The Dixie Chicks should be President

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing..  skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....

We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there.   so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?

The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?

moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?

Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?  

I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize  that victory in iraq  means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.

lazs

Blah blah blah, you have nothing to add, you simply read over what you dont like, and go back to the same old Dem/Rep blah blah blah.  Are you that selfconcience that it was a republican adminstration that started this debacle?  I dont care what political side the administration was on that  started it, it was a bad move from the get go and we and our children will be dealing with it for a long time.  


Secure our borders.
Use fire against fire.
Secure our borders.  
Secure our borders.
Do not invade countries under false pretenses and use conventional warfare and occupation as a last resort only.
Secure our borders.
Secure our borders.
Fight fire with fire.
Secure our borders.

What part of the last 9 sentences do you not understand?

[Speed55]

Let me ask this question to all those that oppose this war.

Do you think that if our troops are allowed to succeed, and iraq establishes it's own self sufficient gov't, that it would benefit the US to have them as an ally?

Side note:
I personally think it's ridiculous how the democratic party is doing everything to oppose and destroy our war efforts.  I think if it was up to them, they'd pull out all our troops save 1, let him be slaughtered, then say we lost the war and it's all bush's fault.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by Speed55
Let me ask this question to all those that oppose this war.

Do you think that if our troops are allowed to succeed, and iraq establishes it's own self sufficient gov't, that it would benefit the US to have them as an ally?

Side note:
I personally think it's ridiculous how the democratic party is doing everything to oppose and destroy our war efforts.  I think if it was up to them, they'd pull out all our troops save 1, let him be slaughtered, then say we lost the war and it's all bush's fault.

listen lil lazs, just because someone opposes the war doesn't automatically mean he's democrat. I have stated too many times in this thread that I do not consider myself democrat or republican.  I will probably be voting republican this round, so it has nothing to do with what party you're for and everything to do about policy.

I will pose this question to you, what if it took another 6 years, 20,000 lives, and $2 trillion to get IRAQ to be anything that looked like a stable government?   Would it be worth it?  How long would they stay our allies?  Would you go back in if they freely voted Sadam Iran(ficticious name meaning someone who would allow IRAN to occupy its territory without a fight) into power?  What will we do if the day we pull out and leave IRAQ a free nation, IRAN sends in tanks?  What would we do if IRAN, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all moved troops in?  Would you fight your old allies to defend your new one?  The solution in IRAQ is not a simple one.

 The problem I have with the policy on IRAQ, is it gives us no "real" out.  We are sentenced to this outcome and will have to pay for it dearly.

[Speed55]

   little lazs.

I never said you, or anyone else was a democrat, that's why i wrote :side note.


Your question is a "what if" question.   I'll answer it if that happens.

My question has a good possibility of happening though, if the democrats, not saying you , would just back off and let our soldiers and generals do there jobs.

[john9001]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Would you fight your old allies to defend your new one?  

you mean like using US troops to defend west Germany from a Russian invasion after WW2?

[Yknurd]

Originally posted by LEADPIG
I agree that was one of the better posts on this whole meandering mess about a mess. I'm sorry he had to go there, once is enough. I tried to convince a couple of people i met to not go there and enlist and get involved in this. I didn't want to see them waste their lives. They had this crazy idea that it was the brave thing to do, the dutiful thing to do. I said don't pledge your duty to an administration and leadership that is failing you. That changed it's motives for why, what and how it's doing things constantly. That speaks to me that they don't know what they're doing. It's not the soldiers fault it's the administratrion that assigns them. Nothing we can do now, i tried to change this by not voting for him last time, and getting more troops killed and wounded. Supporting the troops does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government kill them. It does not mean blindly standing by and watching our government beat our soldiers head into a wall repeatedly. To see our government doing that extremely pisses me off. This is not something to sign up for, if any war was it was WW2. I'd sign up for that. It was army against army, nation against nation, good guy against the clearly seen bad guy. Not good guy against " That guy over there that could be a terrorist, i can't tell because he's wearing street clothes so i can't engage, don't want to upset the locals, so i gotta keep it PC. The soldiers are imerged in a land of enemies against the enemies, how you identify the bad guys to kill them at enough of a percentage to create massive and lethal destruction and an end to this war i don't know. I really wish BBB would explain it too me. That is not a tacticully good and intelligent use of our army. Since the army is not designed for that kind of war, i'd say change the tactics. To keep employing troops in the way they are being empoyed is foolhardy, and a diservice to their memory and current service. That really pisses me off to see. For any folks out their who think Iraq is going to have a democratic government or that they want one exactly, your most likely severly mistaken. That is a totally different environment and culture, to believe so is assuming everyone wants to be like America because were so great and everyone elses's government sucks. That is very arrogant. I predict that as soon as or not very long after the army leaves, the region will descent into even more violence. Terrorist will most likely leave Iraq because we will have left and start attacking us somewhere else. It's easier to attack us there then fly all the way to America.  Of course not all of them will leave they will be involved in the massive cultural suicide we have stirred up. This is even with the Iraqi army built up to survive the onslaught. I believe some of the members of the Iraqi army have religous and societal affiliations and will help break it up in the process. Let's just say if it holds together it's a miracle. It's like a massive house of cards were constructing only to have it fall apart as we leave. If this is something that it's worth it to you to be involved in, to die for by all means go ahead, i am too smart to get involved with this and can tell what will probably happen. If you think i will blindly follow my government and support something i don't believe in which is a bad situation and an ill use of our military, i will not. How supporting the troops is waving at our government and going along and saying "Go on and get killed Johnny boy i'm with ya" i don't know. One of the steps of a crumbling country is it's citizens seeing no evil and going along with the process.

