Dear Mr. Bush: You've been pwned

[Madrigal]

It's been six years since you launched your imbecilic plan to consolidate your little Pax Americana.

I remember the day I watched the first bombs raining on Afghanistan on TV. I'm not sure, but I think I had returned from an anti-war march that very day. The asceptic night-vision recording showed a black screen and green lights blasting. Everything was going to be over so soon. Or so they said. But we knew you'd go after Iraq next and we knew you were going to fail. I never doubted that for a second.

And now look at Iraq. The latest National Intelligence Estimate points out US failure to change the strategic situation. There is no possibility of setting up a viable, pro-US government in Iraq. Four years later, there's still no evidence that staying the course will accomplish that goal.

Your only option is to change your strategic aim. Now you'll just have to settle for attempting to contain Iran when you withdraw your soldiers. That was funny how you started talking tough to Iran for a while, back when you thought you could scare them into a real shiite-backed coalition government in Iraq. Losing a couple thousand soldiers a year now doesn't seem like a high price to pay for stopping Iraq from becoming a jihadist haven and blocking Iran's plans to dominate Iraq. It's not even Iraq's fate that would matter as much as the possibility of Iran moving in along the Saudi border and forcing its influence on Saudi Arabia. I'd like to hear someone say, "It's not about the oil" when that happens.

What are you gonna do? If you make a phased withdrawal you'll just be exposing your soldiers to more danger. If you withdraw "immediately", you'll create the vacuum for Iran to move in. If you just sit there, you'll only keep Iran out a while longer while you bleed your forces, undermine any support you may have, and erode your country's political hegemony - but will never achieve your strategic aim. That pax americana is so much further away now than it seemed to be.

...

pwned :smooch:

[Lateralus]

Unfortunately, Bush will never pay for his blunders. It's Americans and Iraqis who are forced to pay. Pardon me for not sharing your enthusiasm when you say "pwned".

[Limey]

No arguments here. A lot of people here in the US also saw it coming and had the bravery to use no war for oil bumper stickers.
Afghanistan, meh - we kinda had to put down the "Religious Students" despite having trained and armed them as "freedom fighters" a few years before because they now supported our arch enemy. Iraq was ridiculous though, I think Bush saw the documentary where Schwarzkopf was bitching about not being able to chase the looters back across their border who made it home. He decided to finish daddy's war.

What are your views on the Islas Malvinas?

[booyalab]

I'm sick of the "no blood for oil" bullshit. Stifling oil production and exposing the oil market to the chaos of war only increases the price. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows absolutely nothing about economics.

[Madrigal]

Unfortunately, Bush will never pay for his blunders. It's Americans and Iraqis who are forced to pay. Pardon me for not sharing your enthusiasm when you say "pwned".

Being glad that the US didn't impose its will by force and genocide hardly means I'm glad of the consequences of the war, on a global scale.

EVERYONE's going to pay, not just Americans and Iraqis. Gladly, the US is failing in their strategic goal, but I'm expectant to see when that failure will become a victory for the people of Iraq, or others oppressed by US imperialism. I don't see that in the near future, I see more crises, things getting worse before they could possibly get better.



What are your views on the Islas Malvinas?

That they rightfully belong to Argentina and that British presence there represents a regional threat, as well as an economic opportunity for England to steal our oil resources in the area. But I really wouln't want to discuss that on this thread.... heh, it's happened before. :ph34r:

[Lateralus]

Being glad that the US didn't impose its will by force and genocide hardly means I'm glad of the consequences of the war, on a global scale.
Well, you had me fooled.


EVERYONE's going to pay, not just Americans and Iraqis. Gladly, the US is failing in their strategic goal, but I'm expectant to see when that failure will become a victory for the people of Iraq, or others oppressed by US imperialism. I don't see that in the near future, I see more crises, things getting worse before they could possibly get better.
Certainly more than just the Americans and Iraqis are going to pay. They are more directly affected and I was trying to be brief.

[Spring]

Meh, no one is perfect. He did what was in his own interest and no man is really different in that respect. Perhaps it was a mistake, but I would like to think that the men who died in these wars died for something. It's easy to blame once the dice have been cast, but we let him make the gamble, so we all get our share of this shitty outcome.

[Madrigal]

Well, you had me fooled.


No, I think your reading comprehension did.

[Limey]

That they rightfully belong to Argentina and that British presence there represents a regional threat, as well as an economic opportunity for England to steal our oil resources in the area. But I really wouln't want to discuss that on this thread.... heh, it's happened before. :ph34r:

I think it's relevant and closely related to this thread.
I'm not aware of BP doing any form of exploration in the area.
I do remember back in the early 80s at school when we were all gung ho about Thatcher sending the fleet out, and then we couldn't find the damn place on the map - (we were looking at all the little islands within 1000 miles of the UK)

[Madrigal]

I'm not aware of BP doing any form of exploration in the area.

