GWB as Warlord: F

[Cyrus]

The majority of Americans now believe that sending troops to Iraq was the wron g thing do, which means that they believe the invasion was unjustified or badly executed, or both.

But it was also badly planned, as so many insiders have showed, most prominently of them all, the War College fellows. As if more proof was needed that the war in Iraq was badly planned, we now learn that the political leadership ignored the Pentagon’s advice on the military strength necessary to keep Iraq secure and peaceful. Essentially, Rummy & Co wanted a quick, photogenic war that would last a few weeks and then the troops would be significantly reduced (because the Iraqis would fall over themselves welcoming the American occupation!) – which didn’t happen.

So, now the United States has a military force in Iraq that was not meant to carry out such extensive occupation and pacification and counter-insurgency duties – and is obviously stretched to the breaking point. If you don’t believe me, listen to what Congress (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/07/congress.reserves.ap/index.html) is saying, in “a bipartisan show of concern”.

[MMMMMM]

I think your post title is off, Cyrus.

"W" won both wars very efficiently, but doesn't have enough Roman Soldiers to maintain the peace.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry MMMMMM warlords rule as well as win wars. See Warlord dictionary entry (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=warlord)

Grade remains F

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of Americans now believe that sending troops to Iraq was the wrong thing do, which means that they believe the invasion was unjustified or badly executed, or both.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not a logical conclusion from the statement presented. I recommend you return to college and take a course in logical thinking. Since their thinking has changed from prior polls it is more reasonable to believe that they are suffering from results oriented thinking (or at least the results being reported to them from the Liberal media).

Jimbo

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
Since their thinking has changed from prior polls it is more reasonable to believe that they are suffering from results oriented thinking

[/ QUOTE ]

Now thate's a leap of logic. It isn't more reasonable to believe that. Just maybe they are finding out that they were bamboozled by the Administration. And the press isn't liberal. I wish it was. Then we wouldn't have the puppets of the administration that we current have.

[Cyrus]

Cyrus > "The majority of Americans now believe that sending troops to Iraq was the wrong thing do, which means that they believe the invasion was unjustified or badly executed, or both."


Jimbo > "Not a logical conclusion from the statement presented. I recommend you return to college and take a course in logical thinking."

Before paying for my tuition, I suggest you point out the error in my thinking. When you analyse a poker play of yours and subsequently find it to have been wrong, that means that you think the play was, generally speaking, unjustified under the circumstances or badly executed or both.

Jimbo > "Since [the Americans'] thinking has changed from prior polls it is more reasonable to believe that they are suffering from results oriented thinking (or at least the results being reported to them from the Liberal media)."

There are many things wrong, as usually, crammed in your little post. Let's dispense with the easy one : There is no "liberal media". Conservative conglomerates, run and owned in their turn by conservative individuals, own the media. You have the arbitrary claims; I have the stockholder reports, the political contribution reports and the WSJ.

Then there is the whine of someone who is used to be in the majority and now finds himself in the minority! "They changed their minds, so now they are wrong"! This is pathetic, actually.

As to the American public being "results oriented", let's see if you are - or any of the war's supporters : Knowing what you know now about the war in Iraq (the lack of WMDs; the lack of any connection between 9/11 and Saddam; the cost in lives and money that the invasion entailed; the international isolation caused by it; the great growth of anti-American sentiments around the world caused by it; etc) WOULD YOU STILL DO IT? Would you still do it the way it was done exactly?

It's an opportunity to exercise your mental faculties somewhat beyond the usual facile inanities of your posts. Let's see you at it.

[MMMMMM]

From your link:

Main Entry: war·lord
Pronunciation: -"lord
Function: noun
1 : a supreme military leader
2 : a military commander exercising civil power by force usually in a limited area

You do know, don't you, that multiple definitons can be either "and" or "or". Frequently they are "or".

I was going to take your word for the definition and thank you for correcting me...until I clicked on your link and saw the above. Now I have more reason to doubt your claim.

[jokerswild]

.

[jokerswild]

.

[MMMMMM]

Iraq shot at our legally commissioned planes in the no-fly zone with regularity.

Saddam tried to have George Bush Sr. assassinated.

Those things are not "nothing".

But hey, I do understand; your view is this: "Saddam only tortured and killed his own people: it's none of our business!"

