Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on November 17, 2005, 01:14:20 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/17/murtha.iraq/index.html
In order to regain the seat of power....
Will they succeed?
-
Cool!
The man advising immediate withdrawal of all our troops, Rep John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, is a former Marine Corps colonel and veteran of the Vietnam war and has recently returned from a visit to Iraq's Anbar province as well as visits to soldiers recovering at Bethesda's Walter Reed Medical Center. He has served in the House for over three decades, is the senior Democrat and former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee.
He got what was coming to him though. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, told The Associated Press that Murtha's call for withdrawal was "reprehensible and irresponsible." Ms Granger is a former teacher, insurance agent, city council member and mayor of Fort Worth. She graduated with a Bachelor of Science, Magna Cum Laude, an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from Texas Wesleyan University and an Honorary Doctorate of Public Service from Tennessee Wesleyan College. According to her website, she is recognized as one of the House of Representatives’ defense experts.
-
Pick the defense expert:
A. Retired Marine Corps Colonel
B. Former School Teacher
C. None of the above
D. All of the above
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Pick the defense expert:
A. Retired Marine Corps Colonel
B. Former School Teacher
C. None of the above
D. All of the above
:rofl
-
you forgot this one:
E. Democrat
Taints the other choices for me. Especially considering the man has a military background. He is basically calling for surrender, a retreat from the battlefield.
-
Quote from Rep. Duncan Hunter
"Right now, in Iraq, we are changing the world. ... We're changing a very strategic part of the world in such a way that it will not be a threat to the United States and, in fact, will be an ally in the global war against terror."
At first I found this quite funny, but on further reflection I found it somewhat disturbing that someone in Congress has their heads so far in the sand that they actually believe it.
-
Too late for that..
-
I would have agreed with you in principle if it was late 1944 and some dolt was saying that one day Japan would be a close economic and strategic partner of the united states. Unimaginable........:huh
-
Just remember....if we don't clean this mess up know... our kids will have to for us. Cannot give one inch of ground. Rep John Murtha likens it to Vietnam (and claims it is worst... a matter of debate) but the comaprison is ill placed. Different conflict, different stakes.. the only thing that seems the same is the unpopularity.
-
The war was lost @ Abu Gharib.. this is 4th generation warfare, we lost a long time ago when we started torturing the general populace with little regard to law or order... attempting to fight a 4th gen war thru 2nd generation means..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+Warning+from+Clausewitz&btnG=Google+Search
Or if you study Sun Tzu, we lost before we started by not knowing our enemy, ( know thy enemy and thyself ) draggin the war out, (war must be quick), and finally dividing our resources for a second theatre before we had the manpower to do such.. (the latter being the exact opposite of traditional war doctrine for the last 3000 years..)*
honorable mention goes to disbanding the Iraqi army..(use your enemies resources) blocking our so called allies out of reconstruction (france, gemany, russia, spain, even Britain etc..) hence alienating them. Use of WP in hypocritical fashion in Falluja, and getting caught for it.. (I dont know which is worse, I'd say getting caught..just like getting caught in torture sessions etc.. war is war, getting caught is incompetence)*
*(hundreds more but these are the biggies..)
"Yes its the democrats.. they lost the war.. "
History will say differently Yeager taking bets at 50 -1 odds...
throw down some coinage, ill take your money..
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
The war was lost @ Abu Gharib.. this is 4th generation warfare, we lost a long time ago when we started torturing the general populace with little regard to law or order... attempting to fight a 4th gen war thru 2nd generation means..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+Warning+from+Clausewitz&btnG=Google+Search
Or if you study Sun Tzu, we lost before we started by not knowing our enemy, ( know thy enemy and thyself ) draggin the war out, (war must be quick), and finally dividing our resources for a second theatre before we had the manpower to do such.. (the latter being the exact opposite of traditional war doctrine for the last 3000 years..)*
(In the artillery they call it Fire and Adjust)
honorable mention goes to disbanding the Iraqi army..(use your enemies resources) blocking our so called allies out of reconstruction (france, gemany, russia, spain, even Britain etc..) hence alienating them. Use of WP in hypocritical fashion in Falluja, and getting caught for it.. (I dont know which is worse, I'd say getting caught..just like getting caught in torture sessions etc.. war is war, getting caught is incompetence)*
*(hundreds more but these are the biggies..)
"Yes its the democrats.. they lost the war.. "
History will say differently Yeager taking bets at 50 -1 odds...
throw down some coinage, ill take your money..
DoctorYo
Excellent points. It is good to see such criticism from a student of Clauswitz and Sun Tzu. I guess I missed the "here is the solution" part of your reply.
Here is something captured from the link provided:
That leads to point number two: if and when American forces capture Baghdad and take down Saddam Hussein, the real war will not end but begin. It will be fought in Iraq in part, as an array of non-state elements begin to fight America and each other. It will be fought in part in the rest of the Islamic world where the targets will not only be Americans but any local regime that is friendly to America. And, of course, it will be fought here in America, as the sons of Mohammed remind Americans that war is a two-way street
(Incorrect - this so called 4th generation war was begun on a much more recognized date...Ask any American when the war began...)
This kind of war, Fourth Generation war, is something American and other state armed forces do not know how to fight. It is not going to go well, and among the casualties are likely to be the pro-American governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In short, an American victory over the state of Iraq (which is itself no sure thing) is more likely to lead to a strategic failure for America than to a strategic success.
(Actually it is going OK... Block off the media blitz and ask a Vet. Most people in Iraq want freedom. Most people want the old regimes gone. The forces in Iraq are challenged but have risen to the challenge. Those who would bring their attacks upon defenseless civilians have brought it to hardened soldiers. The US did turn a 4th generation war into a 2nd generation war (not entirely...not yet))
I guess there is always the possiblity that we can choose "inaction" because this might be a conflict that is centered in a place other than in the war zone. "The fourth generation war" was established long before the Iraq invasion. It has always been a 4th gnereation war. Turning it into a 2nd generation war is only a local part of the battle. The Iraq invasion is only part of the solution...It is not the final solution.
