The Pentagon Papers, Iraq Edition

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
You guys really need to vote that nut out.

He's a moron.

I let everyone I know that he sucks and I'm voting him out.

[Agathon]

So when can we expect your CPA membership application?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
But one of the things pushed by both liberals and conservatives is that democracies are a panacea when it comes to international relations. The idea is supposed to be that the democratic will won't stand for aggressive moves that lack any real justification.

Bush and Blair have shown that this is simply not true. There aren't enough people who care enough about what goes on outside their nation's borders to make a difference and political structures have become ossified to make any realistic foreign policy alternatives impossible.

Would you care to demonstrate how Saddam was the leader of a democratically elected government?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So when can we expect your CPA membership application?

Don't push it!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

He's a moron.

I let everyone I know that he sucks and I'm voting him out.

Someone should inform John Kerry of the urgency.

Perhaps a letter.


11 Credibility St.
Bum****
Arkansas

16-09-2004

Dear Senator Kerry,

It has perhaps escaped your attention that a grave crisis threatens the Republic: the president is a moron surrounded by a bunch of maniacal incompetents who have no idea how to conduct effective foreign policy.

In response to this deadly danger something needs to be done. So I am urging you to immediately retrieve your testicles from wherever you have put them and start acting like you've got a pair. Your present campaign strategy of "act like an ineffectual arse" isn't working, other than to convey an aura of non-specific ineffectual arseness to the general public.

Please alter this strategy to "George Bush is a stupid mother****** and we and the rest of the world are ***ed if he stays". Every speech you give should include the words "liar", "chickenhawk" and "asshat" in close proximity to your opponent's name.

So start acting like a man. If you need reminding what it feels like to be a man, get a fat intern with big boobs to blow you. It worked for Clinton, and the sexual exploitation of women is the traditional Democratic way (everyone knows that the "F" in John F Kennedy stood for "**** machine" - why do you think that Monroe bimbo always looked so dazed?).

So pull your finger out you ****.


Yours

Elmer Fudd.

[Agathon]

Would you care to demonstrate how Saddam was the leader of a democratically elected government?

I was talking about our side, not his... SFB.

[Berzerker]

But not at the beck and call of the US. That the US is planning to set up its largest "embassy" in Iraq would worry any Iraqi nationalist.

True, we can't afford to hang around and treat the country like a foothold in the ME for future endeavors, but I doubt there are many nationalists waging this insurrection. It's more the people who had power under Saddam and who fear a transfer of power to potential and actual enemies within the country. So there are at least two kinds of nationalists, Saddam's supporters and Saddam's more numerous opponents and the latter group, with at least 1 notable exception (Sadr) is not only giving us time but helping. It's the same in Afghanistan, nationalists who hate the Taliban versus nationalists who support the Taliban... It's only logical that the first few months of the effort would be the most difficult.

[Agathon]

I doubt there are many nationalists waging this insurrection. It's more the people who had power under Saddam and who fear a transfer of power to potential and actual enemies within the country

No. It's all of them, and they are ganging up because they hate the US more than each other. I saw a couple of ex-military academics state this as fact last week, and it has been in the press for some time.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
I doubt there are many nationalists waging this insurrection. It's more the people who had power under Saddam

According to the talking heads, you iz wrong. Last year there were talking about 5,000 insurgents. The Pentagon now believes there are 15,000, and are expected to continue growing.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon


I was talking about our side, not his... SFB.

My bad. I was assuming you were on about democracies attacking democracies. I think it was this line:

ergo - there is reason to believe that nation-state democracies cannot solve the world's problems.

Still, was the US a party to a ceasefire or were they not? Was Saddam honouring the terms of said cease fire, or was he not.

You said, 'lack any real justification'. Some would say getting rid of Saddam was justification enough. The fact that he wasn't honouring ceasefires is all that is/was needed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You said, 'lack any real justification'. Some would say getting rid of Saddam was justification enough. The fact that he wasn't honouring ceasefires is all that is/was needed.

This is all off-thread. The point of this thread is that the Administration, having information that not only is all not going well, but that it isn't going to go well, continues to lie to the American public.

[Agathon]

Some would say getting rid of Saddam was justification enough.

You forget rule #1 - calculate the risks involved with either option. Leaving him be was the lesser risk as people argued at the time and as has now proved to be the case.

[chequita guevara]

Stop threadjacking!

[Agathon]

Stop threadjacking!

Stalinist!!!!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Stop threadjacking!

What? It's what Canucks do! You have your nice little stream flowing peacefully into the pond. WHAM! beaver damn.