Yeah, they are, it's been on the news here, anyway.

[Lateralus]

No, I think your reading comprehension did.
Knowing who you idolize, politically (mass murderers), I don't think so.

[booyalab]

Gladly, the US is failing in their strategic goal Statements like this reveal your nationalistic bias. Is it intentional? Just curious.

[Madrigal]

Knowing who you idolize, politically (mass murderers), I don't think so.

*wince*

I'm just hoping this is the last irrelevant (and ad hominem) post you slip into this thread on your way out.

[Lateralus]

*wince*

I'm just hoping this is the last irrelevant (and ad hominem) post you slip into this thread on your way out.
It is relevant. Your post is an editorial based on your political views. Bringing your political views into question is, therefore, valid.

[Limey]

Blair already lost his job for being a lap dog, it's a shame the American senior level politicians don't also rise up and cut this lame Duck loose

[sorabji_66]

it's the 7th Administration i've lived through. he's not the worst, he's nowhere near the best i've been aware of.

by your 3rd one i hope you don't get all upset by a Pres who has kept the economy running okay.

[Limey]

it's the 7th Administration i've lived through. he's not the worst, he's nowhere near the best i've been aware of.

by your 3rd one i hope you don't get all upset by a Pres who has kept the economy running okay.


I read this as analogous to the fiction of saying that a new CEO for Microsoft came in, turned a multi Billion dollar corporation into something that owed the banks Billions and had a share price in the toilet and then saying, "well at least we're still doing business ok, we still have jobs"

There are more than two dollars to the pound now and it's still slumping, we haven't seen that for years. More people losing their homes than ever thanks to faulty fiscal administration and the artificially low prime rate. The economy is a bit of a fallacy, a bit of a house of cards, but by the time it wobbles, a new administration will be in power to blame.

[Madrigal]

Statements like this reveal your nationalistic bias. Is it intentional? Just curious.

How am I biased because I see the US failing in Iraq? Does the Intelligence Estimate also share my same 'bias'? Nationalistic in favour of what nation?


It is relevant. Your post is an editorial based on your political views. Bringing your political views into question is, therefore, valid.

Okay, maybe you can try elaborating on how my analysis of US options in Iraq is connected with my support for 'mass murderers.' I mean, you'll still sound like a clown but at least you can pretend to be on topic.

[C.J.Woolf]

Meh, no one is perfect. He did what was in his own interest and no man is really different in that respect. Perhaps it was a mistake, but I would like to think that the men who died in these wars died for something. It's easy to blame once the dice have been cast, but we let him make the gamble, so we all get our share of this shitty outcome.
No, Bush is to blame. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan didn't listen to the neocons because they knew they were crackpots. But Dubya was determined to prove his daddy wrong. (They don't call him Oedipus Tex for nothing.) Then he flat-out lied about WMDs in Iraq for his casus belli. I did not expect Bush to lie about something so serious, and I expect Congress thought the same way.


Blair already lost his job for being a lap dog, it's a shame the American senior level politicians don't also rise up and cut this lame Duck loose
I can kinda sorta understand the Republicans. They're afraid of offending Bush's cult of personality (the 27 percenters). But the Democrats continue to act like whipped dogs. It's disappointing. They continue to fail to understand that the Republicans became popular because they're pitbulls. There is a lot of pent-up demand for Democratic pitbulls. Jim Webb is the closest thing they have to one.

[sorabji_66]

I read this as analogous to the fiction of saying that a new CEO for Microsoft came in, turned a multi Billion dollar corporation into something that owed the banks Billions and had a share price in the toilet and then saying, "well at least we're still doing business ok, we still have jobs"

There are more than two dollars to the pound now and it's still slumping, we haven't seen that for years. More people losing their homes than ever thanks to faulty fiscal administration and the artificially low prime rate. The economy is a bit of a fallacy, a bit of a house of cards, but by the time it wobbles, a new administration will be in power to blame.


you are spending way too much time worrying about things that deep down have nothing to do with you.

[sorabji_66]

No, Bush is to blame. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan didn't listen to the neocons because they knew they were crackpots. But Dubya was determined to prove his daddy wrong. (They don't call him Oedipus Tex for nothing.) Then he flat-out lied about WMDs in Iraq for his casus belli. I did not expect Bush to lie about something so serious, and I expect Congress thought the same way.