Already most of the document that you have linked to is incorrect.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
The war was lost @ Abu Gharib.. this is 4th generation warfare, we lost a long time ago when we started torturing the general populace with little regard to law or order... attempting to fight a 4th gen war thru 2nd generation means..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+Warning+from+Clausewitz&btnG=Google+Search
Or if you study Sun Tzu, we lost before we started by not knowing our enemy, ( know thy enemy and thyself ) draggin the war out, (war must be quick), and finally dividing our resources for a second theatre before we had the manpower to do such.. (the latter being the exact opposite of traditional war doctrine for the last 3000 years..)*
honorable mention goes to disbanding the Iraqi army..(use your enemies resources) blocking our so called allies out of reconstruction (france, gemany, russia, spain, even Britain etc..) hence alienating them. Use of WP in hypocritical fashion in Falluja, and getting caught for it.. (I dont know which is worse, I'd say getting caught..just like getting caught in torture sessions etc.. war is war, getting caught is incompetence)*
*(hundreds more but these are the biggies..)
"Yes its the democrats.. they lost the war.. "
History will say differently Yeager taking bets at 50 -1 odds...
throw down some coinage, ill take your money..
DoctorYo
Yo you cant win on this one. The Bush supporters will never ever admit to the mistakes. They are toeing the party line till the bitter end.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I would have agreed with you in principle if it was late 1944 and some dolt was saying that one day Japan would be a close economic and strategic partner of the united states. Unimaginable........:huh
Apples and oranges. Japan is and was, even at the end of WWII, a united country.
Iraq is anything but united. You have your three different communities in Iraq: Sunni, Kurd and *****e. Each hates the other more than the last. Add to the mix, religious clerics who are trying to gain power within each group. Throw in countless radicals who will do anything, absolutely anthing their cleric tells them to and you have one messed up country. It's a country in name only.
When the new Iraqi government is finaly given complete control of the country, the first time it does something unpopular with one of the ethnic groups, it's going to be civil war. Some say it's on the brink of civil war right now.
I agree that pulling out in a matter of weeks is irresponsible. We have too much that we are responsible for for that. But I think an exit strategy with with a priority of speedy handover and pullout is vital. We need to get out and let them fight it out for themselves. That place will be a hell hole for decades to come.
-
Already most of the document that you have linked to is incorrect.
Tell that to the people in jordan.. and read Al jackarses statement in regards to such..
Insert Spain... Trains...
insert Bali Nightclubs....
insert Jordon Hotels...
(Actually it is going OK... Block off the media blitz and ask a Vet.
Most of the Remfs are reuping... (little do the Remfs know they will soon be line units..) Most of your line units are not..
Thats why you have National guard maintnence units pulling convoy security / counter insurgency.. a job they are untrained for hence their disproportionate casualty rate...
DoctorYo
PS: Also the Lind Article.. check the date... ; now see what he said and whats happening now...
France anyone..
Incorrect indeed..
rebuttal..?
-
Originally posted by Eden
Excellent points. It is good to see such criticism from a student of Clauswitz and Sun Tzu. I guess I missed the "here is the solution" part of your reply.
Here is something captured from the link provided:
That leads to point number two: if and when American forces capture Baghdad and take down Saddam Hussein, the real war will not end but begin. It will be fought in Iraq in part, as an array of non-state elements begin to fight America and each other. It will be fought in part in the rest of the Islamic world where the targets will not only be Americans but any local regime that is friendly to America. And, of course, it will be fought here in America, as the sons of Mohammed remind Americans that war is a two-way street
(Incorrect - this so called 4th generation war was begun on a much more recognized date...Ask any American when the war began...)
This kind of war, Fourth Generation war, is something American and other state armed forces do not know how to fight. It is not going to go well, and among the casualties are likely to be the pro-American governments in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In short, an American victory over the state of Iraq (which is itself no sure thing) is more likely to lead to a strategic failure for America than to a strategic success.
(Actually it is going OK... Block off the media blitz and ask a Vet. Most people in Iraq want freedom. Most people want the old regimes gone. The forces in Iraq are challenged but have risen to the challenge. Those who would bring their attacks upon defenseless civilians have brought it to hardened soldiers. The US did turn a 4th generation war into a 2nd generation war (not entirely...not yet))
I guess there is always the possiblity that we can choose "inaction" because this might be a conflict that is centered in a place other than in the war zone. "The fourth generation war" was established long before the Iraq invasion. It has always been a 4th gnereation war. Turning it into a 2nd generation war is only a local part of the battle. The Iraq invasion is only part of the solution...It is not the final solution.
Already most of the document that you have linked to is incorrect.
Actually Ill raise you 2 Vets who think the war is going badly to your 1.
Eden we are there now and we should finish what we started in the best outcome possible. So far any military man who disagreed with the way admin was planning the war was sent packing.
But the issue is whether this admin cherry picked the intelligence and presented it to Congress to get support. This must be addressed. If true then those that did this must be prosecuted. This is the American way.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you forgot this one:
E. Democrat
Taints the other choices for me. Especially considering the man has a military background. He is basically calling for surrender, a retreat from the battlefield.
F. Why don't you go over there, if you're so damned supportive? :rofl
-
"Or if you study Sun Tzu, we lost before we started by not knowing our enemy, ( know thy enemy and thyself ) draggin the war out, (war must be quick), and finally dividing our resources for a second theatre before we had the manpower to do such.. (the latter being the exact opposite of traditional war doctrine for the last 3000 years..)* "
I guess we lost WW2 as well, since we didn't know our enemies very well, it dragged out, and was a multi-front war. Oh...wait a minute...we won that one. Maybe that Sun Tzu guy isn't as smart as people think he was, despite having a mysterious "cool" name.
As with Vietnam, this current "war" is ours to lose, and the only way we'll lose is if the america-hating defeatists manage to convince congress to wuss out. Patton once said that "the very idea of losing is hateful to Americans". It's a good thing for him that he didn't live to see the pathetic, soft, wimpy baby-boom generation which followed. I think that's why they're so touchy about the whole subject of war....they know, deep down, that history will remember them as a generation of crybaby wimps.
Some people say that it "can't" be won. So what then....are we supposed to just sit around and accept people detonating bombs and killing our populace? The wussy defeatists make me sick...they want to ban guns, yet let our enemies kill our people with no repercussion. It's true...these people really do hate America, and probably themselves too.
I'm not going to bring up the names of specific political parties as some others have done. Defeatism isn't linked to a specific party. Jeannette Rankin--the famous activist wuss woman who voted against WW1 and WW2--was elected to Congress as a Republican.
