We are so f*cking screwed (re: the war)

[elucidator]

Mr. Perle
Better Start Shakin’
Today’s Pig
Is Tomorrows Bacon

• Burma Shave

[Spit]

*Originally posted by 5 time champ *
**No you hold up Spit
I am certainly not foolish enough to believe anything out the mouths the Faux News Channel, nor everything from CBS or CNN.

But Bush and Rumsfeld played their little game of bait & switch with the American people in the media.

Yes, officially the American people were warned that this war wouldn’t be over in a week. But you don’t “sell” a war to the American people by telling them how difficult it is going to be.

Rumsfeld’s strategy was ‘shock & awe’, decapitate the Iraqi leadership and go in lightly with ground troops. It’s obvious that Rumsfeld has fallen for the oldest-trick-in-the-book, air power will win the war.

I was against this starting this war, especially without UN approval. I now reluctantly support Bush’s foolish war, since he has put American troop in harms way. **

I almost think something in that post makes sense…Nope, I was wrong.

Since they were honest from the beginning about this war taking longer than a day or two, I don’t see how you can call it a “bait & switch”.

Second, nobody thought air power would win the war- This would be why we have a massive amount of troops marching across the desert (at record speed might I add) towards Baghdad.

[elucidator]

No, still little doubt about it, America will win. GeeDubya will come galumphing back with Saddam’s head on his vorpal blade, and don his oh-so-manly bombardier jacket for the victory parade, with all major networks pre-empted for the glorious celebration.

And then comes the hangover. Ah, yes. The hangover.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Spit *
Since they were honest from the beginning about this war taking longer than a day or two, I don’t see how you can call it a “bait & switch”.

From this article:

Just three days before Bush gave orders to fire the first cruise missile at Saddam, Vice President Dick Cheney was on television opining that a war would be over in “weeks rather than months”.

Cheney, Defense Secretary in the 1991 Gulf War, was also saying as recently as March 16 that Iraqi civilians were so desperate to throw off Saddam’s rule that they would greet U.S. and British forces as liberators.

Yet at least two influential outside advisers on the administration’s Iraq policy, neoconservatives Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, both publicly predicted in the months leading up to war that a quick victory was on the cards.

Here’s another great example of the Administration assuring everybody that Dubya Dubya II would be over as soon as the Iraqis saw the first American soldier:

Senior Bush administration officials have concluded that the United States will quickly win a war against Iraq, based on superior American technology and a sharp deterioration of Saddam Hussein’s armed forces since the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict.

 Officials also believe a significant number of Saddam's army commanders and units will either refuse to fight or will assist allied troops in toppling the Baghdad regime.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, who designed the successful air war against Iraq in 1991, says victory can be achieved in weeks, not months, if the Pentagon exploits precision-guided munitions, special-operations troops and disloyalty within Iraq’s military.

 "If these basic steps are not violated and our war-fighting asymmetrical advantage is maximized, Saddam will not last 30 days," Gen. Glosson said in an interview.

 Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, often reflects the thinking of other hard-liners in the department's policy shop. "I don't believe we have to defeat Saddam's army," he said in the winter. "I think Saddam's army will defeat Saddam."

 A senior U.S. official, who asked not to be named, said one of the key arguments for action from hard-liners in the administration is that Iraq, while not a pushover, will be an easier foe this time than in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. 

There are, of course, many other examples.

[Saen]

I beleive Bush’s “weeks, not months,” is defined as seven weeks, 6 days. At least that is how Ari kept defining it when the press badgered him about how long the US was gonna put up with Saddams treachery of the UN.

We still got over 5 weeks left.

But really, this is war people. And this aint freeing a country the size of Rhode Island.

I too am a bit disapointed about our set-backs. But I am not naive enough to claim they should be doing better. None of us are privy to the situation the way the military planners are.

We all want it to go the best possible route. But just because we don’t see it being perfect, it is no call for the juvenile assertion that we are fucked.

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
Like McCain said when another war-happy president launched his attacks on Kosovo, I may not want us to be there but when you’re in it, you’re there to win it.

what the FUCK? We should have invaded Serbia in 1994, man. I woulda supported it even if it had meant me being drafted. War-happy? Rollyeyes is too good for that statement.

[Wabbit]

The OP wasn’t arguing that we are ‘fucked’ re: the war. I think everyone realizes that we’ll probably win. He’s saying that no matter what happens, the end result isn’t going to justify the cost we expended to get there. And I agree with him. minty pointed out much better than I could the over confidence with which we entered into this whole mess. This whole administration stinks of hubris, which doesn’t bode well for our future if we keep them in power.

[RexDart]

*Originally posted by Ludovic *
**what the FUCK? We should have invaded Serbia in 1994, man. I woulda supported it even if it had meant me being drafted. War-happy? Rollyeyes is too good for that statement. **

LOL, I seriously can’t understand these people who were so fucking gung-ho about invading Serbia to topple their tyrant and all against this current action. At least I’m consistent in opposing both as unwarranted military actions. I am not the one basing my support/opposition to war on which party is in the White House, as so many liberals are doing whilst running around making excuses and trying desperately to draw distinctions of any consequence between Serbia and Iraq. With or without the endorsement of some international council of diplomats, it’s still meddling where we have no business meddling.

