What do you think the neocons or republiCONS mean when they...

[butterfly77]

say that they will have victory or win in Iraq. They don't have a plan and everytime the Dems say that we need a different strategy,they go back to the same old .In a few months they will have the Iraqis trained. If not that they say we will add more troops, which they don't have or they don't want the draft. When some one confronts them they try to use the cut and run garbage.

They also don't want to talk to other countries so, how in the hell do they expect to win. They seem to think that they can bomb every country until all middle easterners are dead. Don't they realize that this country has relatives of some of these people and they could be terrorists or become terrorists...

[TheBaldyMan]

1. The don't have a clue but don't like admitting it even while demonstrating that fact.

The usual RW doublethink.

[butterfly77]

3. They are almost about to have fist fights...

on television when discussing what to do...They kept Dems out of meetings and didn't want to listen to their advice and now they love to throw out what is the dems plan... If they would have listen to the dems it wouldn't be messed up now...They will do anything to try to protect bush and his legacy, they can forget it because the world will know from now until eternity that he the biggest f--k up in U.S. history and not only in Iraq but the policies that he and his party have enacted in this country... You can't hide this much dirt...

[Az]

2. The Bible, The Free Market, and a Win in Iraq

You have to have faith in them.

See the center of the NeoCon position is that society crumbles when you don't have belief in a system. This was Leo Straus's motivation behind his philosophy which founded the NeoCon movement. What he concluded was what mattered was a fixed unchanging belief system. It didn't matter what was believed. But without that fixed belief society (in his view) would crumble.

So the NeoCons embraced the religious right as their fixed moral position. They embraced Free Market ideology as their economic basis. It didn't matter what was believed as long as the belief was absolute.

And then they decided to try their hand's at war. And of course when the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail. So they brought their faith based politics to war. And of course you have to have faith that they will win. Doubting it is supporting the terrorists. Don't cha know?

[butterfly77]

4. The problem with that is that...

everyone doesn't believe in their hypocritical morality ,and they don't practice their faith in the same way.

[Az]

7. They can live with that

They plan on teaching your kids morality anyway. And then they will turn you in.

[RobofSWVA]

5. Victory means:

A controlled supply of foreign oil and permanent military bases to protect said supply. I had a friend who was in Iraq for much of 2001. He let us in on the fact that at least 3 of the large bases over there were being built to last. He believes we will have a presence in Iraq for at least the next 50 years regardless of combat status. I think he's probably right. As long as the black gold keeps flowing...

[Prophet 451]

6. I wonder if failure was the intention?

OK, this may be whacked out reasoning but bear with me here:

The rationale for war (WMDs) proved to be rubbish as virtually everyone knew it would. The arguement that the world is better off without Hussein is both irrelevant and, looking at Iraq these days, arguable. The oil arguement doesn't actually work because it's in the oil industry and OPEC's interests to keep Iraq's oil off the market (thus driving the price up).

A mollusc could have told that the original invasion plan wasn't going to work. Since it's in the Bushistas and OPEC's best interests to keep the oil off the market, is it possible this mess was the intention? Iraq at it's height is capable of pumping about 4 million barrels of crude a week (it's OPEC quota is half that). These days, they'd be lucky to make that in a year. Because of that, oil industry profits have gone through the roof. Bush has a lot of friends in the oil industry.

Of course, you can then add in things like the potential "rebuilding" profits to Haliburton/KBR, the profit for the military-industrial complex, settling his daddies grudge, etc. We know that the Bushies have no respect for human life whatsoever so, if there was a big profit to be made (and there was and still is), why wouldn't they plunge Iraq into chaos? Granted, it came back to bite them in the mid-terms but that wasn't supposed to happen. Normally, the president can count on support during a war.

[butterfly77]

9. I don't know about that but...

I do think that they have plans all along to divide this country and make as many poor as possible...

[Prophet 451]

12. I don't know either

but it's worryingly plausable. I do know that if each death made Bush and Cheney a dollar, he'd be rivalling Stalin's body count by now.

[RobofSWVA]

10. Perhaps a combination of chaos and control

Short-term chaos bringing in record profits and making them all rich quick
Long-term control to give them the ability to at least negotiate with the Saudis when it comes to OPEC policy.

The common person (repubs included) won't see any benefit from oil profits. We all know the opposite is true. When enough people get feed up, switch to the long-term strategy and continue to make loads of money.

[Prophet 451]

14. I don't think they care about long-term

Bush honestly believes the Rapture is just around the corner (small note: I'm pretty sure Rapturists aren't supposed to actively bring about armageddon), Cheney is on his last legs and the rest just don't care. They know that a grateful oil industry will employ them.

I think there was, at best, a very vague long-term plan to ensure Iraq became the neocon utopia: Totally unregulated capitalism, flat taxes, etc but I'm honestly starting to think the intention is to keep it in chaos (with the high profits that entails) as long as possible.

[jaxx]

8. They'll just hang a sign that says victory.........and by god you had better believe it.

[GreenTea]

11. PLEASE define winning...WIN WHAT?

Does "winning" mean that that there will not be a single "terrorist" left in Iraq?

