation:
better use diplomacy.

And Iran hasn't been under international sanctions for a decade
like Iraq was by 2003. They've got working equipment and spare
parts. I don't think invading Iran will be anything like the 2003
invasion of Iraq. Either way, an occupation would be impossible
without losing Iraq or afghanistan or instituting a draft, and if a
draft, you'll need to start that now because it'll take a couple
months before you see Johny-just-out-of-high-school go through
bootcamp, basic infantry training, and end up being usable for
an invasion.

The operative phrase for all this is "pipe dream".

[J. Weiland]

[quote=J. Weiland][quote=dclary]Since we are a democracy

Well, no. In a democracy the group of votes that equals the largest number of votes count. No one else's does.

We're actually a little better than a democracy in that we try to pay more than just lip service to the loser-groups.

Touché my green-eared man. :D

[robeiae]

But that is (IMHO) akin to insisting that the collapse of the British Empire didn't actually happen because Indian and Egypt didn't instantly become Superpowers. A lack of international emergence on the part of the colony does not invalidate the corresponding loss of Empire.

My point can be made best with an example: The British didn't dig up and take The Ochterlony Monument (named for a British General) with them when they withdrew from India --it's still there, renamed Shahid Minar (the Martyrs' Monument) to honor those Indians who had given their lives in the struggle against the British.
We're arguing in circles here, I think.

Unfortunately for the Brits, their homeland is pretty limited, like most of Western Europe. The U.S. doesn't have these constraints. We can still grow within and are doing so. Further, the British couldn't simply shift their focus to new markets because the preperation costs were far different in those days: empire-building needed military occupation or threat thereof to begin. The "economic empire" that is the U.S. doesn't have such needs or costs. We're not wanted in Korea. Fine. we switch to somwhere else, near there or on the other side of the world--it doesn't matter.

[Joe Unidos]

Well, no. In a democracy the group of votes that equals the largest number of votes count. No one else's does.

We're actually a little better than a democracy in that we try to pay more than just lip service to the loser-groups.

Exactly, America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. And I am glad of it, for the most part. (The day after Mr Gore "lost" notwithstanding.)

[dclary]

Exactly. And here Joe and I meet and agree. And that's why America rocks the hizzouse! More than any other nation whose name I can't mention because Mac is feeling her oats and has the wand of wrathiness at the ready!

;)

[robeiae]

Exactly, America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. And I am glad of it, for the most part. (The day after Mr Gore "lost" notwithstanding.)
Not to nitpick (well, okay--yes, to nitpick), but America is a Federated Democratic Republic, with Oligarchic tendencies. :D

[Joe Unidos]

Further, the British couldn't simply shift their focus to new markets because the preperation costs were far different in those days: empire-building needed military occupation or threat thereof to begin. The "economic empire" that is the U.S. doesn't have such needs or costs.

Nor does it have the implicit security and stability.

Moreover, the forced peer-hood of nuclear proliferation eliminates many other former advantages of empire over colony, of first-world over second and third. Which brings us to the real reason these nations seek nuclear capabilities. (And we all know it's not because they hate America and want to nuke us.)

[greglondon]

just to inject a little reality back into things:

Aug 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html


The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there,

sept 2006:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/27/nie.iraq/index.html

intelligence estimate's conclusion that the Iraqi insurgency has become the "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, "breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

The Iraq war is also shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives who could be a "potential source of leadership" for new Islamic terrorist groups, which are becoming harder to combat because they are increasingly decentralized and dispersed, the report concluded.

In addition, the intelligence analysts concluded the insurgency against U.S.-led forces in Iraq was an "underlying factor" fueling the spread of Islamic radicalism -- and that the underlying factors contributing to its spread will "outweigh its vulnerabilities" for at least the next five years.

It may be that Iraq has become a war that cannot be won.

[Joe Unidos]

Not to nitpick (well, okay--yes, to nitpick), but America is a Federated Democratic Republic, with Oligarchic tendencies. :D

I'll give you the pop for the correction if you give me the pop for the Gore joke.

