If You Think Bush Is Evil Now...

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
June 6, 2007 .. Wait Until He Nukes Iran
by Paul Craig RobertsThe war in Iraq is lost. This fact is widely recognized by American military officers and has been recently expressed forcefully by Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq during the first year of the attempted occupation. Winning is no longer an option. Our best hope, Sanchez says, is "to stave off defeat," and that requires more intelligence and leadership than Sanchez sees in the entirety of our national political leadership: "I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time."
More evidence that the war is lost arrived June 4 with headlines reporting that "U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday." After five years of war the U.S. controls one-third of one city and nothing else.
A host of U.S. commanding generals have said that the Iraq war is destroying the U.S. military. A year ago Colin Powell said that the U.S. Army is "about broken." Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn says Bush has "piecemealed our force to death." Gen. Barry McCaffrey testified to the U.S. Senate that "the Army will unravel."
Col. Andy Bacevich, America's foremost writer on military affairs, documents in the current issue of The American Conservative that Bush's insane war has depleted and exhausted the U.S. Army and Marine Corps:
"Only a third of the regular Army's brigades qualify as combat-ready. In the reserve components, none meet that standard. When the last of the units reaches Baghdad as part of the president's strategy of escalation, the U.S. will be left without a ready-to-deploy land force reserve.
"The stress of repeated combat tours is sapping the Army's lifeblood. Especially worrying is the accelerating exodus of experienced leaders. The service is currently short 3,000 commissioned officers. By next year, the number is projected to grow to 3,500. The Guard and reserves are in even worse shape. There the shortage amounts to 7,500 officers. Young West Pointers are bailing out of the Army at a rate not seen in three decades. In an effort to staunch the losses, that service has begun offering a $20,000 bonus to newly promoted captains who agree to stay on for an additional three years. Meanwhile, as more and more officers want out, fewer and fewer want in: ROTC scholarships go unfilled for a lack of qualified applicants."
Bush has taken every desperate measure. Enlistment ages have been pushed up from 35 to 42. The percentage of high school dropouts and the number of recruits scoring at the bottom end of tests have spiked. The U.S. military is forced to recruit among drug users and convicted criminals. Bacevich reports that wavers "issued to convicted felons jumped by 30 percent." Combat tours have been extended from 12 to 15 months, and the same troops are being deployed again and again.
There is no equipment for training. Bacevich reports that "some $212 billion worth has been destroyed, damaged, or just plain worn out." What remains is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under these circumstances, "staying the course" means total defeat.
Even the neoconservative warmongers, who deceived Americans with the promise of a "cakewalk war" that would be over in six weeks, believe that the war is lost. But they have not given up. They have a last desperate plan: Bomb Iran. Vice President Dick Cheney is spearheading the neocon plan, and Norman Podhoretz is the plan's leading propagandist with his numerous pleas published in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary to bomb Iran. Podhoretz, like every neoconservative, is a total Islamophobe. Podhoretz has written that Islam must be deracinated and destroyed, a genocide for the Muslim people.
The neocons think that by bombing Iran the U.S. will provoke Iran to arm the Shi'ite militias in Iraq with armor-piercing rocket propelled grenades and surface-to-air missiles and unleash the militias against U.S. troops. These weapons would neutralize U.S. tanks and helicopter gunships and destroy the U.S. military edge, leaving divided and isolated U.S. forces subject to being cut off from supplies and retreat routes. With America on the verge of losing most of its troops in Iraq, the cry would go up to "save the troops" by nuking Iran.
Five years of unsuccessful war in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel's recent military defeat in Lebanon have convinced the neocons that America and Israel cannot establish hegemony over the Middle East with conventional forces alone. The neocons have changed U.S. war doctrine, which now permits the U.S. to preemptively strike with nuclear weapons a non-nuclear power. Neocons are forever heard asking "what's the use of having nuclear weapons if you can't use them?"
Neocons have convinced themselves that nuking Iran will show the Muslim world that Muslims have no alternative to submitting to the will of the U.S. government. Insurgency and terrorism cannot prevail against nuclear weapons.
Many U.S. military officers are horrified at what they think would be the worst-ever orchestrated war crime. There are reports of threatened resignations. But Dick Cheney is resolute. He tells Bush that the plan will save him from the ignominy of losing the war and restore his popularity as the president who saved Americans from Iranian nuclear weapons. With the captive American media providing propaganda cover, the neoconservatives believe that their plan can pull their chestnuts out of the fire and rescue them from the failure that their delusion has wrought.
The American electorate decided last November that they must do something about the failed war and gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress. However, the Democrats have decided that it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
The American electorate decided last November that they must do something about the failed war and gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress. However, the Democrats have decided that it is easier to be complicit in war crimes than to represent the wishes of the electorate and hold a rogue president accountable. If Cheney again prevails, America will supplant the Third Reich as the most reviled country in recorded history.