Iraq may or may not have been the "correct" place to attack. The publicly stated reasons were certainly BS. However, it seems that our enemies are so busy fighting us in Iraq that they have little to no additional resources to devote to attacking us here in the continental US.
You like history? A country that doesn't have the will to fight is doomed. Look at what happened to the Roman Empire when they lost the stomach to fight and pulled back their legions....the barbarians closed in until the Goths were at the gates of Rome. The Byzantine Empire lasted for a thousand years; it wouldn't have lasted a century if they didn't have the will to fight. Fighting abroad is what keeps you safe at home.
One thing remains constant throughout the years--your enemies won't simply go away if you ignore them. That didn't work in elementary school, and it sure as heck doesn't work on the global scene.
J_A_B
-
wait...
...I thought we were told the war was over.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
F. Why don't you go over there, if you're so damned supportive? :rofl
Trying to get over there now under Halliburton/KBR, IT Communications.
OBTW I'm retired Army, did my 20.
Care to come with me and then talk chit?
Mac
-
There is definitely something behind all this. The guy was a Marine for 37 years, and known as one of the most hawkish Democrats. Man, if we could only get the rest of the story...
Seldom overtly political, Murtha uncharacteristically responded to Vice President Dick Cheney's comments this week that Democrats were spouting "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges" about the Bush administration's use of intelligence before the war.
"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.
Referring to Bush, Murtha added, "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
Murtha once worked closely with the vice president when Cheney was defense secretary. During Vietnam, Bush served stateside in the National Guard while Cheney's five deferments kept him out of the service entirely.
With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974, Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
Murtha's shift from an early war backer to a critic advocating withdrawal reflects plummeting public support for a war that has cost more than $200 billion and led to the deaths of more than 2,000 U.S. troops.
Known as a friend and champion of officers at the Pentagon and in the war zone, it is widely believed in Congress that Murtha often speaks for those in uniform and could be echoing what U.S. commanders in the field and in the Pentagon are saying privately about the conflict.
Murtha, who normally shuns the spotlight, said he was spoke out because he has grown increasingly troubled by the war and has a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops.
I didn't know Cheney got 5 deferments that kept him out of uniform entirely.
-
F. Why don't you go over there, if you're so damned supportive?
====
I wish I could. I would love to serve in theater with the armed forces.
As it is Im doing my part right now on the home front directly supporting the men and women of the United States Air Force AWACS, who in turn are doing their part for all the armed forces engaged in battle on the ground. They are all doing a remarkable job. In that sense I am performing an important duty and I am proud of it.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Actually Ill raise you 2 Vets who think the war is going badly to your 1.
Eden we are there now and we should finish what we started in the best outcome possible. So far any military man who disagreed with the way admin was planning the war was sent packing.
But the issue is whether this admin cherry picked the intelligence and presented it to Congress to get support. This must be addressed. If true then those that did this must be prosecuted. This is the American way.
HEre is an intelligence number: 3500. The number of innocents killed the day the war started (if you want to declare a 4th generation war... it actually goes back further). It is easy to be cynical. Easy to be critical without offering solutions. I don't care about whether or not there were WMD...I care about those in my neighborhood....those in my family. I am selfish...I want them to live safely. WMD are too tricky to realy mean anything (the media makes them the Voodoo doll of the war... the bogey man of a civilized nation...how often are they used?). There are more "real" threats than that. I will assist and applaud every effort (military or otherwise) that takes the fight out of my back yard.
Also, the majority of the soldiers in my 132 man unit that have volunteer to go again. It is not an easy mission...was not claimed to be one. It is however necessary (most agree..but all agree if we are picked to go we all go together). Clauswitz based his theory on the idea that war was inevitable. I agree (for the sake of argument) and if so better to pick the time and place rather than let the other side do so. Even if we could have known more about the enemy (we can argue this forever) the advantage of picking the where and when offers an advantage.
JAB is on the mark...
Iraq may or may not have been the "correct" place to attack. The publicly stated reasons were certainly BS. However, it seems that our enemies are so busy fighting us in Iraq that they have little to no additional resources to devote to attacking us here in the continental US.
-
Makes me wonder...
Do you think that the democratic party threatened Murtha if he did not come out against the war?
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
The war was lost @ Abu Gharib.. this is 4th generation warfare, we lost a long time ago when we started torturing the general populace with little regard to law or order... attempting to fight a 4th gen war thru 2nd generation means..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=A+Warning+from+Clausewitz&btnG=Google+Search
Or if you study Sun Tzu, we lost before we started by not knowing our enemy, ( know thy enemy and thyself ) draggin the war out, (war must be quick), and finally dividing our resources for a second theatre before we had the manpower to do such.. (the latter being the exact opposite of traditional war doctrine for the last 3000 years..)*
honorable mention goes to disbanding the Iraqi army..(use your enemies resources) blocking our so called allies out of reconstruction (france, gemany, russia, spain, even Britain etc..) hence alienating them. Use of WP in hypocritical fashion in Falluja, and getting caught for it.. (I dont know which is worse, I'd say getting caught..just like getting caught in torture sessions etc.. war is war, getting caught is incompetence)*
*(hundreds more but these are the biggies..)
"Yes its the democrats.. they lost the war.. "
History will say differently Yeager taking bets at 50 -1 odds...
throw down some coinage, ill take your money..
DoctorYo
You live in such a fantasy world...
-
If folks think Murtha is acting out on his own, out of his own sense of humanity, then folks dont understand politics 101. Murtha is working in a tightly controlled campaign with the elders of the democratic party to take political advantage of the deteriorating support for the war. This dishonest campaign has been growing more intense for several months and it is reaching a melting point.
I dont question the congressman personally. He is a decorated veteran who served with honor and distinction and deserves praise and respect for his wartime sacrifice, but the bottom line persists, today he is a politician.
He is a politican in a minority party who is sowing the seeds of dissent to try and place themselves back into power. They will take advantage of any weakening in public support of the war to unseat the majority party. The democrats will lose a war if thats what it takes to regain power.
He is a politician who just sold his brothers in arms down the drain by recommending they retreat from a battle.
Its a sham(e) really.
-
Originally posted by Furious
wait...
...I thought we were told the war was over.
Let me be the one to help you, and I am happy to help.
