Forums | MacLife

Transcript excerpt leaked  from a highly-placed Administration  source who wll remain nameless, for fear of losing their head:

BUSH: We are not amused.

They're planning to really blow up some smurf then.

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

Count the cost. And if it's decided that we should stay, then we shouldn't be Staying The Course, with the idea that we can just go along business as usual, we fight with the army we came with.

NO!

If it is decided that the cost is too much if we leave, then the nation must be mobilized. The military increased to support the mission. Enough force put into place in Iraq to do the job.

THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE BUSH STRATEGY. He wants to do it on a shoestring, which is how you LOSE.

You don't put in just enough resources. In a war you put in overwhelming force to eliminate the threat. Doing anything else allows the enemy the opportunity to defeat you. You also use all resources available. Which in Iraq includes diplomatic and political means. In other words, we don't have to like the Iranians or Syrians, we just have to get to a place with them where we can accomplish our goals, with their participation.

When builiding a road, there isn't any reason why you have to level an entire mountain that is in your path. You find a way to traverse it, or go around it.

I'm just really tired of hearing Bushistas support the war without knowing what the cost is. Of what it means to actually win as opposed to going along wrapped in warm fuzzy thoughts with minimum effort. Don't prolonge an effort that will bleed us for years if we aren't ready to pay the cost upfront to get it done faster, more efficiently, and with less cost.

Last edited by sturner (2007-05-10 12:20 pm)

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

There's going to be one nasty civil war regardless of whether we stay or go. The President and his inner circle may have a moral obligation to stay, but what about the poor bastards in our armed forces stuck in the middle?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

But isn't one of your justifications for the war the idea that Iraq was doomed to plunge into chaos anyway?

And that's pretty damn outrageous for you to accuse me of not caring about killing that takes place on the other side of the world. You and your pro-war brethren haven't shown any interest in the slaughter happening in countless countries across the planet, just Iraq and only Iraq, and interest is fading even on that score.

Let alone situations where "soft power" could be used to keep things from turning worse, like Russia and some Central Asian countries.  Or being ok with a bad status quo, like Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan.

Democracy / freedom is on the march, indeed.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

Then we will have to be there forever. Whenever we leave will be the day (or soon after) when there will be a revolt. Yes, it's too bad that a country will have to decide for themselves through violence who will rule but that is the reality that mostly Republicans are unwilling to see. The US became the US through a civil war and many other governments have been established in such a fashion as well. Good or bad there is little we can do and all we are providing is a band aid for a huge cost both in lives and in money that could be used here.

It is not our job to police the war. We have done what we can, served with blood and money, money that was promised to be payed back with oil but hasn't and never will. Now its time to bail. It's called tough love, which I thought the Republicans were so fond of.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, you're normal.

Personally I think that most of the people still supporting the war are just not grasping the moral and legal consequences of war. They brush it aside with pithy "yes it's too bad" type comments, then quickly throw in a "but" that provides a rationalization for continued killing. No, not killing, they don't think of it as killing.

It's pretty sad.

Whatever.

So - now that we are there, we should pull out even if it means a marked exponential increase in violence, because no, not killing, you don't think of it as killing. I mean - it's all the way on the other side of the world, and the media will leave, so we won't have to see it and stuff.

But isn't one of your justifications for the war the idea that Iraq was doomed to plunge into chaos anyway?

Quite likely - yes.

And that's pretty damn outrageous for you to accuse me of not caring about killing that takes place on the other side of the world. You and your pro-war brethren haven't shown any interest in the slaughter happening in countless countries across the planet, just Iraq and only Iraq, and interest is fading even on that score.

If you can call me "pro-war" - can I call abortionists "pro-death"?

I'm not pro war. I do believe it is sometimes necessary.

And that's what this all boils down to - you (and many on the left) are so haughty that they are the only ones with a correct point of view - so in their arrogant haughtiness they must demonize us as not being capable of grasping the moral and "legal" consequences of war.

Of course there are consequences of war. There are also consequences of pacifism. Not to invoke Godwin - but the League of Nations decided nothing military should be done about Germany massing arms again.

What would have happened in Iraq had we not gone in is not certain. I think it would have resulted in civil war at the death of Saddam, but it is of course speculation and it is possible it could have been held together. The perspective that we should not have gone in is valid and has merit.

However, what will happen if we pull out of Iraq before it is stable is far more certain. We know it will result in a marked increase in violence and extensive slaughter as the factions fight and one becomes the winner. Yet this is exactly what you say we should do - pull out after having removed the government and allow it to self destruct with extensive bloodshed.

How can you have that position and claim to value human life?

Argue that we need to try something different is fine. Maybe they aren't ready for democracy, maybe we should negotiate with terrorist factions in an attempt to build something stable even if it isn't a democracy. But to say we should pull out now when we know the result will be a signifigant increase in bloodshed is sick.

Rozzlapeed wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

In a side note, it's a real shame those bumbling incompetents in Washington aren't taking steps to adapt to the post-Iraq environment, try to salvage as much as possible. What a mess it's gonna be.

Bush's crew are prepared to call treason on any Democrat that tries to work around Bush's ineffectual state department by visiting the region directly. Remember when Nancy Pelosi talked to the Syrians and got hammered by the right for interfering?

The arrogance of the administration is what is preventing any discussion of real options.

What did Nancy have the authority to accomplish?
What could she possibly accomplish?

I'll tell you what she did accomplish - video footage of the Speaker of the House of a country they loathe submitting to their religious based dress code that symbolizes the bondage of the women in their society.

Way to go Nancy.

resedit wrote:

What did Nancy have the authority to accomplish?
What could she possibly accomplish?

Pelosi traveled with other House members, including Republicans.  In fact, a delegation of Republicans went shortly before her.  Condi was just there last week, wasn't she?

This Administration's approach to international affairs has been nothing short of completely moronic.  Refusing to openly communicate with unfriendly states?  Labeling them an "axis of evil?"   

I'll tell you what she did accomplish - video footage of the Speaker of the House of a country they loathe submitting to their religious based dress code that symbolizes the bondage of the women in their society.

Way to go Nancy.

She was following their custom....just as a man would cover his head when entering a Jewish temple.  Condi Rice and Laura Bush have done the same.  Have any criticism for them?

You've gotta stop reading those right-wing sites.  I know this was a huge deal for them, but reality makes your complaints appear quite foolish.

Do you think the way they repress their women is acceptable?