The electorate has little to do with what government does these days. Politicians are being bought and sold like *****s of Babylon. A little corporate lobby money goes a long way.

Now Canada has decided to join the lucrative fun in a bolder more obvious way then they ever did in the past. Use the loss of our 'fair use' as an example where politicians announced proudly they had been bought off. I think of it as the continued 'Americanization' of Canada. Pretty soon our votes won't count for anything either; just a ritual from a bygone era when we had democracy.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
We do know Bush has lost the war, but he will not nuke Iraq. He's not a complete moron. Remember, he got himself elected president TWICE.

He did nothing to get himself elected twice, but flap his yap, and say whatever Carl Rove told him to.
Carl Rove was the force behind him being elected. Bush is the mouthpiece, has the 'charm' to suck in
the people, can play the phony casual nice guy role, and look like the 'guy' on the street.
Too bad the u.s. people turned away from candidates who had class and spoke well, and decided
those people are snobs and boring, including John Kerry who many decided was a phony and a snob,
with too much money, (as though Bush hasn't any?), with 20 20 hindsight, Kerry would have made
10 times the president Bush has, as he would have been DIPLOMATIC, somelthing Bush knows
nothing about.
 

iARTthere4iam

Electoral Member
Jul 23, 2006
533
3
18
Pointy Rocks
I don't give a rat's ass about Bush. He is an imbecile and a very poor president. However he is not a lunatic and there is little reason to think that America is about to nuke anyone. How close is Iran to getting a functional nuclear weapon? What would they do with such a weapon? What should be done in response? Going to war in Iraq was possible in large part due to 911 and the newness of the Republican government (the Republican house and senate and white house). The country is tired of war, the military is tired, the US going to vote for a new president in 2008. The United States is not going to nuke anybody right now.
 

thomaska

Council Member
May 24, 2006
1,509
37
48
Great Satan
No difference. The US loses either way.:smile:

Loses what? A country full of 7th century minded sheep who can only maintain a civilization under brutal dictatorships? They can't handle a popularly elected government, it is not in their blood. Good riddance I say if we do lose it. Its not like the Iranian navy is going to invade us either, except maybe San Francisco, who no doubt, would give them the key to the city.

I may have been for the entire war when it all began, but after having been there, and seeing what those people do to each other in the name of that stinky prophet of theirs, I'd say its high time we left them to their own devices. Its a lose-lose situation, but as long as it is just them killing each other and not Americans anymore, it is fine by me.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
50,566
2,011
113
How is Bush "evil" by getting rid of Saddam?

Can you liberal, left-wing, lettuce-munching Canadians explain that?

According to you, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil for getting rid of Hitler.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
How is Bush "evil" by getting rid of Saddam?

Can you liberal, left-wing, lettuce-munching Canadians explain that?

According to you, Churchill and Roosevelt were evil for getting rid of Hitler.

Getting rid of Saddam is the 'only' thing Bush did that was helpful.
And, it's a good thing the U.S. didn't have Bush in World War 2, or the u.s. would be headed
by the German Nazi' Party right now.

What on earth does Churchill/Roosevelt have to do with Bush. They were great leaders.

