Coming to your PBS station on Tuesday
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final effort to secure
victory through a "surge" of troops, FRONTLINE investigates how
strategic and tactical mistakes brought Iraq to civil war. The film
recounts how the early mandate to create the conditions for a quick
exit of the American military led to chaos, failure, and sectarian
strife. In Endgame, producer Michael Kirk (Rumsfeld's War, The Torture
Question, The Dark Side, and The Lost Year in Iraq) traces why the
president decided to risk what military planners once warned could be
the worst way to fight in Iraq -- door-to-door -- and assesses the
likelihood of its success. Top administration figures, military
commanders, and journalists offer inside details about the new
strategy. (read the press release)
Watch Michael Kirk's other FRONTLINE films about Iraq on FRONTLINE's
Web site:
Rumsfeld's War: www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/pentagon
The Torture Question: www.pbs.org/frontline/torture
The Dark Side: www.pbs.org/frontline/darkside
The Lost Year in Iraq: www.pbs.org/frontline/yeariniraq
The Lost Year in Iraq is superb, a real eye opener.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
19 Jun 2007 02:31:36 AM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final
effort to secure victory through a "surge" of troops,
FRONTLINE investigates how strategic and tactical
mistakes brought Iraq to civil war.
"Mistakes"? Please.
One of the best kept secrets is that civil war was
always unavoidable.
Let's say we took out Saddam and immediately
installed a new, stable government. What's next?
Logically, the end to all the sanctions and the
international recognition of the new government's
sovereignty and... and...
Civil war.
See, you'd have a completely sovereign state of
Iraq, and the Kurds not wanting any part of it.
They enjoyed autonomy since the 1991 Gulf war,
and they weren't about to go under the thumb of
another central Iraqi government again,
Why would they?
The Kurds had been a repressed minority for as
long as there's been an Iraq. It was, after all, those
independent minded Kurds that Saddam had used
chemical weapons on back in the 1980s. Why?
Because they were in rebellion!
Anyhow, place a stable, internationally recognized
sovereign government in charge of Iraq -- instead of
the mess we have now -- and you've got yourself
an instant civil war... central government against
the Kurds.
So we've got a civil war in Iraq now.... so what?
No matter what we did we were going to end up
with a civil war. It was always unavoidable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
19 Jun 2007 11:42:44 AM |
|
|
On Jun 19, 3:31 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final
effort to secure victory through a "surge" of troops,
FRONTLINE investigates how strategic and tactical
mistakes brought Iraq to civil war.
"Mistakes"? Please.
One of the best kept secrets is that civil war was
always unavoidable.
Let's say we took out Saddam and immediately
installed a new, stable government. What's next?
Logically, the end to all the sanctions and the
international recognition of the new government's
sovereignty and... and...
Civil war.
See, you'd have a completely sovereign state of
Iraq, and the Kurds not wanting any part of it.
They enjoyed autonomy since the 1991 Gulf war,
and they weren't about to go under the thumb of
another central Iraqi government again,
Why would they?
The Kurds had been a repressed minority for as
long as there's been an Iraq. It was, after all, those
independent minded Kurds that Saddam had used
chemical weapons on back in the 1980s. Why?
Because they were in rebellion!
Anyhow, place a stable, internationally recognized
sovereign government in charge of Iraq -- instead of
the mess we have now -- and you've got yourself
an instant civil war... central government against
the Kurds.
So we've got a civil war in Iraq now.... so what?
No matter what we did we were going to end up
with a civil war. It was always unavoidable.
So the Bush monkey mistakes from the beginning lead us to a debacle in
Iraq. :-)
Arrogant, privileged simpletons leading our foreign policy, killing
our kids, their kids and mortgaging out futures. I've got a 14 year
old nephew that could have done a better job as president.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
20 Jun 2007 04:18:50 AM |
|
|
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
So the Bush monkey mistakes from the beginning
lead us to a debacle in Iraq. :-)
the problem is the first Bush disaster, Dubya's father.