I am the paragraph Nazi.

I suggest you learn to use paragraphs.  It's easy and hitting the enter key.  I doubt many people read your post because it is a wall of text.

Remember, a cluttered post is a sign of a cluttered mind.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by john9001
you mean like using US troops to defend west Germany from a Russian invasion after WW2?

We never fought russia.  I am asking you would you fight Saudi Arabia if they wanted to go into IRAQ with Syria and IRAN?

[lazs2]

skyrock...  we are already in the country and it can't survive without us.    You have nothing...  of course we shouldn't get into fights we don't have the stomach for and that don't do us any good but... what do we do now?

you have nothing... secure the borders?  what the hell does that have to do with anything?   you will never be able to "secure" the borders...you looked at a map of the U.S.?

Fight fire with fire?   now that is a good sounding but meaningless soundbite...We are fighting fire with fire... what the hell do you mean?  

As for your question... Unlike you..  I answer and....directly.   would it be worth a  20,000 lives and billions of dollars to have a secure country in that sea of islamofacist breeding grounds?   hell yes.   We are gonna have to face the fact that "convert or die" mean.... convert or die.   it doesn't mean leave us alone and we will leave you alone.   It means... your very existence (ask the jews) is offensive to us.    

so please... quit evading like your democrat buddies and give us your plan... hell.... give us anyones plan that you agree with for getting our troops out.

lazs

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock...  we are already in the country and it can't survive without us.    You have nothing...  of course we shouldn't get into fights we don't have the stomach for and that don't do us any good but... what do we do now?

you have nothing... secure the borders?  what the hell does that have to do with anything?   you will never be able to "secure" the borders...you looked at a map of the U.S.?

Fight fire with fire?   now that is a good sounding but meaningless soundbite...We are fighting fire with fire... what the hell do you mean?  



so please... quit evading like your democrat buddies and give us your plan... hell.... give us anyones plan that you agree with for getting our troops out.

lazs

Lazs, I know you can read, so why do you continue to avoid comprehending that I am not a policy maker.  If I were, we would not be in IRAQ right now.  

Securing the borders would have been the first thing I'd have focused on after 9/11, along with planning the invasion of Afghanistan.  To this day, 6 years after the attack, we have open borders.  Completely unacceptable in my book.  You say that securing the borders is impossible, just as I see a democratic ally in IRAQ as being impossible.  The only difference is, to bomb us in our own country they would have to get in.  It is possible and we have the means and funds to make it happen.  Start with the ports, and work your way all the way down to every inch of our border.  This should have been #1 priority after 9/11.

Fighting fire with fire means to use our superior technology to its fullest potential.  The dollars wasted in IRAQ could have set up a network of intellegence unfathomed by man.  Covert intellegence operations coupled with an anything goes policy towards undermining and anihilating the terrorists where they sleep.  No paper trails, no identification, and no regrets.  Kill them anyway you can and even use the most dastardly of tactics to beat them at their own game.  This completely untracable operational system would use any means necessary to get to the terrorists and kill them.  Even the use of our own sucide bombers!  We have no problems dropping a smart bomb and accidentally killing civillians, so why be morally against sending willing participants in against the terrorists.  I am willing to bet there are 1,000's in the US alone who would gladly sacrifice themselves in this way.  

Again, this is not a dem/rep problem, it is an american problem, I mean fighting the terrorists.