[craig r]

Are the Kurds technically "his own people?" When the colonists ,for example, killed Native Americans, would one say that "Americans killed their own people?" Saying, "Saddam is such a madman, he killed his own people," is just a way to justify bombing a country. The press couldn't say, "he killed those he percieved as threats, different, etc..."

[ACPlayer]

So, I take it you are making GWB a "Supreme Military Leader" for going to a country with a third rate force and taking the country over but cannot control the population. Even the Dalai Lama (to choose a pacifist) or you (to chose someone with and IQ lower the GWB if this is possible) could have martialled the American Army into going into Iraq and Afghanistan and winning the battle.

GWB- Some warlord. Grade F.
MMMMMM - some analyst. Grade F.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam tried to have George Bush Sr. assassinated.


[/ QUOTE ]

We should invade any country that tries to assinate a standing or former president of the United States, provided we have a reasonable chance of success in that invasion.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the Kurds technically "his own people?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam was the president of Iraq and leader of the Iraqi people. It is acceptable to say that the people of Iraq were his people.

The Kurds who live in Iraq are Iraqi.
Saddam killed Kurds who live in Iraq
Therefore Saddam killed Iraqi's.

So techinically speaking, Saddam killed his own people.


Stu

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are the Kurds technically "his own people?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam was the president of Iraq and leader of the Iraqi people. It is acceptable to say that the people of Iraq were his people.

The Kurds who live in Iraq are Iraqi.
Saddam killed Kurds who live in Iraq
Therefore Saddam killed Iraqi's.

So techinically speaking, Saddam killed his own people.


Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

So, I am an American before I am a Jew? Hitler killed his own people? I am assuming you are saying that "statehood" defines who your own people are and aren't? I am not trying to be condescending; my questions are earnest. My understanding of Iraqi history (as little as I have) is that Iraq was kind of "thrown together (i know things are more complicated than that)." And none of the above post is in anyway to defend Saddam (he is a scumbag despot); just like i would not defend the person who sold the gas to him.

craig

[jokerswild]

Actually the gassing referred to by MMMMMMMMM took place when Saddam was supported and supplied by the CIA in the war with Iran. Donald Rumsfield is seen in plemty of videos shaking hands with Saddam in public during this period.

[GWB]

You guys are in good company:


http://a248.e.akamai.net/6/800/1133/1089321724/oasc02.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/washtimes/AuthenticGOP_boxROS_2004.07/terrorists250x250.jpg

[Utah]

Hi Cyrus,

In a historical context the war was an incredible success. It was unbelievably fast (even compare to Gulf 1) with very low civilian death toll. The overall soldier death total is only around 1000 (I wonder what that compares to murders in the U.S. during the same period) - which is nothing compared to combat standards. That is miniscule by historical standards. We have only been there around one year - nothing compared to the troups in France, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Bosnia.

The country has not collapsed into chaos and it is indeed moving forward with both reconstruction and democracy.

Of course, this doesnt mean there are not problems. Many on both sides think that the troop level is way too low. Rummy and Co. didnt gauge the insurgent strength well and security is poor right now. However, some of this I think is still the effect of not having the Northern Front.

My Grades:
Initial War: A+
Post War: C+
Bremer and Co: C-

I am curious given your standards here, would you say that WW2 was a poorly executed disaster given the number of military deaths, the number of civilian deaths caused by the US, the length of combat, and the costs involved? What would your critique have been on lets say D-Day +7?

[ACPlayer]

Nice art work, but you have been hitting the sauce again GWB.

In fact, the various terrorists would prefer that we keep this administration and its adventurists policies. Lets see:


1. Al Qaeda now has a firm foothold in Iraq, where it as out of favour for so long.
2. The fundamentalist Islamists have no trouble in recruiting additional suicide bombers as all Muslims know that GWB is waging a holy war. 3. Bin Ladin is happy as 130K troops are in Iraq instead of hunting him.
4. Kim Il Jung is happy because Iraq keeps the pressure off him (note the Bush flip flop -- first no negotiating with Kim, now they are ready to make deals) and is getting US troups out of S. Korea.
5. Russia is happy as the Chechen's can now be attacked as terrorists and the US will not say anything.
6. The military dictatorship in Pakistan is happy at being granted special military trading status.
7. The dictators of Saudi are happy as the US administration battles PR problems stemming from Iraq.
8. Sharon is happy killing innocents in the name of fighting terrorism, with absolutely zero pressure to even try for peace.
9. The brutal regime of Uzbekistan is happy to be friends with the Americans in the name of looking for Bin Ladin.
10. Iran is off pursuing Nuclear ambitions while we try to put the lid back on the Iraqi pandora box.