The Kurds had enjoyed autonomy since he went to
war against Iraq in 1991. Once that happened, about
the only way we /might/ have brought stability to the
region would have been to occupy ONLY Iraqi
Kurdistan, and declare them a sovereign state...
dictating the borders to Saddam. Yes, leaving Saddam
in power would have avoided the civil war, because of
Saddam's iron grip on Iraq, and his desire to not lose
power and be killed.
But that would not necessarily have brought stability.
It would have avoided the civil war, yes, but it would
have also enraged the Turks & Iranians. They have their
own Kurdish lands to deal with, and Iran in particular
had (under the fundies) been every bit as brutal in their
reaction to Kurdish upstarts as Iraq.
A free & independent Kurdistan would have been a
threat to their grip on Kurdish territories. If Iran didn't
declare war on them, it's likely Turkey would have.
Seriously. Map out the post-1991 situation in Iraq and
try to think of something -- anything -- Bush could have
done that was likely to not result in bloody warfare and
LESS stability....
I can't think of anything.
Seems that the moment Bush decided to go into Iraq
we had a quagmire... thanks to his dad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
20 Jun 2007 05:38:34 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182331130.702391.33580@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
So the Bush monkey mistakes from the beginning
lead us to a debacle in Iraq. :-)
the problem is the first Bush disaster, Dubya's father.
The Kurds had enjoyed autonomy since he went to
war against Iraq in 1991. Once that happened, about
the only way we /might/ have brought stability to the
region would have been to occupy ONLY Iraqi
Kurdistan, and declare them a sovereign state...
dictating the borders to Saddam. Yes, leaving Saddam
in power would have avoided the civil war, because of
Saddam's iron grip on Iraq, and his desire to not lose
power and be killed.
But that would not necessarily have brought stability.
It would have avoided the civil war, yes, but it would
have also enraged the Turks & Iranians. They have their
own Kurdish lands to deal with, and Iran in particular
had (under the fundies) been every bit as brutal in their
reaction to Kurdish upstarts as Iraq.
A free & independent Kurdistan would have been a
threat to their grip on Kurdish territories. If Iran didn't
declare war on them, it's likely Turkey would have.
Seriously. Map out the post-1991 situation in Iraq and
try to think of something -- anything -- Bush could have
done that was likely to not result in bloody warfare and
LESS stability....
I can't think of anything.
I can. Not invading Iraq, not bombing a Pakistani village, not killing
innocents in Somalia, not parading two naval strike groups in the Persian
Gulf, not ignoring the authority or legitimacy of Hamas, not blaming Syria
for Lebanon's troubles, not procrastinating in calling for an immediate
ceasefire in Lebanon ... Bush's half-*****, biased, overbaked foreign policy
has greatly fanned the flames among Muslim nations. As usual, you live in
a surreal world with Min and Stevie, talk to Nosty, diddle with your teen
fairies, play with your smilely-faced ***** ("Roddy Rocket").
Seems that the moment Bush decided to go into Iraq
we had a quagmire... thanks to his dad.
Yeah, lil' Johnny, it's a pity his daddy didn't get us into the same
quagmire long ago. By now, we could've had a totally collapsed
civilization and a nice world war.
Why wait when you can have your Hell on Earth much earlier?
However, his ol' man wisely took some tactical advice and had a bit more
brains than junior.
It's a shame, Lucky Charms, you share junior's mentality level and haven't
had a job in his dumb-***** administration. Then we could have the great
satisfaction of seeing your miserable rat-***** scurry around as his ship
sinks.
I could picture you humping Gonzales, screaming: "Dance for me, monkey,
dance for your master!"
LOL!
:))~
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
20 Jun 2007 10:58:32 PM |
|
|
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
As usual, you live in a surreal world with Min and
Stevie, talk to Nosty, diddle with your teen
fairies, play with your smilely-faced *****
("Roddy Rocket").
All this, because I said:
| Seems that the moment Bush decided to go into
| Iraq we had a quagmire... thanks to his dad.
