t s ttrly stpd t ly th blm n th dmnstrtn fr th slmbtchrs' lv f kllng s mny ppl s thy pssbly cn. Th lft's vcs bsssn wth htng thr wn cntrymn mr thn thy rpdt th myhm f ths gnts f hll rvls th byss n thr wn sls.
[Editor: ignore=off]What do you mean botch? The longer the engagement, the more the damage, the more incompetent the government funding control, the bigger the operation, the more Halliburton makes. By Cheney's measure, Iraq has been an unalloyed success.
Posted by AlanDownunder at July 22, 2005 10:55 PMThat's right Bendito, it never is Bush's fault for the decision making in the first place, the poor logistical support and armor, the insufficient number of troops, the silly assumption that just showing the firepower will make the insurgents cave, and all the rest of the faulty assumptions.
Given your blind trust in everything Bush and Cheney do, have some more Kool-Aid and then go enlist for the Iran mission.
Your country needs your ass for cannon fodder.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 22, 2005 11:27 PMIn Benito's world, George is just a victim of the "Islamobutchers", and up is down, right is wrong, and good is bad. What a tortured mind.
Posted by Judith at July 23, 2005 03:12 AMIt is utterly stupid to lay the blame on the opposition for some…christianbutchers’? (OK, or perhaps better said, for SOME righteously minded souls masquerading as Christians though, if taking well over 1700 US soldiers dead no, not to defend their country, but to defend a pack-o-lies, at the end butchers) love of killing as many people as they possibly can. The right’s vacuous obsession with hating their own countrymen more than they repudiate the mayhem of these agents of hell reveals the abyss of their own souls.
Bloody pack-o-lies apologist moron…
"these agents of hell reveals the abyss of their own souls."
Quidam, I don't think anyone has described these people better than that statement. This is exactly what we are up against, evil.
As to the question of the post (which seems again to have been derailed by another recruit in the army of lame-brained GOP talking point trolls), I can't see any possible basis for thinking the US military will not do whatever our virtually insane civilian leadership instructs.
Our professional soldiers happily went against their own professional judgement (and our war college's) in planning and executing our crazy invasion of Iraq, are blithely permitting the army reserves and national guard to be decimated with nary a peep (except from some retired brass) and now (according to this article) are apparently off planning a potential riposte against Iran, which (like Iraq) has no record of terrorist operations against the US.
I don't think the American military will present much of an obstacle to the lunacy of this adminstration. Civilian control is laudable. Blind obedience---Not so good.
Posted by euzoius at July 23, 2005 07:04 AMIf there's any truth to this, Bushco is planning to commit a despicable, monstrous war crime that really will literally put them on a par with Hitler and Stalin, without even bothering to ascertain whether Iran is involved with the trigger attack.
Breathtaking in its malign insanity.
Someone tell me this is bullshit.
Posted by ran at July 23, 2005 08:16 AMWake up and smell the coffee. The Cheney administration already has planned a second 9/11 type attack on America.
Once they pull it off, they'll attack Iran.
Then, the shit will really hit the fan.
Posted by marblex at July 23, 2005 10:29 AMResponding to marblex: fwiw, I don't see the "cheney admin" pulling a 9/11. I see them, by their continued, criminal incompetence ***allowing*** another 9/11, which they no doubt feel would be an acceptable price for the greater good of mankind (which they would define as getting their hands on all that lovely oil over there). I do agree that once another attack occurs, they will do whatever they possibly can to justify massive carnage elsewhere and rely on having the same sort of reactions that occurred after 9/11. I rather doubt that the reactions will be the same, however, and I'm absolutely certain that we will not have the goodwill of the rest of world behind us, as we did before. That goodwill was squandered forever.
Another attack on the US, and current admin, the people who are most intent on destroying democracy (& have done a great job of it so far) will feel they have the "political capital" to call for nuclear attacks and for a draft. I also think they would try to suspend voting, citing the extreme danger of changing the horse in mid-stream. We'll win the war on terror first, and then we'll go back to being a democracy. You can trust them to keep their word. They'd never lie to you.
To answer Mr Soto's initial query -- yes, I think the brass in the military will follow through on such orders, because they lack the balls to do something braver, like standing up to the war criminals running this country.
Posted by zhak at July 23, 2005 09:37 PMzhak
Obviously you not a member of our Armed Forces of which I thank GOD Almighty. Generals do stand up to orders they don't agree with. Some even buck popular opinion and state they don't agee with the "American" publics view on the war they are fighting or have fought. General Westmoreland may fought a losing effort in Viet Nam but he did what he thought was best for the soldier in the field. Now you are bad mouthing the Generals now in charge of my Armed Forces maybe you should think a little more and do some research on these men before you pass judgement. Every notice the ribbons on the left side their Dress uniform, they denote awards and decorations the wearer has earned. Look close many are for valor in combat not for serving crepes at some party or guzzling beer at a frat party. Most have shown more courage in the past few years than most men are called upon in a lifetime. Will these men obey orders from the National Command Authority yes if they consider it a valid legal order. They dont care if its President Bush or Kerry their politics stop and the shoreline unlike most of the people here in this room. I think many of you wold be very comfortable in the ruling class of Stalin's Russia you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a heritic and only obedience to the Democratic party will be tolerated so sad but hey on a bright note if this is true there will be plenty of prking in the Middle east soon.
Posted by Avenger D-22 at July 23, 2005 11:19 PMAvenger, yes, I realize that what I wrote does sound like a blanket condemnation of the armed forces, which wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey. My problem with the current crop of military leaders is that they are putting their obedience to the regime above their oath to obey the law of the land. Waging a war of aggression is illegal. But that is what we are doing in Iraq. And we are doing that with generals who are not saying "I cannot do this because I know this to be illegal" which I think is a braver way to go than simple obedience in the face of some really scary civilians who only care about their own venal agenda. Based upon the arguments set forth at the IMT back in 1946, these men are now war criminals, not gruff soldiers simply obeying orders.
In extraordinary times, standing up and saying no to the madness is the bravest thing you can do.
Unfortunately, few in our military are taking that road, which is why I responded to Mr. Soto's query the way I did.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=7973
Posted by zhak at July 24, 2005 06:49 AMBendito is a marketing ploy. Buy more books!!!!
Posted by stumpy at July 28, 2005 08:42 PM