Insight on US views

#2
What's disturbing is that it reads like a fanatical, partisan screed. It's surprising to see a journalist submit to emotional hysteria. What a shame.
 
#3
I have never considered King George to of high interlect and consider that many in UK do not fully apriciate the mentality of the people who 'Run' Georgei boy.
From your comments you probably consider the the illegal invasion of Iraq as an action that defends the US of A.
The US administration got it wrong and dragged down my country via Georgi boy's pet poodle Blur.
Read and study history and do not accpet the internal ravings of the Neo CONS.
Your country will never live down the shame inflicted on your brave troops by the Chickenhawks.
john
 
#4
Lipo said:
What's disturbing is that it reads like a fanatical, partisan screed. It's surprising to see a journalist submit to emotional hysteria. What a shame.
Yes, it is shameless liberal nonsense from someone who cut his teeth at that leftie rag called The... erm... Economist and some Trotskyite pamphlet called The Financial Times before becoming an Associate Editor of The Times under that reincarnation of VI Lenin, Rupert Murdoch.

For my money, discourse in the US is focusing on the p1ss-poor execution of the war for two principal reasons. The first is that most Americans can't get their head around the degree to which a) intelligence failures occurred and b) intelligence was politicised and have an even harder time distinguishing which was which. It becomes a question of process, which is complicated and (for most people) not very interesting.

The second and most important factor is that, from a political point of view, Bush's opponents are on safe ground by pointing out that he couldn't organise a bunk-up in brothel. As I've stated elsewhere, even if you disregard whether you think his policies and aims are right or wrong, there is simply no getting away from the fact that he has failed in achieving any major policy success in the 7 years he's been asleep at the wheel. As such, by focusing debate on poor execution, Democrats are forcing Republicans to either break with the leader of their party or defend the indefensible. (Oh, it also gets a lot of Dems off the hook when it comes to who also accepted/ ignored the Int. :wink: )

Lipo, wake up and smell the coffee, you sad little estate agent. The writing is on the wall for your boy. Even his own party has deserted him. Just look at what the GOP candidates for '08 are saying about him. All that's left on his side are a small minority of knuckly-dragging, mouth breathing flat-earthers and puppets of AIPAC.
 
#5
"I have never considered King George to of high interlect..."
You don't say.

"...and consider that many in UK do not fully apriciate the mentality of the people who 'Run' Georgei boy."
Yes, of course...the neocons. How can I forget. It's the joke stupid people laugh at.

"From your comments you probably consider the the illegal invasion of Iraq as an action that defends the US of A."
Oh, no. I wanted the USA to invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein. He is now worm food. Mission accomplished.

"The US administration got it wrong and dragged down my country via Georgi boy's pet poodle Blur."
Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's or not is hardly the point. He most assuredly does not have them now. The burden of proof was with him and the invasion of Iraq was launched in order to settle the question once and for all. It was precisely the right thing to do. Absent accurate intelligence, the United States had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was a liar and a willing mass murderer.

"Read and study history and do not accpet the internal ravings of the Neo CONS."
Thanks, I'll make sure to do that.

"Your country will never live down the shame inflicted on your brave troops by the Chickenhawks."
Shame? You mean pride. I'm absolutely happy the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the right thing to do.
 
#6
"Lipo, wake up and smell the coffee, you sad little estate agent. The writing is on the wall for your boy. Even his own party has deserted him. Just look at what the GOP candidates for '08 are saying about him. All that's left on his side are a small minority of knuckly-dragging, mouth breathing flat-earthers and puppets of AIPAC."
No kidding. Looks like Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

I'm afraid you might be disappointed to realize that in the end, the presidencies of Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush won't be much different.

Once the revolution is over, one must get rid of the revolutionaries. The instant Hillary is sworn in, expect a purge of netroots from the party organization and a lurch by Hillary to the right.

Hillary will make herself popular by doing so - an absolute must if she intends to accomplish her legislative goals.
 
#7
Lipo said:
[
"From your comments you probably consider the the illegal invasion of Iraq as an action that defends the US of A."
Oh, no. I wanted the USA to invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein. He is now worm food. Mission accomplished.

