Insanity Is....

[almostharmless 0]

I know this is a poker forum and maybe this topic will get closed as irretrievably OT after about one minute, but so it goes. Daniel, you have never been wronger than you are in your comments about Iraq . I write as someone who flies the flag with friends whose children have fought and died in Iraq.A brief recap.The WTT was bombed by maniacs flying airplanes who were members of Al Qaeda. In response, we (the US) invaded Afghanistan. No problem there; that's where Al Qaeda was headquartered. We screwed it up because Donald Rumsfeld spooged every time he heard the words "shock and awe" and thought that air power could do the trick in the Tora Bora (it couldn't, and the Air Force generals had told him so) while the warlords patrolled the passes to Pakistan (predictably enough converting them into toll roads for Al Qaeda). Then Dubya launched the invasion of Iraq. Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. This is not news. The CIA knew it and told Dubya and his "advisors" so at the time. In fact, Saddam was on bin Laden's hit list because he was (1) secular and (2) mightily repressing fundamentalist Islamic efforts in Iraq. Beyond the sham "evidence" involving attempted purchases of yellowcake (a story so obviously bogus that even the Italian reporter who "uncovered" the "bombshell" wouldn't print it) there was the chimera of "nation-building", something Dubya thought was mightily stupid when Clinton tried it in places like Somalia. So we destroyed Saddam and in the process a governmental machine that was, whatever else one might say about it, astonishingly effective in suppressing the man we have labelled "World Public Enemy #1". We thought we had a ready replacement. We didn't. We thought the Iraqis themselves could establish a democratic regime that could govern peacefully. They couldn't. And thanks to our efforts Islamic terrorist groups have found the welcome mat out throughout Iraq. Now we "have to stay" indefinitely and "have to commit" innumerable more men and women under arms and immeasurably more materiel at a cost that is coming close to being beyond calculation. Indeed, by any standard measure the war is bankrupting us. We have been down this road before. We screwed up. We have destabilized a major portion of the Middle East. Our continued presence there will only contribute to further destabilization because no government loyal to us can be elected much less remain in power. And for all that the US has blown almost all the international support we had immediately after 9/11, Al Qaeda is alive and well and growing, the Taliban again governs major portions of Afghanistan and bin Laden is still alive in Pakistan if not back in Tora Bora. All this thanks to a President who promised "no casualties" just before the invasion and announced "mission accomplished" over two years ago.Insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results. We are in the position of the guy who has bluffed at the pot on the flop and turn and is about to go all-in on the river knowing his opponent has the nuts for the simple reason that he cannot ever be seen to fold under pressure. As the song says....

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I know this is a poker forum and maybe this topic will get closed as irretrievably OT after about one minute, but so it goes. Daniel, you have never been wronger than you are in your comments about Iraq . I write as someone who flies the flag with friends whose children have fought and died in Iraq.A brief recap.The WTT was bombed by maniacs flying airplanes who were members of Al Qaeda. In response, we (the US) invaded Afghanistan. No problem there; that's where Al Qaeda was headquartered. We screwed it up because Donald Rumsfeld spooged every time he heard the words "shock and awe" and thought that air power could do the trick in the Tora Bora (it couldn't, and the Air Force generals had told him so) while the warlords patrolled the passes to Pakistan (predictably enough converting them into toll roads for Al Qaeda). Then Dubya launched the invasion of Iraq. Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. This is not news. The CIA knew it and told Dubya and his "advisors" so at the time. In fact, Saddam was on bin Laden's hit list because he was (1) secular and (2) mightily repressing fundamentalist Islamic efforts in Iraq. Beyond the sham "evidence" involving attempted purchases of yellowcake (a story so obviously bogus that even the Italian reporter who "uncovered" the "bombshell" wouldn't print it) there was the chimera of "nation-building", something Dubya thought was mightily stupid when Clinton tried it in places like Somalia. So we destroyed Saddam and in the process a governmental machine that was, whatever else one might say about it, astonishingly effective in suppressing the man we have labelled "World Public Enemy #1". We thought we had a ready replacement. We didn't. We thought the Iraqis themselves could establish a democratic regime that could govern peacefully. They couldn't. And thanks to our efforts Islamic terrorist groups have found the welcome mat out throughout Iraq. Now we "have to stay" indefinitely and "have to commit" innumerable more men and women under arms and immeasurably more materiel at a cost that is coming close to being beyond calculation. Indeed, by any standard measure the war is bankrupting us. We have been down this road before. We screwed up. We have destabilized a major portion of the Middle East. Our continued presence there will only contribute to further destabilization because no government loyal to us can be elected much less remain in power. And for all that the US has blown almost all the international support we had immediately after 9/11, Al Qaeda is alive and well and growing, the Taliban again governs major portions of Afghanistan and bin Laden is still alive in Pakistan if not back in Tora Bora. All this thanks to a President who promised "no casualties" just before the invasion and announced "mission accomplished" over two years ago.Insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting different results. We are in the position of the guy who has bluffed at the pot on the flop and turn and is about to go all-in on the river knowing his opponent has the nuts for the simple reason that he cannot ever be seen to fold under pressure. As the song says....

Interesting. One of the more well written but at the same time ignorant posts I have seen on this subject.You undermine your own credibility by showing your extreme personal bias against Bush and his Administration. This in itself is enough to discredit any point you wish to make. You and the other extremists want to find ANY reason to oppose the President. You come up with conspiracies that singularly are ridiculous, but when strung together in an argument like the one above, provide enough critical mass to completely self-implode.You are sure to get much support from the Sheep who either cannot, or perhaps worse will not, think below the surface of the cotton candy observations you and people like you (on BOTH "sides") post wherever anyone may listen. Stick to the "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper stickers - at least that rhymes.Good luck with that.

[Balloon guy 158]

I know this is a poker forum and maybe this topic will get closed as irretrievably OT after about one minute, but so it goes. Daniel, you have never been wronger than you are in your comments about Iraq . I write as someone who flies the flag with friends whose children have fought and died in Iraq.Then Dubya launched the invasion of Iraq. Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. This is not news. The CIA knew it and told Dubya and his "advisors" so at the time. In fact, Saddam was on bin Laden's hit list because he was (1) secular and (2) mightily repressing fundamentalist Islamic efforts in Iraq. Beyond the sham "evidence" involving attempted purchases of yellowcake (a story so obviously bogus that even the Italian reporter who "uncovered" the "bombshell" wouldn't print it) there was the chimera of "nation-building", something Dubya thought was mightily stupid when Clinton tried it in places like Somalia.

Love how the CIA is all knowing when it agrees with you, and inept when they told us there were WMDs.But your post, like POT said, is about as useful as a Mike Matasow autograph pen.The point Daniel made is....we shouldn't have gone in, BUT NOW THAT WE'RE THERE.......we have no other alternatives.And if you can dig up that no casualties quote by Bush, I'm sure the entire Democratic election committee will make you rich, for the first time in your life.