Bill Maher-New Rules Iraq rant

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Maher: And finally, new rule in two parts: (A) You can't call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid; and (B) If you're someone from one of these think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War and who predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn't need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD's would be found, that the looting wasn't problematic, that the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that whole bloody mess wouldn't turn into a civil war, you have to stop making predictions.


lol. pwnd.
 
Good think Maher's name was in the title, so the Cons around here wouldn't bother reading it & getting offended...
 
CTU2fan said:
Good think Maher's name was in the title, so the Cons around here wouldn't bother reading it & getting offended...

Translation please:|
 
I watch his show faithfully. I am a firm believer in knowing the enemy.:wink:
 
Dreadsox said:


Translation please:|

Seriously?

Offended, as in, having their feelings hurt because the inaccuracy of their predictions is being mocked.
 
CTU2fan said:


Seriously?

Offended, as in, having their feelings hurt because the inaccuracy of their predictions is being mocked.

Why would my feelings be hurt? I still believe going to war was the correct thing to do. I strongly disagree with the manner in which we went about it.
 
many conservatives are now saying that not only are they aghast at how inept the post-war has been, but a review of the facts shows that going to war in the manner in which even the pre-war and the war itself were conducted were stupendously bad decisions:

[q]I think the regime change policy established under Bill Clinton was the right policy. I think taking Saddam seriously after 9/11 was the right policy. But, of the many arguments in favor of toppling Saddam in 2001-2002 one of the most important — in my mind and, I believe, in the mind of many others — was that toppling the Iraq domino and standing-up a stable, democratically inclined government was supposed to be comparatively easy. The demonstration-effect argument has not panned out.

I believe we're in for a long war on terror. I believe the Iraq war was — and is — part of the war on terror. But resources — political, economic, military, diplomatic etc — are finite. And, I find it hard to believe that if we knew everything we know now back then we would have agreed to allocate them in the same way. Of course you can pile counter-factual upon counter-factual. If we had that sort of perfect knowledge back then we would have handled the initial looting differently. We would have done all sorts of things differently. Fine, fine. But that's basically my point. I'm all for being on offense. But I think in retrospect we called the wrong play. But simply because you called the wrong play doesn't mean you walk off the field.

[/q]



in short, supporting a policy of regime change does not necessarily translate into support for this pathetic excuse for warmaking.
 
I think I was pretty outspoken in here about the things that were not being done correctly at the onset of the Iraq War.
 
why did we go through with it anyway, even when we saw so many things being done wrong, terribly wrong, before the first shot was ever fired?
 
I don't know why we got into this damn war. I was against it from the beginning. A month before the invasion, I went to a demonstration protesting Bush's plans with a virus, running a temperature. That couldn't keep me from protesting the stupid plans. They just thought they could make Iraq a democracy. The idiots have made the place a chaotic theocracy. Sometimes people forget that Saddam's Iraq was secular. Women held jobs and didn't have to wear veils. Now they're getting killed for leaving the house without veils or unaccompanied by a male relative. This is like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (where the Taliban is making a comeback).
 
i think we've learned that democracy is meaningless without stability and security.

i think Bush has learned this too.

consider the newest formulation of "victory" (as well as the insistence that this is what they were thinking all along, since 2002):

[q]With Republicans anxious about the potential loss of Congress - and with conditions seemingly deteriorating in Iraq - Bush addressed the question of whether he would alter his policies.

"We are constantly adjusting our tactics so that we achieve the objective, and right now it's tough, it's tough," Bush said in an Associated Press interview.
Bush met with Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, at the White House for a half-hour Friday afternoon. The White House said Abizaid already was in town and Bush asked him over. The president also will consult by video conference on Saturday with Abizaid at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., and with Gen. George Casey, who leads the U.S.-led Multinational Forces in Iraq, to determine if a change in tactics is necessary to combat the increasing violence.

Despite calls for change, Bush said,"Our goal has not changed. Our goal is a country that can defend, sustain and govern itself, a country that which will serve as an ally in this war. Our tactics are adjusting."[/q]

where's the democracy?
 
verte76 said:
I don't know why we got into this damn war. I was against it from the beginning. A month before the invasion, I went to a demonstration protesting Bush's plans with a virus, running a temperature.

I'm glad I wasn't at that protest standing by you.
 
Irvine511 said:


where's the democracy?

You must have missed this:

WASHINGTON — A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials.

Currently, the 10-member commission — headed by a secretary of state for President George H.W. Bush, James Baker — is considering two option papers, "Stability First" and "Redeploy and Contain," both of which rule out any prospect of making Iraq a stable democracy in the near term.

...

Instead, the commission is headed toward presenting President Bush with two clear policy choices that contradict his rhetoric of establishing democracy in Iraq. The more palatable of the two choices for the White House, "Stability First," argues that the military should focus on stabilizing Baghdad while the American Embassy should work toward political accommodation with insurgents. The goal of nurturing a democracy in Iraq is dropped.

What a clusterfuck.
 
80sU2isBest said:


I'm glad I wasn't at that protest standing by you.

The virus wasn't contagious. I only mentioned the virus to show how strongly I opposed the invasion. It was tough going to that thing with a virus.
 
Irvine511 said:
where's the democracy?

It's not there. They've got a chaotic theocracy. Women are getting harrassed for working, for driving, and for leaving the house without a male relative. This is the way life is in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is making a comeback as many of the warlords in that country are running vast areas of territory are Taliban sympathizers.
 
Just out of curiousity, is there any concievable way, hypothetically speaking, that congress could somehow go over the president's head to end a war like this?
 
Back
Top Bottom