"The US administration got it wrong and dragged down my country via Georgi boy's pet poodle Blur."
Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's or not is hardly the point. He most assuredly does not have them now.
"Your country will never live down the shame inflicted on your brave troops by the Chickenhawks."
Shame? You mean pride. I'm absolutely happy the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the right thing to do.
Thanks for the insight into your intellectual processes 'Lipo'...And for proving the validity of the article.
 
#10
Lipo, please, please, please, PLEASE go away. You're really not helping any of us few Americans on here.
 
#11
"Lipo, please, please, please, PLEASE go away. You're really not helping any of us few Americans on here."
Helping you? Do what?

Are you surprised that my views would be different from someone else? Perhaps my agenda is quite different from yours. So sorry.

Aren't you a journalist? If you disagree with me, you should tell me why. Don't be shy, Joseph. Speak up.
 
#12
You stick with it Lipo, don't let them get to you mate.

The Times article is a standard bit of Islington Angst, correct on calling Rummy a delusional tw*t and Cheney as an evil incompetent, and the post War planning as criminally neglectful. But we all knew that anyway.

Sounds to me like the Author is fishing for a NY Times job.
 
#13
Lipo said:
"From your comments you probably consider the the illegal invasion of Iraq as an action that defends the US of A."
Oh, no. I wanted the USA to invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein. He is now worm food. Mission accomplished.
Good enough so did I.

Lipo said:
"The US administration got it wrong and dragged down my country via Georgi boy's pet poodle Blur."

Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's or not is hardly the point. He most assuredly does not have them now. The burden of proof was with him and the invasion of Iraq was launched in order to settle the question once and for all. It was precisely the right thing to do. Absent accurate intelligence, the United States had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was a liar and a willing mass murderer.
Yep I agree, he was a Nazi w***** who has now been made safe

Lipo said:
"Your country will never live down the shame inflicted on your brave troops by the Chickenhawks."
Shame? You mean pride. I'm absolutely happy the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the right thing to do.
Afghanistan 300% yes the Taliban were (are) an affront to humanity, they should be burned like plague carriers. Iraqi well I would say 89% - we should have done Iran first as it always was the greater threat then swiftly done Saddam and his brood.
 
#14
Lipo said:
What's disturbing is that it reads like a fanatical, partisan screed. It's surprising to see a journalist submit to emotional hysteria. What a shame.
Lipo,

Brown realises that the only way he's going to win the next election is to pull out of Iraq and leave you lot to sort out your own mess. The story reads a lot different this side of the pond.

The question Mr Brown must now ask himself is whether he can still allow himself to remain publicly allied to a US Administration that is so recklessly belligerent in its diplomatic conduct, so demonstrably incompetent in warfare and so irresponsibly dangerous to the peace of the world.
 
#15
Muckshifter said:
Lipo,

Brown realises that the only way he's going to win the next election is to pull out of Iraq and leave you lot to sort out your own mess. The story reads a lot different this side of the pond.
Phew! So that will mean that AQ etc. will leave us alone! Great News! Especially as it was nothing to do with us and the role of British Troops in the invasion - being endorsed by a vote in Parliment was obviously just a misunderstanding.
 
#16
"The Times article is a standard bit of Islington Angst, correct on calling Rummy a delusional tw*t and Cheney as an evil incompetent, and the post War planning as criminally neglectful. But we all knew that anyway."
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about Rumsfeld and Cheney. I regard them as heroes. I've taken the time to write to them personally and commend them for their public service.

Certainly mistakes were made in planning and execution - especially evident in retrospect. Nevertheless, I think we would be shortsighted not to realize that blunders are to be expected in warfare.

It bears noting that institutional change of large organizations is difficult. Perhaps Rumsfeld was a hardass. I hope he was. Far be it for me to point out that Rumsfeld's lack of popularity may be related to his mandates for sometimes difficult but necessary change.
 
#17
"Brown realises that the only way he's going to win the next election is to pull out of Iraq and leave you lot to sort out your own mess. The story reads a lot different this side of the pond."
Does he now? That would be a pity. I can't imagine that Great Britain would willingly relinquish its influence with the United States. Very curious indeed. It doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
 
#18
Muckshifter said:
Lipo said:
What's disturbing is that it reads like a fanatical, partisan screed. It's surprising to see a journalist submit to emotional hysteria. What a shame.
Lipo,

Brown realises that the only way he's going to win the next election is to pull out of Iraq and leave you lot to sort out your own mess. The story reads a lot different this side of the pond.