There 10 out of 10 terrorists want Bush reelected. Backed by facts and not just pretty pictures.

[Cptkernow]

[ QUOTE ]

But hey, I do understand; your view is this: "Saddam only tortured and killed his own people: it's none of our business!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that was the view of the Monkeys aides and string pullers.
Thats why they made up the lies about WMD and about the supposed links between AlQuieda and Saddam.

[Cyrus]

"In a historical context the war [in Iraq] was an incredible success."

When we grade someone, we are supposed to grade in context. If we just say that America is so strong that it is gonna win any war it gets into, then this makes the grading of the warlord (the Prez) redundat : If any jerk can sit at the Oval Room and direct the strongest military machine in History, what is there to grade?

No, compared to what could & should have been done, the war in Iraq was

-- badly planned (I am not saying this; the Pentagon brass is saying, in so many words, that the political leadership simply re-worked most of the planning)

-- badly executed (the political leadership, such as the Sry of DoD, was intervening down to the most minute detail, something that had not occured even in Vietnam!)

-- badly followed up (I think your C grade was too generous for Dubya's performance during the occupation phase but let's not quibble).

"The overall soldier death total is only around 1000."

You're taking into account the deaths after "the end of major hostilities" which kinda cramps the style of your warlord!.. I mean what kind of warlord is that, when he doesn't know when major hostilities are "over" and when the real deal begins?

"The country has not collapsed into chaos and it is indeed moving forward with both reconstruction and democracy."

The General Accounting Office of the United States Congress begs to differ. I already provided the link.

[Cyrus]

"We should invade any country that tries to assinate a standing or former president of the United States, provided we have a reasonable chance of success in that invasion."

Would you invade for Clinton ?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

It was, by historical standards, a very speedy takeover with relatively minimal loss of life.

[MMMMMM]

Yes that's exactly what he did: "killed those he perceived as threats"--which was 3-4% of his entire population.

Stalin also "killed those he perceived as threats". Saddam idolized Stalin and his methods, kept a reading library of Stalin close at hand, and emulated his methods with great success albeit on smaller scale.

Yep, that's exactly what Saddam did: "killed those he pereceived as threats".

[MMMMMM]

The links have been proven to have existed between Saddam and al-Qaeda, even according to the recent commission; what was not proven is any link between Saddam and 9/11.

WMD's were not lied about. They are slowy being found and even if pre-war information was largely in error (and it could be so) that does not constitute a lie but an error--that info. was also concurred with by France, UK, Germany, Russia, Israel, Australia--and further back, by Clinton, etc.

The buzz phrases you nmention are inaccurate distortions.

[MMMMMM]

Ah, so yo're raising the bar now: to reach a grade we not only judge results by historical standards, but we must now handicap the participants as well. By the way, do you believe in Affirmative Action Grading?

[jokerswild]

I guess by this reasoning we have to invade the USA. Most of the soldiers are overseas. We should call them home to do house to house searches in Texas, California, Colorado, and Washington DC.

[MMMMMM]

Stu: "We should invade any country that tries to assinate a standing or former president of the United States, provided we have a reasonable chance of success in that invasion."

jokerswild: "I guess by this reasoning we have to invade the USA. Most of the soldiers are overseas. We should call them home to do house to house searches in Texas, California, Colorado, and Washington DC."

Clear evidence of a 180 IQ. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am an American before I am a Jew?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to decide that, I cannot decide how you prioritize of your allegances.

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler killed his own people?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was before my time, but thats what the tuaght me in History class. They also tuaght me that he killed lots of other people too.

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming you are saying that "statehood" defines who your own people are and aren't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would accept other definitions as well. However for making the point that Saddam killed his own people, that one suffices.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you invade for Clinton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, he is a former President of the United States.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the gassing referred to by MMMMMMMMM took place when Saddam was supported and supplied by the CIA in the war with Iran. Donald Rumsfield is seen in plemty of videos shaking hands with Saddam in public during this period.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US helped create this monster who killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We had a moral obligation to remove him. Its unfortunate that so much American blood has to be shed to correct that injustice, however, leaving Saddam in power, would have only allowed the crimes we committed to continue.