Serbia and Iraq are two symptoms of the same disease, namely a dangerous tendency of the United States over the last 87 years to base its world position on the projection of military power. Fuck every president from that lying sack of shit Woodrow Wilson onwards, bunch of fucking meddlers who keep drawing us into this kind of shit.

[Leaper]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**Since the only one that posted anything even remotely resembling that position was me, I’ll point out that it was a satirical piece from the Onion. It satirises the “don’t worry” position of some war hawks. **

To clarify, I was not speaking of anything said in this thread, necessarily, just stuff I’ve observed in other threads and other places. I was not referring to you, and I knew it was satire. Sorry for the confusion.

[Tars_Tarkas]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**LOL, I seriously can’t understand these people who were so fucking gung-ho about invading Serbia to topple their tyrant and all against this current action. **

I’d be for the war if liberating people was the real reason we were there. we got dozens of countries that need liberating, but amazingly we go after the oil rich one the prez’s daddy has a problem with. Coupled with the faux diplomacy and lack of WMD evidence, it looks super suspicious.

[SPOOFE]

I’d be for the war if liberating people was the real reason we were there.

I’m with you on that one. I still hold on to the hope that, when all’s said and done, the UN will get in there and spearhead the reconstruction, rather than leaving it as a joint US/UK operation alone…

… But I’m not gonna hold my breath…

[Ludovic]

*Originally posted by RexDart *
**LOL, I seriously can’t understand these people who were so fucking gung-ho about invading Serbia to topple their tyrant and all against this current action. At least I’m consistent in opposing both as unwarranted military actions. I am not the one basing my support/opposition to war on which party is in the White House, as so many liberals are doing whilst running around making excuses and trying desperately to draw distinctions of any consequence between Serbia and Iraq. With or without the endorsement of some international council of diplomats, it’s still meddling where we have no business meddling.

Serbia and Iraq are two symptoms of the same disease, namely a dangerous tendency of the United States over the last 87 years to base its world position on the projection of military power. Fuck every president from that lying sack of shit Woodrow Wilson onwards, bunch of fucking meddlers who keep drawing us into this kind of shit. **

I agree, a lot of people, politicians especially, seem to have reversed themselves on this due to party loyalty: that’s sheer outrageousness.

On the other hand, while the situations are/were extremely similar, I think there was a greater case for action in former Yugoslavia than in Iraq: namely, facts on the ground. Republics had already broken off: if we were to enforce that situation, it would probably be more stable than post-Saddam Iraq , where the different peoples are artificially kept together.

The timing of this war against saddam is off, IMO: other than that, I do not disagree with this action. So to the extent that the situations are similar, I am consistent. And am also consistent in thinking that BOTH actions, if we were to have done them at all, should have been done much earlier.

[Spit]

So we liberate them AND we get some oil for our trouble! What’s the problem?

[Cubsfan]

What the fuck people? We are only 2 weeks into this thing. What the fuck did you expect? A war that is over in a month or two is a quick war. 2 weeks is barely a begining.

Get a grip and come back and bitch that the war is going on too long sometime around Thanksgiving or so.

[Fugazi]

Yep ** Stinkpalm **, I was going to say something similar. All the people complaining about this war not being “quick”. Define quick.

WWII took 4 years. Korea was 4 years to get a stalemate. Vietnam I’m not sure, it depends where you put the start & stop dates of the war, but somewhere around 6-7 years. Americans have become somewhat spoiled in thinking all wars should be over before dinner.

I think if this is over in under 2 months, that would be concidered pretty darn quick.

[Desmostylus]

Stinkpalm, Fugazi, if it’s so obvious that it was going to take a long time, why did those fuckwits mentioned by minty green come out with public statements to the contrary?

[Cubsfan]

I don’t think that is the arguement here. The arguement is “What is a long time?” I don’t consider a few month “war” to be a “long time”. War of any length sucks, but a war that only lasts a few months is a short war. These people who are amazed that the war is still going on after 2 FUCKING WEEKS are living in some fantasy land or something.

I can understand people being against the war, but to be suprised that a war in which we are trying to take cities with populations in the millions is taking too long when it has been only 2 weeks is nuts.

[Desmostylus]

Fair enough.

[UncleBeer]

Moderator’s Notes: Demostylus, I’ve deleted the text you copied from The Onion back on the first page of this thread. Please do not post copyrighted articles here. This is covered in the user agreement. Thank you.

[wring]

*Originally posted by Stinkpalm *
**I don’t think that is the arguement here. The arguement is “What is a long time?” I don’t consider a few month “war” to be a “long time”. War of any length sucks, but a war that only lasts a few months is a short war. These people who are amazed that the war is still going on after 2 FUCKING WEEKS are living in some fantasy land or something.

I can understand people being against the war, but to be suprised that a war in which we are trying to take cities with populations in the millions is taking too long when it has been only 2 weeks is nuts. **

Perhaps some one could link to the prediction thread??? I took a small hiatus a while back, and entered some thread here where folks were saying ‘week/two weeks/month’ type of prediction , and I questioned it then, suggesting that such predictions were perhaps based on GWI, where we were fighting to oust Iraq from Kuwait. a damn sight different than fighting in their country.