PS  I'm sure my comments about using our own suicide bombers will draw much criticism, but I do not think we should leave anything off the table.

PS2  You act like only Dems want out of IRAQ????????  CLUE.


Mark

[AKIron]

Hijack attempt: Let the Dixie Chicks run. They are as likely to win as Hillary.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Yknurd
I am the paragraph Nazi.

I suggest you learn to use paragraphs.  It's easy and hitting the enter key.  I doubt many people read your post because it is a wall of text.

Remember, a cluttered post is a sign of a cluttered mind.

Wow.  First grammar, now paragraph structure.  Now I'm going to have to review Leadpig's spelling .

[LEADPIG]

Jeez thank you guys for counting my english literature pubic hairs, i appreciate it, i didn't know i lost one, now give it back. I just thought i was posting on a stupid ****ing bulletin board, not writing an english compositional thesis. You guys and the ****ing insults, with the cluttered mind comment, least i got brainwaves, what are you working with. Microwaves don't count.

Not you holding my groin your cool.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. soooo... after all this, we are back to the same old thing..  skyrock and moray and ledpig don't like the way the war is run but have no idea of what to do.... moreover..... they admit (no paragraphs so you have to wade through it) that....

We can't just run away... that the troops need to be there.   so really, all they are doing is whining... no suggestions for a solution... no ideas... no nothing but whining... and this somehow "supports the troops"?

The media watching the troops like hawks hoping one of em makes any mistake that they can crucify him for is "supporting the troops"?

moveon.org and the democrats calling the troops too stupid to have a real job is "supporting the troops"?

Pulling the troops out before they get they get the results that they have sacraficed so much for is "supporting the troops"?  

I think you are just to dishonest to say that you really don't give a crap about the troops and that you just hate the current administration and realize  that victory in iraq  means defeat for the weepy, menopausal, socialist democrats that you want in power.

lazs

Can you guys say something without insulting calling us menopausal, weepy, whatever and telling people what they want and believe. That anyone who dosen't support the war is whining or weepy as you say. I think anybody who doesn't get the situation in Iraq and wants to keep doing it that way is an idiot and the want to keep doing it the way we been doing speaks of a moron who likes to hurt themselves repeatedly. Maybe you guys are just masochists, and you want the troops to be hurt over bull****. Yea thats really supporting them!!  

I've noticed you right wing support the war guys can't listen to an argument completely, without putting words into peoples mouth. That you seem not to understand anything in the beginning. It's probably your big mouth followed by your big hollier than thou ego's that get in the way from hearing what i'm saying without telling me what i'm saying. Probabaly why your dumb bellybutton president couldn't figure out the end of this movie when he first started it.

Once again for the hard of hearing hear it is. We can't leave because were're commited there. I wouldn't have started this mess in the first place but since it's started we gotta at least try to patch it up. I do not believe in "Staying the Course" to infinity cause the course gets us nowhere. If you think this current road is going to get us a happy solution, an end to terrorism and a peaceful middle east where we can all hold hands and sing spirtuals you are stupid Lasz.  If it dosen't get us this the soldiers lives are being wasted and a better plan must be effected.

Once again since you tell my point before i've said it here's my solution. Stated way back at the beggining of this post. An Excerpt of many about a possible solution.

Question 1. I would have fought the war by using CIA, military, and covert operatives, along with willing people from the area who are in the know, like the brave interpreters they have now (those guys are amazing), much as they're doing in Afganisthan. Sort of sniffing terrorist out with a combat roach bait that they can take back to the nest and kill the queen. Things such as infiltrating info such as terrorist meetings and bombing the crap outta them when they show up. Possibly getting operatives to hold arms sales in the guise of a helping entity (such as Iranian undercover arms traders) everybody shows up dies. You gotta weed em out like termites, get my drift. Large scale conflict on a country that may or may not have terrorist influence is not the way.

I agree the media are some truth bending *******s, and they tend to report the bad stuff. But you don't need to be a genius to see **** is fluffied up.

Pulling the troops out before they've finished before they've achieved success huh.. If they achieve success, i.e wipe out terrorism or at least stymie it enough, unite the region so it doesn't fall apart after we leave, and all the people embrace democracy in a "Let Freedom Ring" sing along orgy. If you think that's gonna happen as a result of us being there, you are a nut. That's the day i win the lottery, have a three way with, Carmen Electra and Elisha Cuthbert, and Pig's fly. So if that **** ain't happening, it ain't worth it buddy, the blood we spilling over their needs a tourniquet quick. To keep saying stay the course means your a dumb ****.