Or does it mean that Iraq will have a peaceful 100% democracy and democratic government and end to civil war and all will be well with a smooth running government?

Does it mean BushCo wins if they can pullout and keep control of all the US milary bases and control the oil flow & fields in Iraq?

Please explain exactly what winning means...I don't have a clue what the fuck they are talking about

[RobofSWVA]

13. they will tell you what winning means in 5 years.

once they figure out which victory they really want.

Total victory would mean democracy and a friendly government ready and willing to do our bidding and sell us that nice oil.

I think a partial victory would be ok if it means they still get the oil.

[Az]

15. The secret to target shooting is

shoot first and paint the target later.

[GreenTea]

16. Again, Bush keeps saying we'll leave when we "win" and no one asks the question

what is winning, define "winning", win what?

As long as US troops and bases are in Iraq there can be no "winning", as long as we install puppets so BushCo can steal the Iraqi's oil each & every day there will be no "winning".

We will NEVER be able to force our way of life & government on the Iraqi people no matter how many we kill and no matter how many guns we have.

And never will there be peace as long as the Americans continue to force their will & might in the region...so that creates terrorist, who'll do anything to get the imperialist US out of their lands and cities. So the US is creating terrorist, which Bushco loves, in so much as keeping the fear going in Americans so he can continue to steal oil.

You mentioned what you think winning is, that's NOT what the Iraqi's want...they want their form of government, they don't want our bullshit shoved down their throats and they want 100% of their fields in complete Iraqi control.

So when Bush says we'll stay until we "win"...I'll to continue to ask "win" what?

[Az]

17. I think we may finally start to see the real thoughts

coming soon from the WH. There has been recent comments made by some insiders about repositioning the goals and adjusting expectations of the public. If W is a true believer in the path he set himself upon (ie he believed his own PR) then expect to see rejection of this idea or increased confusion from the inner core if it becomes the path taken.

Ironically Cheney was right. In Woodward's latest book (IIRC) he is quoted as saying something to the effect that if Rummie goes it will be a sign of weakness to the people and they will come after them soon after he is gone.

If W is a true believer then the inner core would break down into two distinct groups much like they have preportedly done so in real life. There would be those who keep trying to stick to the path and refuse to even consider that they may be wrong. But the other team would be the NeoCon puppetmasters. They would actually look at the fact that the people are no longer buying the scthick they are selling and realize they have to make a new product to sell. But to do that they have to break the beliefs of the true believers. And that goes against their grain.

The only thing they can do is redefine victory. It is going to be interesting to see how George's mental health fairs in the next couple of months. That will be the indicator of whether he was a true believer or if he is just an empty puppet with Cheney's hand up his darrieaire.

[GreenTea]

18. Good points..."redefining victory"....and will the American people...

besides the spinning corporate media talking heads, believe a Bush turn around and his new definition as a victory? (Because a complete turn around -pullout- is the only real option left)...

However, I have no faith what so ever that even in the face of almost universal outrage his ego will allow a change not to mention leaving all that oil and trillions to be made behind...No, I think the arrogant, elitist, egotistical, vindictive little bastard Bush - that his intentions have been made very clear...we'll be in Iraq as long as he's president (Jan. 22 2009)...

He's proved he doesn't give a shit what the people want or about the people dying for BushCo and their oil lust, he knows he has two more years to steal and continue to protect himself legally as a war time president....

Impeachment, forget it...it'll take a year in half minimum for all to go through, and by that time it's near election time 2008.

I do agree though that Bush has to redefine "winning". And it will be interesting to see how Bush spins Wednesday suggestions from pappy's team... Bush will hope the America people buy the bullshit and then he'll just continue to prolong the war...He has nothing to lose that he hasn't already lost, besides oil profits and his love of killing & death, he still has that and will hold on to them with glee for as long as he's in office.

Sick selfish bastard!!

[butterfly77]

19. I have been asking what winning means for a long time...

and I don't see that it can be won, and they know it...they want it to look as though they are winning when the whole world knows what is going on...They seem to think that middle easterners and others are stupid and don't read,look at television or go on the internet... I have seen on reports Iraqis in internet cafes and they have a multiude of satellite dishes...they know things that we don't know because a lot doesn't get reported...

[LaPera]

20. Seen O'Reilly shut up the crowd on Oprah saying isn't water-torcher OK if it means

winning. O'Reilly goes on to say to the audience, "don't you want the US to win the war in Iraq, and the crowd applauds.

I'm thinking win what asshole? Sure everyone wants to win at anything & everything, but tell us what your talking about when you say "don't you want us to win". How and what do we win?

[Az]

21. Its like saying "Don't you want good stuff for America"

You either agree or you are antiAmerican. Its just a spin on the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" schtick.

When debating your tactics are determined by your goals. If you are debating to convince the person you are talking to you use one set of tactics. When you are debating to convince an audience you use a different set of tactics. Unfortunately there is a style of debate for audiences that is in essence underhanded and deceiptful. Guess which style O'Reilly uses.