Nobody, and I repeat nobody said the war was over.
What was said was, "major combat operations are over".
And they are, and have been. Major combat operations are over, and if you are any student of history whatsoever, you will understand that concept. There really are no major battles happening, just limited operations to root out insurgents hiding in houses.
If you can't understand the differance, I can't help you since you would be lacking the ability or understanding of history to recognize the differance.
dago
-
Pulling out of Iraq now would be almost as stupid as invading there in the first place.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan created much of the jihad movement, who went on from their victory in Afghanistan to other targets. Iraq has created a new generation, and they will not quietly retire if they win in Iraq.
The problem is, it's not clear that staying in Iraq will lead to victory anyway, and postponing the inevitable might make things worse, not better.
-
I have got to admit when USSR failed in Afganistan I was deep down disappointed. Even back then I had a gut feel that Jihad was the devil.
-
Yeager, I wasn't saying that Murtha was playing politics.
I was saying that the Democratic Leaders were playing politics against him. I.E. They threatened / Extorted him into saying that.
-
I don't think he's being used. I think it's more of a case of DeJaVu
Friday, May 7, 2004 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_192988.html)
Before the likes of Nash and company come in here and say we are bad people for bashing a vet I will just say this: I disagree with this guys politics imensly. I do not think cutting and running is that answer at all. Other than that I wont degrade the man.
-
That link is interesting, GS, but if you read the story you get quite a different impression.
"We cannot prevail in this war as it is going today," Murtha said yesterday at a news conference with House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi. Murtha said the incidents of prisoner abuse in Iraq were a symptom of a problem in which U.S. troops in Iraq are undermanned, inadequately equipped and poorly trained.
"We either have to mobilize or we have to get out," Murtha said, adding that he supported increasing U.S. troop strength rather than pulling out.
At the time he was roundly criticised by then Majority Leader Tom Delay, a former pest control business owner who never served in the armed services and is currently under criminal investigation for money laundering. GOP Rep Michael Burgess, a former obstetrician who likewise never served a day in uniform, accused Murtha of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
The GOP sure seems to have its share of loudmouthed warhawks who themselves never made the sacrifice. It'd be interesting to see how many of them own Halliburton stock.
Regarding Murtha's proposal, it strikes me as almost reckless. A phased withdrawal according to a flexible timetable makes more sense to me-- to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take over while we still have a sizeable contigent present in case they are needed. But its nice to see someone with his credentials put a full immediate withdrawal out there for discussion. I think there must be alot left unsaid regarding how he came to that position.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think there must be alot left unsaid regarding how he came to that position.
One reason may be because now Bush is fighting back about the reasons for going to war. Reminding dems of thier own quotes , and votes about the war in Iraq. So now they have to change tactics. Or it could have more to do with him wanting to get his face in front of the cameras. Bash the administration and your an instant media star.:lol
Lee Harvey Oswald was also a Marine that bashed a president, and his policies. Remember that before you cream your pants in glee Terry.
-
Originally posted by Eden
Just remember....if we don't clean this mess up know... our kids will have to for us. Cannot give one inch of ground. Rep John Murtha likens it to Vietnam (and claims it is worst... a matter of debate) but the comaprison is ill placed. Different conflict, different stakes.. the only thing that seems the same is the unpopularity.
Please, before criticizing a former war veteran colonel, could you state your qualifications?
I think when people who have obvious real world life and death experience and can relate the current war directlu with a past war that he has experienced, we should at least take his thoughts as a serious piece of advice because of those qualificatiojns, not dismiss them due to the party he belongs to.
So your plan is stay in iraq until ?????? What???? Thats the point , there is no plan.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Please, before criticizing a former war veteran colonel, could you state your qualifications?
That's some standard.
What qualifications do you have that makes you side with this old bird, rather than the current military commanders who say we can and will win the war?
-
War, as short as it was, is and has been over, the operations we are seeing every day are against outsiders and former regime loyalist with the full support of the legally elected government of Iraq.
IT IS NOT A WAR.... IT IS OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS WITH THE FULL HELP AND SUPPORT OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ.
Perhaps we should ask the Iraqis how they would feel about us pulling up stakes now and leaving.
The fanatics realize the highs stakes here, and it shows in there attempts to drive us out, as doing so would allow them to replace Afghanistan with Iraqi as a place to control via Islamic fundamentalism and that is where OBL was and is still training for operations against the world.
To allow this would be beyond wrong, pulling out the troops now, as good as you may feel for the short term would be devastating for Iraqi.
I realize that quitting now and the support of the end of operations would/does make the President look bad and for many that is ALL that counts... please rethink this it to the logical end.
If the Pull out Party gets its way now and wins the White House they will have to deal with a Terrorist nation that they will have created. The next President will be standing on larger piles of rubble and waist then the WTC.
Stop and think past your hate for this president (gone in 3) what will come if you get your way and we were to pull out in the next 3 weeks.
What will Iraq look like in two years.... Do you even care?
Or is the motto "What ever makes Bush look bad is good" above all logic.
My ramblings
-
I trust a Democrat as much as I trust a Republican. They're both liars.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Please, before criticizing a former war veteran colonel, could you state your qualifications?
I think when people who have obvious real world life and death experience and can relate the current war directlu with a past war that he has experienced, we should at least take his thoughts as a serious piece of advice because of those qualificatiojns, not dismiss them due to the party he belongs to.
So your plan is stay in iraq until ?????? What???? Thats the point , there is no plan.
Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, WTC relief and clean up, Bridge and Tunnel Security....
The Colonel is a decorated war veteran and for that I salute him. I respect his opinion and have not attacked it as lacking in validity. My point is that we need to be resolute in this. There is a lot more at stake than we sometimes wish to admit. There is no exit strategy because the war is not in Iraq... it is global. Do you know anyone who died or was injured on 9/11? Maybe not...thank god. Will you know anyone who is injured or killed during the next terrorist attack...Let us hope not but we will all be affected by it. Try and take a nail clipper on an Airplane and tell me you are not involved in this. I guess my point is that there is room for discussion (freedom of speech always to be defeneded) but that also means that what you say publicly is also is free to be criticized. We love our freedoms and they are at risk.
I understand where the COL is coming from. He is trying to stick up for the soldiers by bringing to view their situaiton. His demands are what we would all like to do (if the world was a simpler place). It is just that we are not at that point yet.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Please, before criticizing a former war veteran colonel, could you state your qualifications?