Stu

[Sloats]

I don't think the "war plan" was off. I think going in without a "peace plan" was way off. Also, soldiers need to advance, to constantly gain ground. Once you ask them to stop and 'dig in', they are just targets.

I was all for just leaving the country in chaos. Instead, by constantly hanging around and trying to appease EVERYONE, we can do nothing more than 'throw the donkey off of the bridge'.


Now who understands that reference. It's not George C Scott shooting the donkey in Patton.

[Utah]

When we grade someone, we are supposed to grade in context. If we just say that America is so strong that it is gonna win any war it gets into, then this makes the grading of the warlord (the Prez) redundat : If any jerk can sit at the Oval Room and direct the strongest military machine in History, what is there to grade?

Fair enough. Please explain how the initial combat phase could have gone better? Note - even vastly superior forces can get thier ass handed to them with poor planning and poor execution.

I am having trouble understanding your post. It seems that you are saying the intitial combat phase was poorly executed? Is that correct. Is so, please explain.

You're taking into account the deaths after "the end of major hostilities" which kinda cramps the style of your warlord!.. I mean what kind of warlord is that, when he doesn't know when major hostilities are "over" and when the real deal begins?

I believe the 1000 includes all deaths. But if not, it would be 1500 at most. Its simply nothing in the context of war. Heck, if the U.S. lost 5,000 more soldiers over the next couple of years it would still be nothing in terms of warfare.

I think the aircraft thing has worked its course. So the president made a political blunder and he didnt understand the strength of the insurgency. Big ass deal.

The General Accounting Office of the United States Congress begs to differ. I already provided the link.

I think you need to go back and read that report. It says security is a problem and that the reconstruction is going slower than planned. Hardly chaos. Please, my dear Cyrus, post the passages that show that Iraq is worse off (your initial assertion) and that it is now chaos.

[jokerswild]

Hi Welcher,
The country is in chaos. Civilian casualties are low because we call most people we kill terrorists. Comparing an imperialistic oil grab to WWII is ludicrous.

[MMMMMM]

So where is all the oil we grabbed?

[jokerswild]

Ask Cheney what Halliburton is doing. Ask George Shultz what Bechtel is doing. They are the ones with the no bid contracts. Of course, the locals tend to blow up the pipelines.

Isn't it interesting that out of 5,500 prisoners in US custody only 90 were born outside of Iraq?

You'd never ask your ubermann these questions even if given the chance.

[MMMMMM]

So what are you saying? Did we grab any oil or didn't we?

[jokerswild]

Corporations cozy with the fuhrer are doing quite well with Iraqi oil. They do quite well from overblown contracts, too.Halliburton is being investigated for fraud in numerous dealings along these lines. I suspect that the records will dissapear just like the fuhrer's military records.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think going in without a "peace plan" was way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are partially correct. We had a peace plan but it was all wrong. However, please consider that we are breaking new ground in what we are doing. No nation in history has done what we are trying to do.

In previous wars, when a nation was defeated by an invading army, it had no fight left in it because it was so utterly defeated. In the past, civilian populations were decimated, infrastructure totally destroyed, and whole armies sluaghtered.

The Iraqi war is different. Iraq's infrastructure remained largely intact. There was next to nothing in terms of civilian causualties, and the army wasn't sluaghtered, it simply melted away. In the past, occupied nations simply did not have any fight left in them. That is not the case with Iraq. There is still a lot of fight left in a large portion of the population. Previous occupation models will not work here because this is unlike any previous occupation. A totally new occupation model needs to be developed. The Bush administration did get the occupation plan wrong.

I have to give the Bush administration credit though, for doing what needed to be done. I don't think another administration would have had the balls to do what was the right thing to do(i.e. eliminate the monster(Saddam Hussien and the Bath party) we helped create).

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

Hey Joker,

Id like to see some evidence that we grabbed any oil, so far you have produced none, until then I will consider your statement on that matter frivilous and without merit.

You also commented on Military records which is a different subject. In my professional life I can tell you that I have worked with a lot of veterans(on the order of tens of thousands). I can honestly say that every veteran who has talked to me about his military medical records has told me that the government has lost some or all of them. The only veterans that I met who had complete medical records where the ones who maintained their own copies throughout thier carrers. Its not surprising to me the military lost some of Bush's records. What would have been a complete surprise is if the military had all of Bush's records completely intact. I suspect the odds of that happing are greater than one hitting a Powerball Jackpot.