You telling me i don't give a crap about the troops, makes me wanna rip your ******* out your big mouth tie your intestines around your neck and hang you with em. I'm looking for a tree and a horse now. Thanks for throwing those words in my mouth pal. Jeez make a comment without being an insulting poosy. And for the record i couldn't give a rats bellybutton about who wins the elections as long as whoever it is does the job and patches up the situation. P.S. Not Hillary.

[LEADPIG]

This man couldn't have said it better for me:

Today's GI is clearly better trained and led than those i commanded 40 years ago in Vietnam and 10 years ago in the Balkans. But as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan high technology doesn't always matter. We have discovered the enemy is resourceful and fights with improvised explosive devices (IED's) and suicide bombers. But the American GI is also resourceful and adaptive to conditions on the battlefield. He knows there are no time outs in war. And regrettably, many have paid the supreme sacrifice in service to their country.

U.S. troops go into harm's way in compliance with the political decisions made by civilian leadership. And that is the way it should be. But our senior political and military leadership need to ensure that the commitment of troops to combat is the last resort, not the first. When GI's are deployed we must provide the best equipment, the best prior planning, clarity of mission and conditions for success. To do less places our GI's at unacceptable risk. And for four years we have done less in Iraq-little or no planning for stabilization, insufficient troops, inadequate armor protection and reluctance to use diplomacy and the economic instruments of our power. And the American GI has paid a heavy price for our negligence.

As the troops accept accountability on the battlefield, so must responsible political and military leadership accept accountability for decisions made with regard to the conduct of war. There has been a great deal of the former and much less of the latter. In particular there has been a lack of moral courage by senior military leaders to stand up and be counted on the decisions that took us into war, and the conditions needed for success. We are better than that as a nation and better than that as a military.

By General. George A. Joulwan, U.S. Army (Ret.)

My thoughts exactly
Leadpig.

[BBBB]

After reading though all of this mess I regret even posting to debate with you Leadpig and you SkyRock. LEADPIG your grammar, sentence structure and spelling, tell me you are still a pretty young guy. So it is only natural for you to follow the sheep's on MTV telling you the war in Iraq is wrong. This is common place with kids today. Why think for yourself when you have Susan Sarandon and Kanye West telling you what to think. Besides, you have more pressing matters to worry about. Halo 3 is about do be released.

 SkyRock, where do I start? You seemed like a smart guy for a little bit there, and then you went off on this little bit:

Originally posted by SkyRock
Fighting fire with fire means to use our superior technology to its fullest potential.  The dollars wasted in IRAQ could have set up a network of intellegence unfathomed by man.  Covert intellegence operations coupled with an anything goes policy towards undermining and anihilating the terrorists where they sleep.  No paper trails, no identification, and no regrets.  Kill them anyway you can and even use the most dastardly of tactics to beat them at their own game.  This completely untracable operational system would use any means necessary to get to the terrorists and kill them.  Even the use of our own sucide bombers!  We have no problems dropping a smart bomb and accidentally killing civillians, so why be morally against sending willing participants in against the terrorists.  I am willing to bet there are 1,000's in the US alone who would gladly sacrifice themselves in this way.  

 
 Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot? You, my little semi retarded friend have been watching way, way, to many episodes of 24. You suffer from an acute case of Jack Bauerism. While I did enjoy your colorful, albeit totally stupid plan for the war in Iraq, I must say you have it all wrong.

 Here is the thing, you have a lot of issues standing in your way of flooding Iraq with a high tech spy ring. First and foremost is the culture. Most of the people in Iraq  still live in mud houses with very little if any electricity. In fact the country it's self is not very wired. So your high tech spy ring is going to have to go low tech.

 Even then, the Iraqis are not going to trust your spies. They can spot a westerner 2 miles out. Even if you do manage to talk to the locals, most still believe in magic. A lot of them think the insurgents have magical powers. Kinda like a lot of them thought Saddam had magical powers. Hence he was untouchable. Out of fear alone they will not talk to you about the Ali-Babas in the area.

 The point I am trying to make here is you have to know your enemy. The only enemy you have ever met, was that soda machine that took your dollar that one time at band camp. Your little plan above made this perfectly clear.

 So, I am going to withdraw from this one. You can't fix stupid and I am not about to try. You two think you have it all figured out and I am just going to let that be you two's little secret. Shhh, don't tell anyone that you have it all figured out. The rest of us might get jealous. You two have a good day.

-Spot