:D

[MattW]

Not to nitpick (well, okay--yes, to nitpick), but America is a Federated Democratic Republic, with Oligarchic tendencies. :DI thought the election just threw out our Holy Theocracy?

[billythrilly7th]

well, your boy Gates, the next sec/def analyzed invading Iran
about two years ago as part of a large group of people looking
at Iran going nuclear. They came back with the recommendation:
better use diplomacy.

And Iran hasn't been under international sanctions for a decade
like Iraq was by 2003. They've got working equipment and spare
parts. I don't think invading Iran will be anything like the 2003
invasion of Iraq. Either way, an occupation would be impossible
without losing Iraq or afghanistan or instituting a draft, and if a
draft, you'll need to start that now because it'll take a couple
months before you see Johny-just-out-of-high-school go through
bootcamp, basic infantry training, and end up being usable for
an invasion.

Let me be as clear as I can be.

There will not be an invasion of Iran.

There will be a bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States.

No occupation. No nation building.

If Iran doesn't give up their nuclear ambitions after the use of diplomacy, they will be dealt with militarily as long as Bush or McCain or Rudy is in the White House.

Now, if Hillary is in the White House... :Shrug:

I would hope she'd do the right thing.

[blacbird]

Declarey! Major compliments!

I'd add one caveat to the matter of troop numbers. One of the unfortunate things the Iraq adventure has demonstrated to the world (particularly to the crazy Iranians) is not just our power, but the limits to our power. Notably, not enough humans in boots and uniforms. To a large extent we didn't send more troops in because we didn't really have more troops to send in, and still maintain readiness and commitments elsewhere. The Pentagoners are now talking about extending Guard and Reservist callups, just to maintain the level we have in Iraq now.

Why? Well, one reason behind the Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney drive for reduced manpower in the Army was cost. We had to have those tax cuts, you know. There's an umbilical involved here. It's an issue still to be worked out, and not just for the immediate situation in Iraq. Nobody is yet about to talk seriously about conscription, and it would be political death to be first to do so. But we're also having a hell of a time maintaining recruitment goals, and needing to lower standards just to do that, at best. I don't have an answer.

caw

[robeiae]

I thought the election just threw out our Holy Theocracy?Never ignore what the Supreme Court is and always has been.

[greglondon]

As of November 2006, the Bush administration claims that during Saddam's 23 year reign, Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqi civilians.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/09/iraq/main582585.shtml

Meanwhile, 3 years of US occupation has seen about the same number of civilian deaths.

And this is better, how?

[dclary]

just to inject a little reality back into things:

Aug 2006:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html



It may be that Iraq has become a war that cannot be won.

Hell of a secret report, that. What with it being in the Washington Post and all.

[dclary]

It may be that Iraq has become a war that cannot be won.

I thought you had stated from the beginning it was always a war that could not be won.

[billythrilly7th]

I do. Isolationism.

BoP, I finally found a job for you in my administration.

Overseer and Czar of Missile Defense Technology allowing Isolatationism.

Please write a paper on the topic for my perusal and if I like what I see, the job is yours.

Congrats! Almost.

[billythrilly7th]

We disagree here, Billy. We won't bomb. It's too dicey with Russia and China in the wings and US world opinion on the ropes.

China and Russia got nothing.

And it's not like we need to do this today.

We have time.

BUT....worse case scenario, Israel will handle it and we'll just back them up or something. I'm sure the Mossad knows exactly how much time we have.

I suggest Iran make the right decisions or they will pay the price.

[robeiae]

As of November 2006, the Bush administration claims that during Saddam's 23 year reign, Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqi civilians.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/09/iraq/main582585.shtml

Ummm..that's not what the story says:

As many as 300,000 Iraqis killed during Saddam Hussein's 23-year dictatorship are believed to be buried in more than 250 mass graves around the country, the top human rights official in the U.S.-led civilian administration, Sandy Hodgkinson, said Saturday.
That means that the 250 graves may contain as many as 300,000 victims of Saddam's regime. It doesn't mean Saddam's regime had only 300,000 victims.