Clearly you would have to disagree with me. Yet,
you don't.
I guess that's why we call worthless psychos like
you "Worthless Psychos."
You should be embarrassed....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
21 Jun 2007 01:55:06 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182398312.350482.90010@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
"Docrodile" <swampth...@hellsbayou.net> wrote:
As usual, you live in a surreal world with Min and
Stevie, talk to Nosty, diddle with your teen
fairies, play with your smilely-faced *****
("Roddy Rocket").
All this, because I said:
| Seems that the moment Bush decided to go into
| Iraq we had a quagmire... thanks to his dad.
Clearly you would have to disagree with me. Yet,
you don't.
I guess that's why we call worthless psychos like
you "Worthless Psychos."
You should be embarrassed....
You don't get it, do ya, Johnny? I don't need to agree or disagree. You've
made a statement of irony, monkey. You present a theoretical that
ironically puts us where we are now in Iraq, in a quagmire, but only many
years earlier. Then you blame the current quagmire on the elder Bush, when
you should be blaming junior! You are completely nuts, monkey. Monkey
nutz! Must've been some bad peanuts with ergot fungus on 'em.
Irony that HAD elder Bush went against his advisors and occupied and
removed Saddam, we'd simply had the same quagmire much earlier. Why do you
think that the same quagmire would've happened back then? He took the sage
advice and pulled out, left Saddam in power. Later, he attempted to
encourage an uprising amongst the Sunnis in the south, but it failed to
catch fire.
So, monkey, you you blame junior's daddy for not occupying and removing
Saddam -- not completing the job, and causing a quagmire NOW many years
later.
Hey, monkey, it would've left the same quagmire many years ago and, by
now, as I said, we could easily be farther down the road to wider chaos
and warfare.
How is it that your simian brain could think elder Bush's occupation and
removal of Saddam wouldn't have led to the same quagmire then? Of course,
that is why he was advised not to occupy and remove the leader. His son,
had he paid attention to his daddy's close friend and natl. security
advisor , Brent Scowcroft, whose wise advice (and other's back then) was
that occupying and removing Saddam would likely result in total chaos, and
be ultimately unmanageable by occupying forces or an installed government,
then we'd not be in the snake pit we're in now. Many years later,
Scowcroft warned Junior to not invade, occupy, or remove Saddam unless he
had the full support of old allies and the approval of the UN. The
Scowcroft Warning is well known to most Bush observers, but absent from
your reference library. The mess in Iraq wasn't caused by his dad, it was
caused by Junior's foolish invasion and occupation. Of course, if you had
wanted it to be a foolish act of occupation and removal in 1991, you
could've had his dad blamed for what Junior is now blamed for. The result
would've been the same -- a quagmire way back then, as it is now. You
stupid lil' monkey! You fantasize that elder Bush would've cleaned up
Dodge City for good, leaving no quagmire for occupying forces, or
intrigues for Syria or Iran. You are a damned fool. A foolish war-crazed
furball.
So, you *****, your "logic" is totally flawed, your blame on his dad
totally misplaced, and you can't even understand the point of irony I
brought up. All you can do, as usual, is hurl your monkey feces back,
ignoring your broken logic.
You're the one's who is the worthless psychotic debater here, Bobo. Your
mind and mouth run off like a toilet overflowing with ***** and ***** and if
you're not making ridiculous *points*, you're communing with Nostradamus,
or flappin' your *****-stained tail at Wolfy or me -- harassment being one
of your favorite pasttimes when you've got nothing else to say or do in
your boring fucking life.
Flitter over to Fairyland and suck some limp greased ***** over there.
It'll relax you, give you somethin' to do, somethin' you can
understand...LOL!!
Uh, remember your *clever* remark, "Bush poisoned the case for war against
Iran." hahahhahahahahahaa! Well, you blame one and then you blame
another...you have only yourself to blame for being incredibly stupid.
