Anger on the left

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:23:29 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with Iraq
is treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if Churchill
was
in charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose
credibility, allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win first,
even if it takes 30 years....which it will. Then the historians can talk
about it for the next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.




Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way. That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

Some did ask the questions and saw the consequences of inaction. Some of
us are old enough to know what happens.

Iraq acting as the safe haven for terrorists training like Afghanistan and
Hussein financing them in other countries.
It was also touch and go for Masharif. He at least was bribable...but
still not trusted; because he's bribeable. And his country is a snipers
bullet away from internal chaos that will last for generations when he goes.

The Saudis are on a knifedge away from being slaughted by their own people
so the Americans can easily deal with them by withdrawing protection and
equipment and letting the Wahibbi's run amok and blow up the oil wells.
The country will then be ungovernable.

The Russians and Chinese sit on the sidelines hoping to god the Americans
get tied down for generations dealing with hysterical wogs so they don't
have to do it. It makes them feel stonger. Lots of political forces at
play here. Lots of new inventions will come out of it too for the
Americans. Watch an explosion of creative genius from them again.as the
spur to survive kicks in.

You can bet your life the alternatives were thought out. That doesn't mean
that it all has to go along smoothly to plan. But letting wogs take over
the world is not an option.

This problem will be around ALL your lifetime until a selective virus gets
put out there. No-one will admit to anything so don't ask.

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:23:29 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with
Iraq
is treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if Churchill
was
in charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose
credibility, allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win first,
even if it takes 30 years....which it will. Then the historians can
talk
about it for the next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.




Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way. That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

Some did ask the questions and saw the consequences of inaction. Some of
us are old enough to know what happens.

Iraq acting as the safe haven for terrorists training like Afghanistan and
Hussein financing them in other countries.

What horse****.

Jim

On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:47:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 03:06:40 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:


"ccr" wrote in message
et...
(snipped)
Afghanistan isn't a failure yet. But it is teetering on the edge. Karzai
is almost irrelevant. There is no central authority with control of the
countryside. The Taliban is still in the field. The warlords still
dominate most regions. The drug cultivation and trafficing has
skyrocketed. Afghanistan may not be a failure at this time, but it is as
close as one can get.

Iraq is already a monumental failure. All of the original stated aims for
a post Saddam state have been lost. The war has made Iran more dominant in
the region--the exact opposite of what the Bush cabal thought they'd
accomplish.



Yes, it is all a mess. But Churchill didn't have a win until 1942. Let me
see, that's from Sept. 1939 to El Alamein November 1942.

Three years the Germans wiped us. The Japanese were in mainland China,
Burma, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya.

Then the Americans got their act together. And the British stopped being
tolerant Christians. Things changed rapidly.

Of course the underlying question that goes unasked it what's it worth
and what's the downside.

you are invited to explicate 'what it is worth' and catalogue
'the downside'
compare and contrast

WWII was about survival of the country. Iraq
is not. Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror and can be again. It
was optional, ill conceived, ill executed and ba=otched on a 1000
levels.

you are invited to list these 1000 levels...

The down side of walking away is comparably inconsequential,
except for shame and prestige points, and that damage is already done.
Sad but true.


--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:31:54 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:23:29 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with Iraq
is treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if Churchill was
in charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose
credibility, allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win first,
even if it takes 30 years....which it will. Then the historians can talk
about it for the next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.


Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way.

what exactly do you propose to 'win'?

That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

must leave you out then

All accounts are this group of true believers never analyzed the
downside. And now they're learning it first hand.

what is your evidence for that empty claim?

And you ignore that it was the Iranians who led us in by the nose via
Chalabi. Our staying is what they want. And we can't afford it.

your foolishness is so extensive and monumental as to
be rather exciting....

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:49:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:23:29 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with
Iraq
is treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if Churchill
was
in charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose
credibility, allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win first,
even if it takes 30 years....which it will. Then the historians can
talk
about it for the next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.




Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way. That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

Some did ask the questions and saw the consequences of inaction. Some of
us are old enough to know what happens.

Iraq acting as the safe haven for terrorists training like Afghanistan and
Hussein financing them in other countries.