[billythrilly7th]

You gotta hand it to Greg, Dc. That boy's got sum kinda energy, don't he?


Whenever I see someone new come along like this it always makes me think of Neil Young's song, "The Needle and the Damage Done."

:(

[billythrilly7th]

Thank you, Billy; I mean Sir; I mean your Lordship. . . .Kingship. . .Emperor. . . . .


"Mr. Future President" will work fine in a formal thread. But generally, feel free to keep calling me Billy. Or The Thrill.

Thank you and I look forward to reading your paper.

[greglondon]

Let me be as clear as I can be.

There will not be an invasion of Iran.

There will be a bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States.

Well, you've certainly been clear, Billy.
Clear that you haven't looked at a map recently.

You do realize that were we to bomb Iran
then we would be following exactly the same
path that lead to our invasion of Iraq, and
if Iran sees this "bomb only" campaign as
really just softening up targets for a full scale
invasion, then they might just do something about it?

Iraq's population is 26 million.
Iran's population is 68 million.

Iran spent 6 billion on its military last year,
Iran has 768,000 troops in its military
and 11 Million paramilitary troops.

And the reason you obviously haven't looked
at a map is because there are only about 140k
american troops barely keeping a hold on things
in Iraq, which just so happens to be right across
the border from Iran.

You start bombing them and there will be no
reason to expect them to react any other way
than as if it were a full scale invasion.

And the population there will NOT greet us as liberators.
We screwed them over from 1953 until 1979 while
our puppet dictator was in power. They revolted
and installed the government they have now.

If you think you can bomb the he11 out of Iran
and be totally free of any negative repurcussions

Pipe Dream

[dclary]

You gotta hand it to Greg, Dc. That boy's got sum kinda energy, don't he?

HuuuuuWEE!

I admire his sheer determination and internal verve.

[dclary]

Iran spent 6 billion on its military last year,
Iran has 768,000 troops in its military
and 11 Million paramilitary troops.


I first read that as 11 million paratroopers. And the first thing I thought was "What good would that do? They don't have that many planes!"

[greglondon]

I thought you had stated from the beginning it was always a war that could not be won.

sorry, no. trying to talk down to the 7th grade level may have made it
sound that way, but no.

with a few hundred thousand troops, Iraq may have been winnable.
and it may have gone civil war beyond our control.

With 140,000 troops, Iraq may have been winnable,
but may have gone civil war. The odds were definitely riskier.

Abu Graib and the deaths of a couple hundred thousand civlians
definitely made the odds worse.

The reports I linked to simply relay some info from people on the
ground who are saying its looking more like it is going into the
unwinnable category.

[greglondon]

It doesn't mean Saddam's regime had only 300,000 victims.

I'm open to some hard statistics from a reliable source.

[billythrilly7th]

You start bombing them and there will be no
reason to expect them to react any other way
than as if it were a full scale invasion.

And the population there will NOT greet us as liberators.
We screwed them over from 1953 until 1979 while
our puppet dictator was in power. They revolted
and installed the government they have now.

If you think you can bomb the he11 out of Iran
and be totally free of any negative repurcussions


A. I don't care how they react as long as we destroy their nuclear capabilities. What are they gonna do? Attack Israel in retaliation? Israel could nuke them of they want. Iran will try and defend against the bombings and maybe lob some weapons into Israel.
B. Who wants to be greeted as liberators? I'm taking out their nuclear capabilites. Period. They can deal with the aftermath anyway they want. Although the Iranian students do love us. BUT...we're done with liberation.
C. Who said "totally free of ANY negative repurcussion?." Minimal repercussions. Worth the risk to make sure that the "Israel will be anniliated in one storm" nuts over there don't get their hands on nukes.

[billythrilly7th]

HOLY COW!

Smokin' GregLondon, the relentless hammer of liberalism pounding across the land of TIO, morning, noon and night.


:ROFL:

[greglondon]

Greg, just so you know: you lose your credibility when you make remarks like that.

