Democrats Want to Lose another war

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
If I sound like a smartass here I don't mean to.  Do you know the differences between strategic goals, operations, and tactics?  Do now the where the term "exit strategy" came from and it's technical definition?

DO you?  Because you don't seem to think that our country has ANY of them.  To me that seems absolutly ludacris, that's not my political views talking, that's my 10 years time in service in the US Military.

[capt. apathy]

I'm fairly sure we don't have an exit strategy.

I'm definitely sure Bush doesn't know what it means.
before the last election he responded to questions on an exit strategy with the 'answer' about the date (July of that year, IIRC) when we would be turning over control of the country to the Iraqis.

I don't work for Websters and I don't write dictionaries but I'm fairly good with math.  I can take "exit" (that means to leave, or a way out) and add it to "strategy" (or to translate it into Bush-speak "strategery", either way it means a plan.  a well thought out plan that you use to guide your course of action).
  anyway I add those two words together and as I see it 'exit strategy' = a well thought out plan that we intend o use as a guide-line as to when and how we intend to get ourselves out of Iraq. not make a new leader, not bestow democracy, give them a Constitution (they could probably borrow ours, it isn't used much these days), but actually "take our ball and go home".

I'd prefer some insight into the plan that is less vague or diversionary than what we've been getting, and preferably not based on Bush keeping a US presence there until we run out of money or soldiers.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
I'm fairly sure we don't have an exit strategy.

I'm definitely sure Bush doesn't know what it means.
before the last election he responded to questions on an exit strategy with the 'answer' about the date (July of that year, IIRC) when we would be turning over control of the country to the Iraqis.

I don't work for Websters and I don't write dictionaries but I'm fairly good with math.  I can take "exit" (that means to leave, or a way out) and add it to "strategy" (or to translate it into Bush-speak "strategery", either way it means a plan.  a well thought out plan that you use to guide your course of action).
  anyway I add those two words together and as I see it 'exit strategy' = a well thought out plan that we intend o use as a guide-line as to when and how we intend to get ourselves out of Iraq. not make a new leader, not bestow democracy, give them a Constitution (they could probably borrow ours, it isn't used much these days), but actually "take our ball and go home".

I'd prefer some insight into the plan that is less vague or diversionary than what we've been getting, and preferably not based on Bush keeping a US presence there until we run out of money or soldiers.

Vrs. your plan of Telling our enemies the EXACT date we will be leaving or just send up the white flag and leave all together with the latter having the most profound impact on the way we engage terrorists for the next 30 years.

Do you think Haji is going to tell AL Jazera the day he plans to stop fighting?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, so the Pentagon determining policy policy is the way it should be?  I'm not sure how to take that.  Isn't that supposed to be the job of your elected representitives?

During the occupation of Japan (and the writing of the Japanese constitution) armed forces under the command of General Douglas MacArthur effectively ran the government the reconstruction and of Japan.

General Douglas MacArthur was not an elected official.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
DO you?  Because you don't seem to think that our country has ANY of them.  To me that seems absolutly ludacris, that's not my political views talking, that's my 10 years time in service in the US Military.

Well, I'm not about to defend arguements that I haven't made.  And yes, I am familar with the terms.



Holden, interesting point.  However, I can't say that the occupation of Iraq is going the way the occupation of Japan went.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Well, I'm not about to defend arguements that I haven't made.  And yes, I am familar with the terms.



Holden, interesting point.  However, I can't say that the occupation of Iraq is going the way the occupation of Japan went.

no but the point is still valid.  The SecDef (who is appointed by the president) overseas pentagon wich set's military policy or the US armed forces.  The president alone cannot invade a country or set in place military combat operations for greater than 30 days without the express approval of the congress.  This is our great nation.  The generals run the military to the agenda of the Govt. anything else would be a dictatorship.

I am bound by my oath to obey the orders of the commander in chief but with following those orders comes rules.  Also in my oath is to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the US not the govt itself.

[Yeager]

The insurgency has done what any armchair analyst could tell you they would do:  They are stepping up the frequency and intensity of their attacks in light of the confusing and devisive debate initiated by the minority party, the democratic liberals.

American and Iraqi military, iraqi police and iraqi civilians are dying with increased frequency and ferocity as a result.

Nice, and wtg..sheehan and murtha.  We will lose this whole deal as we implode from within.

[capt. apathy]

I think the death of our servicemen has more to do with Bush having them over there than it does Dems complaining about it.

just thought I'd inject a little common sense into your 'arm chair analizing'

[Yeager]

you missed the big blue vein

your oversimplistic approach to the complex reality and neccessity of war does no one any good.  Those soldiers are doing a great job and dont need any local born traitors and turncoats running off at the mouth making a difficult job even worse.   Debate these things but do it in a way that does not draw the attention of the enemy.  Do it in a way that does not embolden the enemy.

