Iraq Study Group : the war is essentially already lost

Nice to see nothing changes in the minds of moonbats...

 

That's a very loaded question. If don't see the regional influences at play, then that's your problem. It doesn't take much research to know that many other oil countries do not want this to expand any further, as they were invested in the status-quo.

Given the sentiment (by some) that it's all going to break-down and be shit....one wonders what some people hope for. Just the lose of oil from Iraq or are they delusional in thinking that the power structure was a matter of luck before. The middle-east is proxy war. It's so proxy that the Saudi's are building a wall across their border to prevent any spilling-in of militia.

But that's okay, give it back to an extremist dictatorship. Allow a whole state to stew in those capabilities. Hell, I know even under the 'democracy' there's a lot of candiates with sticky relations and beliefs, but atleast that could change. You're letting your bias get in your way. This can't be lost, because we can't allow this cancer to grow or spill into other parts of the region. It's completely unacceptable and has too many likely consequences. Now, I'm not fan of Bush's decesion to start the war...atleast at the time he did, so I understand the sentiments. But I think people are thinking rashly and with bias. This is a weighty decesion that could effect the very future of the world.

And unfortunately sometimes war and death are necessary (to practical long-term health of a country). Pre-Pearl Harbor Americans, were infused with isolationism...thinking they could ignore the problem away; but afterwards they realized that it wasn't a chose anymore. Although their threat was more organized and intelligient, we do have to make due with any potential threat or 'cancer' currently. It shouldn't take an attack on us for us to be apt to action or atleast talk.

 

GTech, this is the reality.

This is not from the media, not from some shonky website, not some rumour. It is actual footage.
These are the very words straight from Rumsfelds mouth. He actually admitted there were no WMDs, and there you go
I'm afraid you have lost this particular argument GTech.

http://www.timetowakeup.net/video/27/Don-under-the-cosh..html

Stop living the dream because the invasion was based on a LIE.

 

That is what you got out of that video clip? You might want to watch it again. He never admitted there were no WMD's, he said "it appears as though there were none".

Hind sight... It's always 20/20, isn't. Man that reporter got smacked down. Not just by Rumsfeld, but by the other reporters applauding Rumsfeld.

 

Oh christ.

"it appears as though there were none"

That's the same thing.

Put the dream away, we were all lied to, the invasion was illegal, hundreds of thousands of people have died including many American forces.

That is the stark reality of the situation out there, no point trying to deny that because it is the truth.

 

I think we should get out of Iraq soon, although not immediately.

 

How did he get smaked down??

He pwned Rumsfeld.

Caught that gung-ho lying son of a bitch fair and square I thought.

 

No, actually in the context of your contention, it is not the same thing. You said he "admitted something", he did not admit anything.

Do you need Gtech to post the link to the people who lied to us? Some of them have names like, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy... Should I go on?

The stark reality is, you do not live in reality.

 

Thanks but I already read it.

I don't need someone like GTech to point out that, people in positions of power have lied to us for years now, don't need to be Sherloch Holmes to figure that one out.

Remember that Rumsfeld is a politician and chose his words carefully, but you know and I know that he was saying that there were no WMDs in that speech. And he was right too, because there were none.

 

You're confused... You might want to watch it again. This time try it sober.

 

I was not aware you had that skill.

Proving once again you do not know what you are talking about. Rumsfeld was not a "politician". I don't recall voting for him, nor do I recall him being elected to his previous post.

Like I said, you're confused... Try reading while sober.

 

I thought politicians knew for a while a war to take over Iraq was a bad idea.

I heard somewhere this was part of the reason Dubyas dad didn't invade fully - he knew it would be a very messy situation.

 

Bush senior did not invade Iraq because they had no plan for that. Their objective/mission was quite clear and well defined; remove Saddam from Kuwait/Liberate Kuwait.

 

I see the regional influences at play, the clear picture that is now even admitted by USA government is the fact that Iran has become the major power in the region and Iraq is under Iranian control thanks to Bush policies.
American spent billions, Americans died and Iran is the only winner in this conflict, great strategy.

 

Funny how (when Rumsfeld) is stalling (because he's lying his ass off) that security comes to eject McGovern.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/pzn.01.html

Also Mia you might want to look up the definition of Politician, preferably whilst sober.

 

It seems having no plan didn't bother Bush Junior at all.

 

The bias is strong within you. Have a drink...



I suppose you don't understand the full context of what I'm saying. *shrug*

 

There is it right there in black and white and you even copy/pasted it, but still do not see it... Amazing.

You might want to read the definition out loud to yourself 3 times.

1. 1. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
   2. One who holds or seeks a political office.

Rumsfeld was neither of these. He did not seek or hold a political office. I never saw him speak of party politics, never saw him campaigning...

You my friend are completely confused.

 

What are you saying? Are you claiming that Iraq is not under Iranians control? If not, why everybody insisting that the only solution to Iraq question is discussing it with Iranians? Do you know that Iraq's president is suspected of being Iranian secret agent? The simple fact is that before Iraq invasion many countries in the region feared American military power but today that fear has been replaced with laughter, even the taliban in Afghanistan have began to speak about victory there.

 

Try reading further down Mia, I think you might find that I'm right.

No point just quoting the top 2 lines Mia.