Stu

[jokerswild]

Hey Stu,
If your name is George Bush, I don't think anyone would be losing anything of yours from 1970 forward. Poppy Bush was the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and had clear designs on the White House as early as his confimation hearings for DCI under Gerald Ford. If you happen to review transcripts of those confirmation hearings, then you will find that he clearly ddiscussed his future political ambitions. The White House staff itself stated that these records existed as little as 3 months ago. Maybe the people around Bush are just as moronic as Bush.

It's not my responsibility to give you links which show that Bechtel and Halliburton handle all the functioning Iraqi oil fields at this time. They certainly exist.

The problem is that the war was not conducted for oil for the American people, but for profits for corporations in which Bush and his cadres are heavily invested. Fascists gain support historically from corporations which have no qualms about how they make money. They enforce their will by military might. The Bush Administration meets this criteria.

[jokerswild]

Let's see. JFK was killed in Dallas. Gerald Ford was shot at in California. George H.W. Bush had a woman arrested in Colorado for illegaly bringing a fire arm into one of his campaign rallies. Bill CLinton had an airpline fly into the White House grounds, and had another nutcake fire a sub-automatic machine gun at the White House fence. Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington D.C.

It would appear that under Stu's logic, these states should all be invaded by the US Army.

Now I am against this idea. I did formerly contribute to the Brady Fund to support gun control

The only person on this board that has ever suggested taking up arms against the USA for ANY reason (to my knowledge) is none other than MMMMM.

[MMMMMM]

jokerswild: "Let's see. JFK was killed in Dallas. Gerald Ford was shot at in California. George H.W. Bush had a woman arrested in Colorado for illegaly bringing a fire arm into one of his campaign rallies. Bill CLinton had an airpline fly into the White House grounds, and had another nutcake fire a sub-automatic machine gun at the White House fence. Ronald Reagan was shot in Washington D.C.

It would appear that under Stu's logic, these states should all be invaded by the US Army."

Here is what Stu wrote, you clever thing:

[ QUOTE ]
We should invade any country that tries to assinate a standing or former president of the United States, provided we have a reasonable chance of success in that invasion.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, jokerswild: can you not somehow manage to discern a difference between a head-of-state (Saddam Hussein) trying to assassinate a former U.S. President, and various crackpot citizens (such as Hinckley) trying to assassinate the U.S. President?

"Now I am against this idea. I did formerly contribute to the Brady Fund to support gun control"

Fine...and when you finally figure out that "under Stu's logic" no states at all should be invaded, please let us all know. On the other hand, we may not be around in the year 2080.

"The only person on this board that has ever suggested taking up arms against the USA for ANY reason (to my knowledge) is none other than MMMMM."

LOL--I have not suggested that: I pointed out that one reason the citizenry should not be disarmed is because the populace could put up no resistance in the future should any government become too tyrannical. Nor do I perceive a likelihood of anything like that happening in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the future comes around eventually--even if we are no longer around when it does--and we should not wish our descendants to be completely unable to resist tyranny if it should rear its ugly head.

You know something, jokerswild: you really wouldn't be so bad if you were just a troll--but you somehow seem a more malevolent or vindictive troll lately. Is the Alpo not so good as it used to be, or something?

You know, you really should be careful a wizard doesn't turn you into stone someday--in mid-bark;-)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If your name is George Bush, I don't think anyone would be losing anything of yours from 1970 forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

They lose the records of generals(at least the generals I have spoken too). Losing records is something the military is good at. It doesn't matter who you are. You have to remember this is the same government that lost JFK's brain. Bush may very well be hiding some his records, but when he says some of them are lost, well you can't really argue with that can you.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not my responsibility to give you links which show that Bechtel and Halliburton handle all the functioning Iraqi oil fields at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

People might start to take you seriously if you did.