What you fantasize about is a total military solution to a political and
social quagmire, dummy, like many of the neocons. Yet, you seem to talk
like a liberal at times, but like Stevie, you must be a *traditional
liberal* whose spots change like the fickle weather. What great insight
will we be treated to next from you? Our breaths are held in sweaty
anticipation!!!
:))~
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
17 Jun 2007 04:59:50 PM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 6:24 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Coming to your PBS station on Tuesday
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final effort to secure
victory through a "surge" of troops, FRONTLINE investigates how
strategic and tactical mistakes brought Iraq to civil war. The film
recounts how the early mandate to create the conditions for a quick
exit of the American military led to chaos, failure, and sectarian
strife. In Endgame, producer Michael Kirk (Rumsfeld's War, The Torture
Question, The Dark Side, and The Lost Year in Iraq) traces why the
president decided to risk what military planners once warned could be
the worst way to fight in Iraq -- door-to-door -- and assesses the
likelihood of its success. Top administration figures, military
commanders, and journalists offer inside details about the new
strategy. (read the press release)
Watch Michael Kirk's other FRONTLINE films about Iraq on FRONTLINE's
Web site:
Rumsfeld's War:www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/pentagon
The Torture Question:www.pbs.org/frontline/torture
The Dark Side:www.pbs.org/frontline/darkside
The Lost Year in Iraq:www.pbs.org/frontline/yeariniraq
The Lost Year in Iraq is superb, a real eye opener.
Oh yes and for all the Bravado, we ask does not Microsoft or some
software co, not have an Invasion 101, for you to pick the country and
the software chooses the inventory etc.
Seems they need one or two at least.
Shock and Awe who do they think they are we ask?
LB
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
18 Jun 2007 06:05:54 PM |
|
|
On Jun 17, 5:59 pm, "leigh8...@optusnet.com.au"
<leigh8...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:24 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Coming to your PBS station on Tuesday
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final effort to secure
victory through a "surge" of troops, FRONTLINE investigates how
strategic and tactical mistakes brought Iraq to civil war. The film
recounts how the early mandate to create the conditions for a quick
exit of the American military led to chaos, failure, and sectarian
strife. In Endgame, producer Michael Kirk (Rumsfeld's War, The Torture
Question, The Dark Side, and The Lost Year in Iraq) traces why the
president decided to risk what military planners once warned could be
the worst way to fight in Iraq -- door-to-door -- and assesses the
likelihood of its success. Top administration figures, military
commanders, and journalists offer inside details about the new
strategy. (read the press release)
Watch Michael Kirk's other FRONTLINE films about Iraq on FRONTLINE's
Web site:
Rumsfeld's War:www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/pentagon
The Torture Question:www.pbs.org/frontline/torture
The Dark Side:www.pbs.org/frontline/darkside
The Lost Year in Iraq:www.pbs.org/frontline/yeariniraq
The Lost Year in Iraq is superb, a real eye opener.
Oh yes and for all the Bravado, we ask does not Microsoft or some
software co, not have an Invasion 101, for you to pick the country and
the software chooses the inventory etc.
Seems they need one or two at least.
Shock and Awe who do they think they are we ask?
LB
It appears as tho they never really thought thru the post invasion
scenarios. They actually believed we'd be greeted as liberators and
everything would fall into place on it's own in six months.
Complexity brings headaches to ideologues.