I can kinda sorta understand the Republicans. They're afraid of offending Bush's cult of personality (the 27 percenters). But the Democrats continue to act like whipped dogs. It's disappointing. They continue to fail to understand that the Republicans became popular because they're pitbulls. There is a lot of pent-up demand for Democratic pitbulls. Jim Webb is the closest thing they have to one.


yes, Reagan didn't listen to the neo-cons. is this what is being taught in left-wing comic books?


:) :) :) :)

[Madrigal]

it's the 7th Administration i've lived through. he's not the worst, he's nowhere near the best i've been aware of.

by your 3rd one i hope you don't get all upset by a Pres who has kept the economy running okay.

And thanks for illustrating that older doesn't mean wiser. The US economy is slowing down and has a bleak outlook at the moment. I already discussed this so I can't be bothered to reformulate my opinion on it for you, here's a repost.


I suppose that fiscal deficit, current account deficit and plummeting domestic savings levels don't mean much to you. They probably don't mean much to you in combination either. That's the truly scary part. Added to the fact that, unlike its ability to bounce back after Vietnam, this time there is another currency that threatens to replace the dollar's status in the future. Not to mention that the US was the main loaning nation back then, while today it is the greatest debtor in the world.

[Spring]

No, Bush is to blame. Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan didn't listen to the neocons because they knew they were crackpots. But Dubya was determined to prove his daddy wrong. (They don't call him Oedipus Tex for nothing.) Then he flat-out lied about WMDs in Iraq for his casus belli. I did not expect Bush to lie about something so serious, and I expect Congress thought the same way.

Hey, there is a difference between falsifying intelligence and outright lying you know. ;)

I was a high school brat and I could tell they were stretching the truth, so I somehow doubt that the entire Congress of Harvard and Yale educated people couldn't see what was so obvious to me. No, people let this war progress even though they knew better. And it isn't like all this kept him from getting re-elected. Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me.

[Helios]

the people who paid for this group of folks got a great return on their investment. Now a new group will come in and different people will get a turn at looting the cookie jar.

[Lateralus]

Okay, maybe you can try elaborating on how my analysis of US options in Iraq is connected with my support for 'mass murderers.' I mean, you'll still sound like a clown but at least you can pretend to be on topic.
You sounded enthusiastic (to me) in your first post, talking about the failures of the Bush administration. Based on your political ideology and idols (mass murderers), it's not unreasonable to conclude that you would find suffering among the US and Iraqi populaces as acceptable, given the circumstances.

That's why I said that I don't share your enthusiasm, which seems to have offended you.

[Madrigal]

You sounded enthusiastic (to me) in your first post, talking about the failures of the Bush administration. Based on your political ideology and idols (mass murderers), it's not unreasonable to conclude that you would find suffering among the US and Iraqi populaces as acceptable, given the circumstances.


Lol... it isn't worth it.

[ApeTheDog]

That's cool. I had no idea Mr. Bush read this forum!

If he's reading this thread: would you like to impose the death penalty as a law for all of the united states?

[Ferrus]

Just out of interest: as a Marxist, why are you concerned with territorial borders and sovereignty, surely they are irrelevancies to be desposed off?

[Dark Razor]

I'm sick of the "no blood for oil" bullshit. Stifling oil production and exposing the oil market to the chaos of war only increases the price. Anyone who thinks otherwise knows absolutely nothing about economics.

The price of oil is fairly irrelevant though, up to a certain point, as far as the government and the corporations are concerned, because they are not the ones paying for it. The additional price is swiftly passed on to the end-user of the products and services that are produced/provided by the corporations/government, that end-user being of course the "consumer" or simple citizen.

The price of oil is not the primary concern, the primary concern is access to it, and, perhaps even more importantly, the ability to deny that access to your enemies, your potential enemies and also your "allies"(read vassals). Because it allows you to influence/control/dictate their actions/decisions. Of course this is only possible if you are militarily strong enough, which the US is, though that power is being hollowed out now.

The strategic goal of US intervention in the middle east should be fairly obvious, it is controlling access to the majority of oil and gas deposits in the ME and central Asia through a series of puppet governments, achieved either by direct attack or by sponsoring revolutions. It is also aimed at pushing Russian and Chinese influence out of that region, to which control over Central Asia is crucial. "Regime Change" in Iran is also crucial, though I dont know if that is still on the table. I would think though that the only options now are either to withdraw or to extend the war into Iran, which would fail though because of various, obvious reasons.

Of course there is also the whole thing about the Holy Land and Israeli warmongering that also plays a role in this whole game, but I am not sufficiently informed about the insanity that is going on there, so I cant comment on that.