Billy asked me to keep it down to a 7th grade level.
I think it was because I used the word bifircate.
dclary said I was talking like a 3rd grader because
I say "Bush is a moron".

I'm having trouble keeping it in the green zone.
Not too complicated (no "bifircate"),
but not too simplistic (no "bush is moron").

still working on it.

[TheGaffer]

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

[dclary]

Me fail english? That's unpossible.

[TheGaffer]

I have two owies!!

[MattW]

I bent my wookie!

[greglondon]

Billy and Dclary can usually wear out anybody.

Well, I knew they weren't using physical evidence and such to win their arguments. So that does explain some things for me.

[J. Weiland]

Billy asked me to keep it down to a 7th grade level.
I think it was because I used the word bifircate.
dclary said I was talking like a 3rd grader because
I say "Bush is a moron".

I'm having trouble keeping it in the green zone.
Not too complicated (no "bifircate"),
but not too simplistic (no "bush is moron").

still working on it.

:ROFL:

[billythrilly7th]

But I want you to know I am in awe. Billy and Dclary can usually wear out anybody. I salute you.


He's been here two weeks. Let's see if he can maintain this pace, as Dclary and I have for I'd say FIVE YEARS or so.

But for the record...it's not a competition. And as always no wagering.

(Poor Greg. The Needle and The Damage Done. And then to have people like BOP say "Yeah, keep going man...keep going, junky..great job." You should be ashamed BoP. or as I like to call you..."The Enabler." :D)

[greglondon]

say FIVE YEARS or so

no, I'm no fan of quagmire, so I think long before five years roll around I'd write this off as a hopeless cause.

[billythrilly7th]

no, I'm no fan of quagmire, so I think long before five years roll around I'd write this off as a hopeless cause.

LOL...I got news for you.

I wrote it off as a hopeless cause about 4 years and 363 days ago.

Yet....here I am. I guess I am a fan of quagmire. Giggity giggity.

I suggest rolling with the waves. Dclary and I do take breaks now and then...

"Ahhhh...What a waste of time!!!"

A couple days pass...maybe a week or so....

"Oh, that thread sounds interesting...I'll post a couple times and then that's it..."

CUT TO:

:Soapbox: :e2BIC: :Hammer:

Then back to a detente....back and forth...

:Shrug:

[billythrilly7th]

Although in this case, I must say, the fella has fortitude. Kinda like Ali. Just hope he can take the pounding without getting the shakes later on.

A. But just don't ever mistake "free time and no life" for "fortitude." You never know. Thrill today, gone tomorrow. At least at this level of production. I'll always be around, but I hope to have a life one day. :)
B. LOL...it depends on how long he thinks he will ever convince anyone of his positions no matter how many times he repeats himself. If he's a believer then he might go nuts. If he realizes that he can say "6 Weeks and 6 Months" and "WMD's" until the cows come home, which won't be too much longer by the way, according to my sources, ...and he'll never convince anyone because we ain't buying what he's selling then he'll be fine. In all my years of debating both in real life and on the boards I've come up with one undeniable fact. If you're wrong and truth isn't on your side, you just can't win. It's a universal impossibility.

Anyway, I commend Greg on his ability to no longer use "Yoda" as a pejorative.
:)

[TheGaffer]

In all my years of debating both in real life and on the boards I've come up with one undeniable fact. If you're wrong and truth isn't on your side, you just can't win.

And yet, you keep plugging away.

[billythrilly7th]

And yet, you keep plugging away.

LOL....laugh it up

Yes. Because every once in awhile. It ain't often, but every once in awhile you get to be a part of something bigger than yourself.

Bravo and I worked on a Israeli/Palestinian peace plan about a year ago.

You and I have come together to work on many issues that we have found compromise and consensus on.

It's rare, but that's what being a leader is about.

And I plug away, in all honesty, because when I do run for office, I think these boards are going to help me immensly when it comes to vanquishing my opponents and the media.

It's the poltical debate gym. And I'm nearing Mr. Universe level. I scare myself when I think about how pumped up I'll be by 2012, 2016 when the political career begins.

:)