Amazing, eh? You'd think it was run like twelve year olds playing a
video game.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
18 Jun 2007 08:33:29 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
On Jun 17, 5:59 pm, "leigh8...@optusnet.com.au"
<leigh8...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On Jun 18, 6:24 am, John Lemke <jfle...@locallink.net> wrote:
Coming to your PBS station on Tuesday
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/
60 minutes) As the United States begins one final effort to secure
victory through a "surge" of troops, FRONTLINE investigates how
strategic and tactical mistakes brought Iraq to civil war. The film
recounts how the early mandate to create the conditions for a quick
exit of the American military led to chaos, failure, and sectarian
strife. In Endgame, producer Michael Kirk (Rumsfeld's War, The Torture
Question, The Dark Side, and The Lost Year in Iraq) traces why the
president decided to risk what military planners once warned could be
the worst way to fight in Iraq -- door-to-door -- and assesses the
likelihood of its success. Top administration figures, military
commanders, and journalists offer inside details about the new
strategy. (read the press release)
Watch Michael Kirk's other FRONTLINE films about Iraq on FRONTLINE's
Web site:
Rumsfeld's War:www.pbs.org/frontline/shows/pentagon
The Torture Question:www.pbs.org/frontline/torture
The Dark Side:www.pbs.org/frontline/darkside
The Lost Year in Iraq:www.pbs.org/frontline/yeariniraq
The Lost Year in Iraq is superb, a real eye opener.
Oh yes and for all the Bravado, we ask does not Microsoft or some
software co, not have an Invasion 101, for you to pick the country and
the software chooses the inventory etc.
Seems they need one or two at least.
Shock and Awe who do they think they are we ask?
LB
It appears as tho they never really thought thru the post invasion
scenarios. They actually believed we'd be greeted as liberators and
everything would fall into place on it's own in six months.
Complexity brings headaches to ideologues.
Amazing, eh? You'd think it was run like twelve year olds playing a
video game.
Actually, Feith's office of special planning had the State Dept and CIA
reports on post-conflict planning (almost 2,500 pages worth) and refused
to give them to Jay Garner, whom DOD picked to head reconstruction and
humanitarian efforts. Garner was chosen in Jan for the job, 2 months
prior to the invasion and given nothing to do it with.
Feith and his NeoCon fellows hoped that Garner would fail and that
Chalabi would end up heading the gov't. Both State and the CIA
distrusted Chalabi and viewed him as an opportunist.
If you get the chance read 'Emperial Life In The Emerald City' do it!
.... very interesting read!
And they did base their plans on best-case scenarios.
Cheers!
-- Marvin
--
I don't smoke. I smell like bread. Life is Good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: PBS - Frontline - "Endgame" |
19 Jun 2007 11:36:30 AM |
|
|
On Jun 18, 9:33 pm, Marvin The Paranoid Android
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Lemke wrote:
Amazing, eh? You'd think it was run like twelve year olds playing a
video game.
Actually, Feith's office of special planning had the State Dept and CIA
reports on post-conflict planning (almost 2,500 pages worth) and refused
to give them to Jay Garner, whom DOD picked to head reconstruction and
humanitarian efforts. Garner was chosen in Jan for the job, 2 months
prior to the invasion and given nothing to do it with.
Just like Feith had an overview of intelligence prior to the invasion
and handled the cherrypicking. He's one of Bush's boys that built the
intelligence around the policy.
Feith and his NeoCon fellows hoped that Garner would fail and that
Chalabi would end up heading the gov't. Both State and the CIA
distrusted Chalabi and viewed him as an opportunist.
So you have another ideologue ignoring reality and proper teamwork, no
less, to support an agenda and to shape a reality that fits into a
wildly subjective worldview.
Remanufacturing facts to suit a conclusion is intellectually
unsound. :-) You may employ great facility in creating and
maintaining a certain view but you're living a lie. Intellectual
honesty, a hallmark of reason, is lost and you've undermined yourself.
We see these lies from neocons on apn daily. So is it admirable to
emply great "intellectual capacity" to support a lie? I don't think
so.
If those who support a prophet receive a prophet's reward then those
that support a criminal should receive a criminal's reward.
If you get the chance read 'Emperial Life In The Emerald City' do it!
... very interesting read!
Thanks, Marv!!!!!!!! The book is on the list. I'm going to Barnes
and Noble this weekend and buy it with some of the money I've
earmarked for buying large amounts of ammunition. :-)
And they did base their plans on best-case scenarios.
Just like they justified the invasion with the "best" intelligence.
Gee, I wonder why they've botched everything they've touched?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