I think when people who have obvious real world life and death experience and can relate the current war directlu with a past war that he has experienced, we should at least take his thoughts as a serious piece of advice because of those qualificatiojns, not dismiss them due to the party he belongs to.
So your plan is stay in iraq until ?????? What???? Thats the point , there is no plan.
Nobody needs to state qualifications. If this man is so qualified , he of all people should know that remarks like this coming from the leadership of this country just makes the enemy more resolute. He should also care more about the Soldiers, and Marines , on the ground in Iraq. Statements like his just lead to more vigorous attacks agianst American servicemen. Kill a few more Americans and they'll quit. What a messege to send to the AQ. Yeah this guys a real hero, and really cares about the Marines in uniform now.:lol
There is a plan it's called Victory. Thats always been the plan. Time tables, and schedules, are the work of media, and liberals, who want America to lose the war just because they have been losing elections.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
One reason may be because now Bush is fighting back about the reasons for going to war. Reminding dems of thier own quotes , and votes about the war in Iraq. So now they have to change tactics. Or it could have more to do with him wanting to get his face in front of the cameras. Bash the administration and your an instant media star.:lol
Lee Harvey Oswald was also a Marine that bashed a president, and his policies. Remember that before you cream your pants in glee Terry.
Could be. But some of Bush's talking points in his fighting back are simply distortions of the truth. For example, he claims that those who voted for the war had the same intelligence he had. I understand that is just not true - Bush as president had access to far more intel than Congress did, and filtered what they had access to.
As far as Murtha being a publicity seeker - well his 30 years of low profile public service in Congress would seem to contradict that theory. And for him being part of a well-oiled political organization involved in a tightly controlled campaign - well, let me just remind you he his a Democrat. They would have trouble deciding how to cut butter with a hot knife.
I see no reason to smear Murtha's reputation by comparing him to Lee Harvey Oswald. And any effort you could make to forgo ridiculing me personally in your posts would be appreciated. I know you are a better man than that. We can disagree and still respect each other, yes?
Finally, I'm not sure anybody here has even agreed with Murtha that the troops should be immediately withdrawn.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Nobody needs to state qualifications. If this man is so qualified , he of all people should know that remarks like this coming from the leadership of this country just makes the enemy more resolute. He should also care more about the Soldiers, and Marines , on the ground in Iraq. Statements like his just lead to more vigorous attacks agianst American servicemen. Kill a few more Americans and they'll quit. What a messege to send to the AQ. Yeah this guys a real hero, and really cares about the Marines in uniform now.:lol
There is a plan it's called Victory. Thats always been the plan. Time tables, and schedules, are the work of media, and liberals, who want America to lose the war just because they have been losing elections.
Excellent point Shifty, Living in a civilized world with the goal of peaceful existence with a respect for others is the only qualifications needed...Being aware of history and remembering what living in America once meant and what it means now is reason enough. Wanting what is best for our kids is reason enough to challenge any statements whether they came from a decorated soldier or not.
-
Simple question. Do you guys agree with Scootter's statement?
Originally posted by Scootter
IT IS NOT A WAR.... IT IS OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS WITH THE FULL HELP AND SUPPORT OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ.
-
1. Murtha said it could be done in 6 months.
2. If it is wrong to disagree with the actions of the administration, which country exactly do you want America to become?
-
Originally posted by oboe
That link is interesting, GS, but if you read the story you get quite a different impression.
At the time he was roundly criticised by then Majority Leader Tom Delay, a former pest control business owner who never served in the armed services and is currently under criminal investigation for money laundering. GOP Rep Michael Burgess, a former obstetrician who likewise never served a day in uniform, accused Murtha of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
The GOP sure seems to have its share of loudmouthed warhawks who themselves never made the sacrifice. It'd be interesting to see how many of them own Halliburton stock.
Regarding Murtha's proposal, it strikes me as almost reckless. A phased withdrawal according to a flexible timetable makes more sense to me-- to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take over while we still have a sizeable contigent present in case they are needed. But its nice to see someone with his credentials put a full immediate withdrawal out there for discussion. I think there must be alot left unsaid regarding how he came to that position.
I'm all for a plan, I just don't think it needs to be voted on in congress nore made public.
and again before you liberals here go un-hinged there isn't anyone here (worth mentioning) that's saying martha is a traitor or a bad person at that. Most of us (including me) respect him but disagree with his politics. THat being said back to topic.
I completely agree with you oboe, it does seem reckless. About as reckless as a stated time table as well. We broke it, we stay the course and fix it.
I can't stand this comparision to Veitnam. This war in of itself is completly different. This is an occupation not a limited armed conflict. Even the casualty count isn't nearly as bad. Pulling out now would definatly be a win for the terrorists and I don't just mean that as a GOP talking point, I truely beleive that.
-
You live in such a fantasy world...
Point taken... but at least im not a hypocrite. you or any of your chest thumping squad get them reup papers like I asked you for about 2 years ago..
I rest my case..
DoctorYo
PS : the only fantasy going on is that you think people are going to fight this cluster of a war for chest thumpers like yourself.. and to do such under false pretenses (every war is fought under false pretenses so thats not the issue at least for me, the real issue is how you implement that war once your in it, and we've fumbled since Abu Gharib.. Just like Mr Lind said we would back in 2003, fighting 4th generation as 2nd generation, a losing proposition)
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I have got to admit when USSR failed in Afganistan I was deep down disappointed. Even back then I had a gut feel that Jihad was the devil.
Maybe they would have won...
But We had our hand in Russias Defeat in Afghanistan. Did you forget intentionally? Remember we had to stop the spread of of Communisim at any cost, Even if that meant putting OBL and the Mujhadeen on our payroll.
-
Originally posted by DoctorYO
Point taken... but at least im not a hypocrite. you or any of your chest thumping squad get them reup papers like I asked you for about 2 years ago..
I rest my case..
DoctorYo
Uhm, yea
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
No one in their right mind believes Dems cheer every explosion and clap at flag-draped coffins.
-
Originally posted by oboe
No one in their right mind believes Dems cheer every explosion and clap at flag-draped coffins.
without them Moveon.org wouldn't have anything to put in their hate adds.