What horse****.

obviously you are another intellectual giant of the left

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:46:43 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Of course the underlying question that goes unasked it what's it worth
and what's the downside. WWII was about survival of the country. Iraq
is not. Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror and can be again. It
was optional, ill conceived, ill executed and ba=otched on a 1000
levels. The down side of walking away is comparably inconsequential,
except for shame and prestige points, and that damage is already done.
Sad but true.


You may not want to believe that Iraq was not about survival but that
belief will come back to haunt you in the future.

Tell us how invading Iraq was "about survival". The less hand-waving the
better.

you are invited to start studying in place of your childlike
whingeing and blathering
1)buy yourself an atlas...
2)work forward from here
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/rep...ssil_fuels.htm
3)start to read some history beyond the sloganeering of the leftist
fossil media

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Of course the underlying question that goes unasked it what's it worth
and what's the downside. WWII was about survival of the country. Iraq
is not. Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror and can be again. It
was optional, ill conceived, ill executed and ba=otched on a 1000
levels. The down side of walking away is comparably inconsequential,
except for shame and prestige points, and that damage is already done.
Sad but true.


You may not want to believe that Iraq was not about survival but that belief
will come back to haunt you in the future.

You could say for instance that Poland wasn't about British survival. I for
one say that now, but I didn't for 50 years. But others would say
differently and declared war on Germany over it when most British people
didn't know where Poland was or had even heard of the place. Once that
decision was made, all that matters after that is winning.

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with Iraq is
treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if Churchill was in
charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose credibility,
allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win first, even if it takes
30 years....which it will. Then the historians can talk about it for the
next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.


Precisely what does "win" mean to you? What is the exit strategy
that buts all the troops into a civlian existence?

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org

"abelard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:49:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 May 2007 04:23:29 GMT, "Stan"
wrote:

Analysis comes much later. Open public analysis at the moment with
Iraq
is treason, and would get you in the Tower against the wall if
Churchill
was
in charge right now.

Its to do with 'perception'. Do you back away, lose face, lose
credibility, allow thugs to regard you as easy pushovers. You win
first,
even if it takes 30 years....which it will. Then the historians can
talk
about it for the next 30 years...which they will.

Worth and downsides is all talk. Win first.




Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way. That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

Some did ask the questions and saw the consequences of inaction. Some
of
us are old enough to know what happens.

Iraq acting as the safe haven for terrorists training like Afghanistan
and
Hussein financing them in other countries.

What horse****.

obviously you are another intellectual giant of the left

Thanks.

You're still fulla ****.

Jim

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 22:49:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

Or win nothing for 30 years, and bleed and lose face that way. That's
why intelligent people ask the hard questions BEFORE they go in.

Some did ask the questions and saw the consequences of inaction. Some
of
us are old enough to know what happens.

Iraq acting as the safe haven for terrorists training like Afghanistan
and
Hussein financing them in other countries.

What horse****.


Utter and total horse ****. The only Al Qaeda connection to Iraq was
Zarqawi. and he was in the Northern Kurdish controlled area out of
reach of Saddam. And known to the US. In fact later reports indicated
the administration declined to take Zarqawi out because his physical
presence in Iraq was more valuable to them to sell the war.

When he says **** like that, you know you're talking to a kool aid
drinker and the facts and real discussion will play no role.

I know.

Hence the effort expended in my reply.

Jim

"abelard" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 May 2007 21:46:43 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"Stan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
(snipped)
Of course the underlying question that goes unasked it what's it worth
and what's the downside. WWII was about survival of the country. Iraq
is not. Iraq was unrelated to the war on terror and can be again. It
was optional, ill conceived, ill executed and ba=otched on a 1000
levels. The down side of walking away is comparably inconsequential,
except for shame and prestige points, and that damage is already done.
Sad but true.


You may not want to believe that Iraq was not about survival but that
belief will come back to haunt you in the future.

Tell us how invading Iraq was "about survival". The less hand-waving the
better.

you are invited to start studying in place of your childlike
whingeing and blathering

You are invited to answer the damn question.

Jim