[Nighthawk]

Cleaning up the mess will be the responsibility of which ever Democrat comes to office in the next election. My prediction is a phased withdrawal that unravels at the end, creating a vacuum anyway for Iran to move in and set up control. After all, the US has practice with that sort of thing from Vietnam.

[Limey]

you are spending way too much time worrying about things that deep down have nothing to do with you.

I live in North Carolina and my family are American, it affects me a little more than your average Canadian, Bacon-bit.

[ajblaise]

Live: Petraeus testifies on progress in Iraq.

http://www.yahoo.com/s/565612

edit: lol, someone just got kicked out for heckling.

[s'box]

Just out of interest: as a Marxist, why are you concerned with territorial borders and sovereignty, surely they are irrelevancies to be desposed off?

Irrelevencies to be desposed of, after a worldwide communist revolution

Nitpicking ideological theory doesnt really work properly if you only pick half the theory

[Oso Mocoso]

Cleaning up the mess will be the responsibility of which ever Democrat comes to office in the next election. My prediction is a phased withdrawal that unravels at the end, creating a vacuum anyway for Iran to move in and set up control. After all, the US has practice with that sort of thing from Vietnam.

Do you think that when the U.S. military leaves, they will do their best to take a giant steaming crap in Iran's back yard by propping up whatever anti-Iran factions emerge from the chaos? Probably more gangster warlord types?

--Oso

[Nighthawk]

Do you think that when the U.S. military leaves, they will do their best to take a giant steaming crap in Iran's back yard by propping up whatever anti-Iran factions emerge from the chaos? Probably more gangster warlord types?

--Oso

Yes, I can see that happening. I guess we'll see who is stronger, Iran or the warlord we set up to take Sadam's place. Looks like the CIA will have a field day again.

[Oso Mocoso]

Yes, I can see that happening. I guess we'll see who is stronger, Iran or the warlord we set up to take Sadam's place. Looks like the CIA will have a field day again.

http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/employment/contract.asp

Brush up your resume for the private military contracts! Blackwater USA will probably have lucrative job openings, keep an eye on their web site for details on how to apply.

--Oso

[Leftfield]

Do you think that when the U.S. military leaves, they will do their best to take a giant steaming crap in Iran's back yard by propping up whatever anti-Iran factions emerge from the chaos? Probably more gangster warlord types?

--Oso

LOL... What is wrong with the United States of America...? do we, the mythical Christian nation think we are God or what???

[Nighthawk]

http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/employment/contract.asp

Brush up your resume for the private military contracts! Blackwater USA will probably have lucrative job openings, keep an eye on their web site for details on how to apply.

--Oso

Ouch ... I'm getting too old for that. War is a young man's game. Besides ... my SO would go nuts worrying about me.

[nonperson]

Adjective

trite (comparative more trite, superlative most trite)

1. Worn out; hackneyed; used so many times that it is no longer interesting or effective (often in reference to a word or phrase.)

______________________________________________________________________

Dear Gentlepeople,

What would you Yanky malcontents do differently? What would your foreign policy be?

China's policy is wonderful; they do give a tinkers what happens within somebody else's borders as long as they get what they wabt.

The EU (read Germany and France) don't care as long as they make a profit.

Your country, rightly or wrongly, is the world's only super-power, would it better for you (and us) if you retreated into isolationism?

What annoys me about the left is there never a stated alternative.

Perhaps you should all vote Hugo (or is it Bingo (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=23819&page=20)?)

[Oso Mocoso]

Ouch ... I'm getting too old for that. War is a young man's game. Besides ... my SO would go nuts worrying about me.

Danger? Pshaw. You could be a high-priced analyst-consultant surrounded by computers in an air conditioned cubicle farm. You could observe the battlefield through a multitude of surveillance technologies, and order America's private ground forces (many formerly employed by now-displaced Latin American despots and coca lords) to assault a thoroughly-shelled Middle Eastern city in the most efficient and cost-effective manner, so that Blackwater's stock goes up. Then, when it's all over you'd count the bodies, tally inventory, crunch some numbers in a spreadsheet and dispatch your report to management, along with future recommendations for cost-cutting measures.

Okay, totally based on nothing ... but this is how I kind of imagine the future of warfare. Efficient. Outsourced.

--Oso

[Limey]

http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/employment/contract.asp

Brush up your resume for the private military contracts! Blackwater USA will probably have lucrative job openings, keep an eye on their web site for details on how to apply.

--Oso

You could have some fun with weapons and civilians (http://www.yikers.com/video_blackwater_mercenaries_shoot_at_iraqi_civilians.html)