Let me illustrate it, let me simplify it for you in a way that might be more understandable:  Scenario -  You and your buddies need to kill a wild animal that is causing significant problems for you and your neighbors.  You manage to critically wound the animal, the animal will likely die or retreat into the woods, never to be seen again, but the animal is unsure of what is happening, and is scared.  Suddenly the animal sees that one of your buddies has started to fight with you because he is angry that you had to wound the animal to begin with. Just leave the animal be.... he says and it will go away.  Your buddy wants to go home now and starts yelling at you and you two get into a fight.  Soon all your buddies are fighting each other and forget about the wild animal.  All this noise and commotion infuriates and energizes the wild animal.  The wild animal now knows who, what and where his attackers are and he comes over and thashes all of you.  Thanks to your stupid little buddy the wild animal eats all of you alive.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
I think the death of our servicemen has more to do with Bush having them over there than it does Dems complaining about it.

just thought I'd inject a little common sense into your 'arm chair analizing'

Yup again it's all Bush's fault.  That's all I hear from the left.  What about all those in the Congres that voted for it.  Obviously the president can't do it alone.


And no it's not even thinkable that major dissent among Americans fueld by daily pictures of carnage in the MSM doesn't make Insurgents/terrorists think they are completing their objectives....no not at all.  It has to be Bush.

[capt. apathy]

It couldn't be that he (or possibly just those who work for him. if his administration is that far out of his control, a very real possibility) has slanted and/or fabricated the"intelligence" that was presented to congress as evidence of the need to go to war.
 
  it's not all that hard to do.  instead of asking the intelligence community to find out whats going on in a certain situation, you instead say something to the effect of "check on this and find me the proof that Iraq has WMD. (or was involved in 9/11, bought radioactive materials, is spawn of the devil, or whatever the excuse for war of the day is)"

  now the guy who tells you what you want to hear gets to be the prez's 'employee of the week', his career is on the fast track.

 the guy who reports no evidence of what you wanted him to find is a nobody and his career stagnates at best.

 the guy who reports no evidence and then outs you when you supply erroneous evidence to congress in an effort to get them to buy into your war, (either by ignoring his findings or lying about what they are or what they mean) finds that one of your high ranking aids(or one of your VP's ) has 'outed' his wifes identity and occupation in the intelligence community, ending her career and possibly endangering his life.

you run things like that for a while and it's not hard to quickly build an intelligence community that will tell you whatever you wish to hear and find whatever evidence you need, whether it actually exists or not.


Bush says he didn't know what we know now.  we needed to go to war to find out.  all the money we spend to supply him with intelligence and he didn't know?  how could he not know?

  I was sitting on my butt on the couch as this was unfolding and I knew.  I knew this war was a fabrication of his or his administration and I realized as this unfolded that  they had an intention of going to war with Iraq even before he was elected.

what is it really going to take for people to open their eyes to what a bad president this guy is?  an evil man running an evil administration, trying his best to turn us into the people he claims we fight.

what would he have to do to be considered a bad prez?  is a BJ in the oval office really the only thing that can turn you against a prez?  is lying about infidelity really worse than lying to send our soldiers to their death while scamming us and our children out of our treasury?

  I stack everything that has happened in the last 5 year, the direction our country has taken, the people we have become and I weigh that up against the big Clinton scandal.

  Clinton could have every woman in DC blow him and he'd still be 10 times the prez this clown is.

[capt. apathy]

It couldn't be that he (or possibly just those who work for him. if his administration is that far out of his control, a very real possibility) has slanted and/or fabricated the"intelligence" that was presented to congress as evidence of the need to go to war.  
  it's not all that hard to do.  instead of asking the intelligence community to find out whats going on in a certain situation, you instead say something to the effect of "check on this and find me the proof that Iraq has WMD. (or was involved in 9/11, bought radioactive materials, is spawn of the devil, or whatever the excuse for war of the day is)"
  now the guy who tells you what you want to hear gets to be the prez's 'employee of the week', his career is on the fast track.
 the guy who reports no evidence of what you wanted him to find is a nobody and his career stagnates at best.
 the guy who reports no evidence and then outs you when you supply erroneous evidence to congress in an effort to get them to buy into your war, (either by ignoring his findings or lying about what they are or what they mean) finds that one of your high ranking aids(or one of your VP's ) has 'outed' his wifes identity and occupation in the intelligence community, ending her career and possibly endangering his life.

you run things like that for a while and it's not hard to quickly build an intelligence community that will tell you whatever you wish to hear and find whatever evidence you need, whether it actually exists or not.

Bush says he didn't know what we know now.  we needed to go to war to find out.  all the money we spend to supply him with intelligence and he didn't know?  how could he not know?  I was sitting on my butt on the couch as this was unfolding and I knew.  I knew this war was a fabrication of his or his administration and I realized as this unfolded that  they had an intention of going to war with Iraq even before he was elected.

what is it really going to take for people to open their eyes to what a bad president this guy is, an evil man running an evil administration, trying his best to turn us into the people he claims we fight.

what would he have to do to be considered a bad prez?  is a BJ in the oval office really the only thing that can turn you against a prez?  is lying about infidelity really worse than lying to send our soldiers to their death while scamming us and our children out of our treasury?
  I stack everything that has happened in the last 5 year, the direction our country has taken, the people we have become and I weigh that up against the big Clinton scandal.
  Clinton could have every woman in DC blow him and he'd still be 10 times the prez this clown is.

[Sandman]

Capt...

[Yeager]

clinton is a potato.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by capt. apathy
Clinton could have every woman in DC blow him and he'd still be 10 times the prez this clown is.

clinton can't tie Bush shoes - guess thats what makes the world go round - 180 degree views