Churchill was defending his country which was under attack, and Roosevelt came to help.
Bush probably would have gone running to his mommy if he had the responsibility they had.

The one responsibility he did have, which was in Afghanistan, he screwed up, big time.

Saddam didn't threaten the u.s. at all.
 

normbc9

Electoral Member
Nov 23, 2006
483
14
18
California
What the US strategy has been is to glue a bunch of water fowl feathers together and hope a duck will magically appear. It hasn't happened yet and propbably never will. But they keep looking for more water fowl feathers. Thi isn't the first time they have been in the alligator pond up to waist level and find out ther are more alluigators than their planners saw in the satellite photo's. Look at their previous actions in Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada and other places. I'll bet they do just like they did in Vietnam. Declare victory and start a hasty pullout leaving enough military material to equip a full military division taking thousands of refugees with them and giving those refugees a free home and Social Security benefits too. They may even become generous enough to them free Medicare also.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
No wonder they used much of their domestic policy to define their objectives.
They privatized the military, for a few reasons, more profits for multi nationals and they wanted to pay less for the broken soldiers who didn't get killed. They have brought this fuzzy out of focus conservatism to the battle front.
They also had no idea where the hell Iraq was, and the leadership knew nothing of the history of this part of the world. If they had a clear knowledge they would have handled things much differently.
Iraq is a disaster both for America and the western world, and I am afraid American fascism will cause severe problems for us all for the next couple of generations, as the muslim world has trounced two western super powers in two generations
 
May 28, 2007
3,866
67
48
Honour our Fallen
why was getting rid of saddam a good thing....more people are dying everyday than undr him...you can't even go out for a coffee without fearing for your life......

America gave Saddam his power through sanctions....what food and meds got in Saddam controled.. you went against him your village starved...If there were no sanctions and Iraq was left to develope on it's own without being allowed to invade anyone , eventually they would have gotten rid of Saddam and the country might have evolved into a normal place...might have...but now...not a chance ....the place is in chaos and is the perfect opportunity for profit all round.....

JB you keep posting the wrong propaganda....You are being played ....you think it's all so radical and like you understand the big meanie is a bastard ......You are being told what to understand...
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
I don't think Bush is evil. I don't even think Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld et al. are evil. Not even Paul Wolfowitz is evil. What they are is arrogant and ignorant, though often the effect is the same. They are, in fact, fairly typical leaders of an imperial power bent on protecting and expanding its perceived commercial and political interests around the world, and damn the consequences. Japanese leaders once thought that way too, they got their butts kicked badly, and soon afterwards learned that economic invasion is far more profitable and acceptable than military invasion, and far easier. The British learned it too, eventually, though it took a lot longer because Britain was the first global superpower and thought it had no rivals and could do whatever it wanted. It couldn't though. No occupying power has ever permanently held foreign territory against the will of the locals. The locals are at home, they'll never go away, and the occupying foreign power eventually has to leave when staying costs more in blood and treasure than the citizens back home are willing to pay.

America's leaders haven't learned the lessons of history, I think because they don't really know history. Vietnam should have taught them the folly of invading Iraq, but obviously it didn't. There's no question that So Damn Insane was an evil man who deserved to be taken down, but a unilateral invasion of Iraq was the wrong way to do it. It has sabotaged the UN's 60-year multilateral project for world peace, and risked creating again a world such as existed in 1914 that led to two horrible global conflicts, a world with multiple mutually suspicious two and three nation alliances. The best thing that could happen in Iraq is that the U.S. lose quickly and badly, and the UN's ongoing project for world peace get back on track. The alternative is the destruction of the UN and a return to unrestrained global conflict. And that's bad for all of us.
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
They are, in fact, fairly typical leaders of an imperial power bent on protecting and expanding its perceived commercial and political interests around the world, and damn the consequences

Kill one person, you are a person lacking in good judgement.
Kill ten people, you are a bungling fool best locked up to protect the rest of us.
Kill thousands of people, you are evil.