-
True but that doesn't mean they are cheering and clapping about it. That's a pretty disgusting suggestion.
I found an editorial that casts a little more light on Murtha's proposal. Specifically, he asked [list=1]
- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
- To create a quick reaction force in the region.
- To create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.
- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
[/list=1]
So maybe its not as reckless as I thought on first glance. The article also says
Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told Congress in September that "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." And Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said the same day that “reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” Without a U.S. military target on the roads of Iraq everyday, or the justification of U.S. military occupation as the reason for violence, casual public support for the insurgency will decline, and a greater sense of urgency will be created in the country to provide for common security.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/withdrawal_is_n.html#more (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/11/withdrawal_is_n.html#more)
-
Anything that brings the boys home and creates a stable country, I'm all for it.
-
But We had our hand in Russias Defeat in Afghanistan. Did you forget intentionally?
====
No forget, I always justified the support of the mujis as political payback to Russia for supporting North Korea and North Vietnam. Its all politics.
-
Me too, Gun.
Originally posted by Yeager
No forget, I always justified the support of the mujis as political payback to Russia for supporting North Korea and North Vietnam. Its all politics.
So is the characterization of Murtha's plan as 'retreat'.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Me too, Gun.
So is the characterization of Murtha's plan as 'retreat'.
I would call it a retreat if it had no real provision for victory. I would define victory as a stable Iraq with democratically elected leaders.
-
Deleted.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I would call it a retreat if it had no real provision for victory. I would define victory as a stable Iraq with democratically elected leaders.
Stable might be too much to ask for, if you mean no more bombings. But elected leaders with competent security force might do.
I think the gist of the Murtha proposal is that our troops presence may be causing a great portion of the insurgent problem. Only by removing them can Iraq make the progress it needs to toward stability. I wouldn't call that a retreat.
Will Halliburton's contracts end with the ultimate troop withdrawal, whenever that may be? I'm still awfully suspicious of that whole deal.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Stable might be too much to ask for, if you mean no more bombings. But elected leaders with competent security force might do.
I think the gist of the Murtha proposal is that our troops presence may be causing a great portion of the insurgent problem. Only by removing them can Iraq make the progress it needs to toward stability. I wouldn't call that a retreat.
Will Halliburton's contracts end with the ultimate troop withdrawal, whenever that may be? I'm still awfully suspicious of that whole deal.
Everyone has a right to be suspicious but what most don't realize is that haliburton has been in the ME for over 20 years and there's not to many other companies out there that can do the job they do. I don't think it's blatent coruption but I do think those that own stocks in companies that profit from war, and make the decisions to go to war and use said companies should turn over their control over their shairs to some kind of trust until they are no longer in a position of influence. Either ay the VP doesn't have much say in what contracter get's chosen.
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Shifty,
All you've proved to me with this diatribe is that you are not in your right mind. Do you actually believe that Democrat like Jack Murtha, a 30 yr decorated Marine veteran cheers at explosions and claps at flag-draped coffins?
I can find no reference that doesn't make it clear George Bush as president had volumes more intel available to base his decisions on, and that Congress was dependent for their intel on what he released to them.
Halliburton stock opened in January this year around $37/share, and closed yesterday at $60.71 - an impressive run for a company that is losing money as you claim. Unless you mean they are just losing money on the no-bid contract awarded to them that started much of the controversy. But who loses money on a no-bid contract?
The vote is a joke; it would be meaningful if they were voting on Murtha's actual resolution. I saw the text of the resolution Gunslinger posted in another thread and it is nothing like what Murtha has proposed. Its not going to prove anything.
Finally, my sincere wishes that everything is OK with you and yours, John. I know your family has made more than its share of the sacrifice, and I thank you for that.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Shifty,
All you've proved to me with this diatribe is that you are not in your right mind. Do you actually believe that Democrat like Jack Murtha, a 30 yr decorated Marine veteran cheers at explosions and claps at flag-draped coffins?
I can find no reference that doesn't make it clear George Bush as president had volumes more intel available to base his decisions on, and that Congress was dependent for their intel on what he released to them.
Halliburton stock opened in January this year around $37/share, and closed yesterday at $60.71 - an impressive run for a company that is losing money as you claim. Unless you mean they are just losing money on the no-bid contract awarded to them that started much of the controversy. But who loses money on a no-bid contract?
The vote is a joke; it would be meaningful if they were voting on Murtha's actual resolution. I saw the text of the resolution Gunslinger posted in another thread and it is nothing like what Murtha has proposed. Its not going to prove anything.
Finally, my sincere wishes that everything is OK with you and yours, John. I know your family has made more than its share of the sacrifice, and I thank you for that.
Nice try but don't be condecending. I'm not just talking of Murtha. I do believe that Dems, and the media lick their lips with every American death. I do believe they want this country to fail. For no other reason then politics.
As far as Murtha. His service to this country as a U.S Marine is admirable. His dis-service to the Marines, and Soldiers, in Iraq yesterday is reprehensable. Al-Jazera TV was very impressed with Mr Murtha yesterday. Seems the DNC, and AQ , now both think him a hero.
I'm as sick of this war as anybody. I'm also not a blind Bush lover. He's made a lot of screwups while in office. Spending , immigration, and I personally think he should have worried about Bin-Laden first and foremost. I've questioned his IQ is when he's tried to cozy to DEMs like letting that drunk bastage Kennedy work on the No Child Left Behind Bill. Expecting the DEMS to play nice and pound him dailey about the war effort pisses me off. Instead of being quiet he should have been out there everyday stating why he has our troops in Iraq , and pushing for their support.
I can't accept that you would wish the best for my family or any other military family. While at the same time you support and promote the politics , and people that make their lives more dangerous everyday. It's people like you the AQ count on to get America to cave.
Maybe you should question if your in the right mind. Or at least question where your heart is.
Again many thanks for your support to our nation in time of war. :lol
-
We lost about 300 guys defeating Saddam, and have lost about 1800 over the last 2 1/2 years, during which time we've killed 45,000-50,000 'insurgents'. The radical Muslims are hell-bent on ENDING our way of life, and they've chosen to make Iraq the battlefield. If we leave, we admit defeat in their eyes, (and the worlds' eyes) and concede all that we've fought for the last 4 years, and the Dems will immediately start trumpeting that all those guys died for nothing--which, if we leave, will have been the case.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
"If we leave, we admit defeat in their eyes, (and the worlds' eyes) and concede all that we've fought for the last 4 years."