Stu

[jokerswild]

What a delusional rewriter of history you are.
Saddam's major links to the CIA are loud and clear.
Al Queda? Fat chance. Saddam did everything he could to distance himself from being invaded. "Links" to Al-Queda would certainly have garnered support of the Russians, the Germans, and the French. Saddam even permitted inspections. Hans Blix stated that Iraq was no threat and requested more time for additional inspections. Of course if Bush had permitted this, then his friends in Halliburton and Bechtel wouldn't be rolling in fat no bid contracts. The inspections were working. Saddam was a murderer. Where were you when he killed with the approval and supplies of the first Bush administration? You werre ranting and raving about the Ayatollah. I bet you cheered Saddam on.
Further, I'd bet that you defended David Koresh's murder of several ATF agents. I'd bet that you howled at the government ebnforcing the law againt a man that ordered the murder of federal agents. It is fascist, anti-American, militia like that you should really be investigated by homeland security.

[jokerswild]

OK. I'll post some information on Bechtel and Halliburton.

[jokerswild]

To anser your tirade once again:

What a delusional rewriter of history you are.
Saddam's major links to the CIA are loud and clear.
Al Queda? Fat chance. Saddam did everything he could to distance himself from being invaded. "Links" to Al-Queda would certainly have garnered support of the Russians, the Germans, and the French. Saddam even permitted inspections. Hans Blix stated that Iraq was no threat and requested more time for additional inspections. Of course, if Bush had permitted this, then his friends in Halliburton and Bechtel wouldn't be rolling in fat no bid contracts. The inspections were working.
Saddam was a murderer. Where were you when he killed with the approval and supplies of the first Bush administration? You werre ranting and raving about the Ayatollah. I bet you cheered Saddam on.
Further, I'd bet that you defended David Koresh's murder of several ATF agents. I'd bet that you howled at the government enforcing the law againt a man that ordered the murder of federal agents. It is fascist, anti-American, militia like that you should really be investigated by homeland security.


P.S.
(stop playing poker, before your obessesive compulsive personality lands you on skid row)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam did everything he could to distance himself from being invaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes are correct, he did try to avoid being invaded under a strong president who he knew had the balls to invade. Under a weak president Clinton, he tried to assinate a former President of the United States.

Sadaam and the Bathist were truely evil. The world is better off they are out of power. We did the right thing by removing him from power.

[ QUOTE ]
"Links" to Al-Queda would certainly have garnered support of the Russians, the Germans, and the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

What make you think that? The Russian told the US well before military operations in Iraq, that Saddam Husseins government was planning attacks within the US. Here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html) is a link. Yet the Russians were not ready to support any military action in Iraq on our part. If the Russians were unwilling to support the US war effort after providing information that indicated Iraq was a threat to the United States, what makes you think they would support the US war effort if there was some link between Iraq and Al Queda?

Stu

[ACPlayer]

Any idiot could have the US army take over a, mostly impotent, tinpot despot, with practically no modern weapons and no sense, who has been in virtual house arrest for 12 years.

I cant think of anyone who could have done worse.

[ACPlayer]

stop playing poker, before your obessesive compulsive personality lands you on skid row

You got that one wrong. He should keep playing, preferably in games with me in it.

Other than this error, keep on trucking. Of course you are arguing with a meathead - it wont hurt but you cannot possibly make him understand anything.

[ACPlayer]

stop playing poker, before your obessesive compulsive personality lands you on skid row

You got that one wrong. He should keep playing, preferably in games with me in it.

Other than this error, keep on trucking.

[MMMMMM]

You are arguing for an "F" on the war leader rating. Bush has presided over two brilliantly conducted invasions with results which, measured historically, are nothing less than superb.

So now you guys want to handicap Bush for ratings purposes--which is pretty funny.

At any rate, the two brilliant successes may not show that Bush should get an "A" rating for Warlord, but they do at least seem contraindicative of an "F" rating (except maybe in the topsy-turvy worlds of Cyrus and ACPlayer).

It's rather hard to equate a smashing success with an "F" in that endeavor (here being the prosecution of the invasions/wars)--at least in my world.

[ACPlayer]

Hmmmm. Smashing success!?

We were promised Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Instead we installed a Mayor of Kabul and the Taliban and the Al Qaeda are resurgent.

We were promised WMD and Al Qaeda in Iraq and got an impotent despot instead.

We are still playing the flop in those two place, are likely drawing dead and are calling on -- how did you put it -- you cant possibly fold for 1 small bet getting 20 to 1 on the money.

The only smashing success is the bonus plan at Haliburton. Those guys have won their pot.

Wanna play some poker (assuming you have any money left between your funding investment advisors and your calling station patterns)?