The question Mr Brown must now ask himself is whether he can still allow himself to remain publicly allied to a US Administration that is so recklessly belligerent in its diplomatic conduct, so demonstrably incompetent in warfare and so irresponsibly dangerous to the peace of the world.
Quite agree, when Brown does this, the 'right' thing, my thoughts will be with the poor american troops. Who knows when they will likely be sent home.
 
#19
Lipo said:
"Lipo, please, please, please, PLEASE go away. You're really not helping any of us few Americans on here."
Helping you? Do what?

Are you surprised that my views would be different from someone else? Perhaps my agenda is quite different from yours. So sorry.

Aren't you a journalist? If you disagree with me, you should tell me why. Don't be shy, Joseph. Speak up.
Sorry, I may have been a bit harsh. I actually agree on a certain level with some of your sentiments, I just hope this doesn't turn into the typical shouting match that many of your previous contributions led to.


armchair_jihad said:
Lipo said:
"From your comments you probably consider the the illegal invasion of Iraq as an action that defends the US of A."
Oh, no. I wanted the USA to invade Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein. He is now worm food. Mission accomplished.
Good enough so did I.

Lipo said:
"The US administration got it wrong and dragged down my country via Georgi boy's pet poodle Blur."

Whether Saddam Hussein actually had WMD's or not is hardly the point. He most assuredly does not have them now. The burden of proof was with him and the invasion of Iraq was launched in order to settle the question once and for all. It was precisely the right thing to do. Absent accurate intelligence, the United States had every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein was a liar and a willing mass murderer.
Yep I agree, he was a Nazi w***** who has now been made safe

Lipo said:
"Your country will never live down the shame inflicted on your brave troops by the Chickenhawks."
Shame? You mean pride. I'm absolutely happy the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the right thing to do.
Afghanistan 300% yes the Taliban were (are) an affront to humanity, they should be burned like plague carriers. Iraqi well I would say 89% - we should have done Iran first as it always was the greater threat then swiftly done Saddam and his brood.
I can agree with you pretty much on all points AJ

edited:

Lipo said:
"The Times article is a standard bit of Islington Angst, correct on calling Rummy a delusional tw*t and Cheney as an evil incompetent, and the post War planning as criminally neglectful. But we all knew that anyway."
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about Rumsfeld and Cheney. I regard them as heroes. I've taken the time to write to them personally and commend them for their public service.

Certainly mistakes were made in planning and execution - especially evident in retrospect. Nevertheless, I think we would be shortsighted not to realize that blunders are to be expected in warfare.

It bears noting that institutional change of large organizations is difficult. Perhaps Rumsfeld was a hardass. I hope he was. Far be it for me to point out that Rumsfeld's lack of popularity may be related to his mandates for sometimes difficult but necessary change.
Ok, I'm willing to say that they are sometimes blamed undeservingly (again, sometimes), but that's a hell of alot of praise, especially for Rummy.

Now, when you speak of institutional change, Gates has been working to fix the damage Rummy made. Rummy spent billions on worthless "wonder weapons" that while flashy and cool, were not very useful in the field (ask the troops in Afghanistan in 2003 who didn't have artillary because Rummy wanted to show off his air weapons, which proved unable to deal with the wind of the Afghan winter)

Or, how about when Rummy made Van Riper redo the wargames when the Opfor came out victorious without the special gizmos of the Blufor?
 
#20
"I actually agree on a certain level with some of your sentiments, I just hope this doesn't turn into the typical shouting match that many of your previous contributions led to."
I'm glad to read it. Yes, political rhetoric is at times impolitic and inevitably leads to heated exchanges and hard feelings.

I say bring it. It's a civil confrontation worth having - the better that we might understand each other - and perhaps be persuaded by the better argument. It need not be polite.

I'm not terribly concerned with my reputation. People call me a nazi/bushie/neocon/chickenhawk/warmonger/fascist, among other things, all the time. I get a big kick out of observing the creativeness with with some people express harsh political disagreement. Baroque even.

Which reminds me...where's Halo? She's a master.
 

Similar threads

Top