Okay, then how does the US military win?
Is the status-quo over there gonna cut it?
Honestly. Just keeping doing whatever it is they're doing, and it's suddenly going to turn around?
It's one thing to say "If we leave, we admit defeat in their eyes"... and another to actually avoid defeat.
You say: "we've killed 45,000-50,000 'insurgents'".... but chances are there's 100,000 brand new insurgents who wouldn't have been insurgents but for the bungling of this war. A net gain of 50,000 insurgents. That's progress?
Meanwhile, what.... 25 US kids get killed a week.
So I just fail to see how sticking it out for sticking it out's sake gets anyone anywhere.
If worlds collided, and a whole bunch of mystical crap happened and suddenly it was up to me to make the decision, my choices would be:
Status quo, do something different, or leave.
Status quo aint working. I don't know what else to do. So I'd cut my losses.
Hows about you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Status quo aint working. I don't know what else to do. So I'd cut my losses.
Hows about you?
That's just it, there IS progress in Iraq but the media doesnt show it and if they did you'd refuse to see it for what it's worth.
"we don't report every safe landing at JFK we only report the crashes, that's what makes it news -CBS producer"
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
That's just it, there IS progress in Iraq but the media doesnt show it...
Lets see...
You know there is "progress in Iraq," yet you say the media doesn't show it.
Can you point me to whatever un-media source you have upon which you derive your conclusion?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Lets see...
You know there is "progress in Iraq," yet you say the media doesn't show it.
Can you point me to whatever un-media source you have upon which you derive your conclusion?
Well lets see here.....the latest elections that were over shadowed by the 2000th death. Ask the grunts in the field what the think of....both of them and they'll say the 2000th death is just another statistic the elections are history. I would venture to say 99% of them don't want their face on a moveon.org add.
-
Thanks, but I was looking for how you come up with your statement: "there IS progress in Iraq".
Not a "venture to say"....
Can you be of a little more help here?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Thanks, but I was looking for how you come up with your statement: "there IS progress in Iraq".
Not a "venture to say"....
Can you be of a little more help here?
So democratic elections were more of the population participates than in other democracies aren't a victory over insurgants telling them "don't vote or else"
Things like this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4450582.stm don't get reported enough.
-
One more for Nash:
Out Of Iraq?
That is the title that was on the bottom of the television as “Scoborough Country”, a show on MSNBC, was playing. Myself, as well as a few fellow soldiers, sat in disbelief as we listened to one of his guests call for the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
It is so easy for analysts, reporters, and politicians to sit back and criticize the war in Iraq. All of these people are blind to what really goes on here, and they will never fully understand since they are not on the ground fighting this war. Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., in a recent AP release said, “I like guys who’ve never been there that criticize us who’ve been there. I like that.” What war did you serve in again Mr. Murtha? Last time I checked you served in the Vietnam conflict, and the military is in a much different place now than we were then. I realize that Rep. Murtha is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and I thank him for his service….but the technology and tactics of this war era are night and day compared to the war that he served in.
I am just disgusted when I see and hear reports calling for the pullout of our military from Iraq. The American people do not see what really goes on here, all they see is what the media wants them to…and I think that we all know that the media likes to put a negative spin on it as well. I am here to tell you that everyday we are winning over the hearts of the people of Iraq. If you could see the smiling faces that I have seen you would know that we are making a difference in this country. I volunteered for the military, no one made me sign on that dotted line. Let me stay here and finish what we have started Mr. Murtha.
http://willwhitley1.blogspot.com/
-
That is what you base your rosy picture of Iraq on?
Asked and answered, I suppose. So thanks.
(yikes....)
-
Originally posted by Nash
That is what you base your rosy picture of Iraq on?
Asked and answered, I suppose. So thanks.
(yikes....)
oops my mistake. The all knowing Nash from Canada knows more about what the troops in Iraq face every day than the troops themselves. My bad. :lol
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Nice try but don't be condecending. I'm not just talking of Murtha. I do believe that Dems, and the media lick their lips with every American death. I do believe they want this country to fail. For no other reason then politics.
As far as Murtha. His service to this country as a U.S Marine is admirable. His dis-service to the Marines, and Soldiers, in Iraq yesterday is reprehensable. Al-Jazera TV was very impressed with Mr Murtha yesterday. Seems the DNC, and AQ , now both think him a hero.
I'm as sick of this war as anybody. I'm also not a blind Bush lover. He's made a lot of screwups while in office. Spending , immigration, and I personally think he should have worried about Bin-Laden first and foremost. I've questioned his IQ is when he's tried to cozy to DEMs like letting that drunk bastage Kennedy work on the No Child Left Behind Bill. Expecting the DEMS to play nice and pound him dailey about the war effort pisses me off. Instead of being quiet he should have been out there everyday stating why he has our troops in Iraq , and pushing for their support.
I can't accept that you would wish the best for my family or any other military family. While at the same time you support and promote the politics , and people that make their lives more dangerous everyday. It's people like you the AQ count on to get America to cave.
Maybe you should question if your in the right mind. Or at least question where your heart is.
Again many thanks for your support to our nation in time of war. :lol
That is one helluva chip you have on your shoulder. I wasn't being condescending, but completely sincere.
Your view of Dems and the media is so warped I'm unsure how to respond. Not to defend either, but just to point out how dangerous it is for you to be so consumed by anger and hatred toward them. And I mean consumed to the point of irrationality, if you literally believe what you've said here.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The all knowing Nash from Canada knows more about what the troops in Iraq face every day than the troops themselves.
I'm not sure it's indictitive. Out of the 40 odd million Iraqis, how many does this guy see? How many of the smiling Iraqis go on to report troop movements?
If things are getting better it isn't been shown in decreased casualties.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I'm not sure it's indictitive. Out of the 40 odd million Iraqis, how many does this guy see? How many of the smiling Iraqis go on to report troop movements?
If things are getting better it isn't been shown in decreased casualties.
Well I hate to say this but it's how I feel and that is casualties have been relativly light compared to almost all past conflicts. The invasion itself was a smashing success but the occupation has taken it's toll. I'm sure one could look at the statistics and tie the rises with the elections (both theirs and ours) but statistically speaking you have a greater chance of dieing in a car accident in the US than you do being a US servicman serving in Iraq. Again I don't want to downplay the casualties and I don't want to use the number for politics but since it was brought up I really don't think things are as bad as the news reflects. All you have to do is talk to a few that have been there. Here's a good break down http://icasualties.org/oif/
-
Originally posted by oboe
That is one helluva chip you have on your shoulder. I wasn't being condescending, but completely sincere.
Your view of Dems and the media is so warped I'm unsure how to respond. Not to defend either, but just to point out how dangerous it is for you to be so consumed by anger and hatred toward them. And I mean consumed to the point of irrationality, if you literally believe what you've said here.
Okay let me see if I understand this....................... I'm irrational because I believe the Dems are doing everything possible to lose this war for their own political gain? My view of dems, and the media is warped because I don't trust them. Well let me rephrase that part. I trust them to only show what they want you to see, and hear. Truth and accuracy are not important to them. So that makes me dangerous?
Yet you believe that George Bush started the war on a lie. Keeps American troops in harms way, not to protect the interest of the USA, but to help Cheny get rich on Halliburton stock? You also think that Democratic congressmen who constantly attack Bush, and his handling of the war are doing the right thing? Even though this gives aid and comfort to the enemy? You'll believe anything the press tells you.
So your view is not warped, and your perfectly rational?
Funny I see you as the dangerous one.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
You also think that Democratic congressmen who constantly attack Bush, and his handling of the war are doing the right thing? Even though this gives aid and comfort to the enemy? You'll believe anything the press tells you.
Or say, Theodore Roosevelt...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
But what would that bleeding heart know about being President in a time of war.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Well I hate to say this but it's how I feel and that is casualties have been relativly light compared to almost all past conflicts. The invasion itself was a smashing success but the occupation has taken it's toll.
Yep.
I'm sure one could look at the statistics and tie the rises with the elections (both theirs and ours) but statistically speaking you have a greater chance of dieing in a car accident in the US than you do being a US servicman serving in Iraq. Again I don't want to downplay the casualties and I don't want to use the number for politics but since it was brought up I really don't think things are as bad as the news reflects. All you have to do is talk to a few that have been there. Here's a good break down http://icasualties.org/oif/
Yeah, but it's not just the collation casualties that I'm talking. It's also a question of what they are dying for. Don't get me wrong I'm sure a good chunck of soldiers over there would like to see a democracy flourish there. But I really don't think it's going to happen.
I used to be of the opinion that the coallition forces should stick it out for as long as it takes, because hey, you broke it you bought it. But I just don't see how it's going to change anything. The crap that is going on there could go on for generations. Look at the history, look at the Palistinians. If the coallition pulls out one of two things will happen, in my opinion. Either the Iraqis will take a look around and get thier **** together, or one tribe(s) will subjegate the other(s). I think Iraq is going to end up as a theocracy (a la Iran), unless another dictator shows up. But I don't think coalltion presence can prevent. Unless they are there for a few generations...heck even then maybe not.
The US has it's own problems to worry about, specifically the economy. I mean in all likelyhood, I don't think the US will be able to afford to keep soldiers there.
PS: Regarding the original topic. Beautiful political move, but unfortunately like all things political, total bull****.
It's like me saying, "I want to go to the cottage next summer."
Opposing Dude, then calls a vote on going tomorrow. And saying I'm a dick if I don't agree to it.
He is presenting an option that I orginally didn't advocate for and saying I am a hypocrit for not supporting. That = teh rediqulous.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Or say, Theodore Roosevelt...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
But what would that bleeding heart know about being President in a time of war.
TR had a big mustache, like the police guy from the village people
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The US has it's own problems to worry about, specifically the economy.
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.3 percent.
OCTOBER 2005
Nonfarm payroll employment was little changed (+56,000) in October, and
the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 5.0 percent, reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor
The economy is doing rather well...
-
Hey, I've been watching the news about Iraq for QUITE some time, and I've come to the conclusion that the average Iraqi spends his/her days standing around and staring at burning vehicles/buildings.
(The first 2 or so years of WW2, we pretty much got our collective a**es handed to us...we even had 3 THOUSAND guys KILLED by the French in North Africa:eek: Would have made a LOT more sense to quit THEN than now)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Or say, Theodore Roosevelt...
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
But what would that bleeding heart know about being President in a time of war.
He's your Daddy's Democrat not yours, today he would be ashamed...he would also be a Rep. imho.
-
I'm confused about the topic title.
Who was the last Republican to win a war?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Yo you cant win on this one. The Bush supporters will never ever admit to the mistakes. They are toeing the party line till the bitter end.
Unlike you altruistic Libs huh? How about a solution then? Oh yeah,
forgot that's not your forte.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I'm confused about the topic title.
Regan 1980-1988 -- Cold War, Grenada
Bush 1 1988-1992 -- Panama, Kuwait (GW1)
Bush 2 2000- Present-- Afghanistan, Iraq (both are free with issues, however you feel the WAR part was won. What is going on now is not against the org. military machine)
Edited for sp. (Thanks Rip)
-
Originally posted by Shifty
Okay let me see if I understand this....................... I'm irrational because I believe the Dems are doing everything possible to lose this war for their own political gain? My view of dems, and the media is warped because I don't trust them. Well let me rephrase that part. I trust them to only show what they want you to see, and hear. Truth and accuracy are not important to them. So that makes me dangerous?
Yet you believe that George Bush started the war on a lie. Keeps American troops in harms way, not to protect the interest of the USA, but to help Cheny get rich on Halliburton stock? You also think that Democratic congressmen who constantly attack Bush, and his handling of the war are doing the right thing? Even though this gives aid and comfort to the enemy? You'll believe anything the press tells you.
So your view is not warped, and your perfectly rational?
Funny I see you as the dangerous one.
Not trusting them is one thing, but dehumanizing them to the point you believe they cheer Americans being killed is quite another. And I didn't say it makes you dangerous - I said I thought it was dangerous for you to be so consumed by your anger and hatred toward them.
Like you, I believe GW should've concentrated on Afghanistan and not let OBL get away. I suspect the truth about the war is summed up in the Downing Street Memo, which stated the decision for war had already been made and the facts were being fixed around the policy. And all the press did was report it - a British government official wrote it. And Bush never denied it's truth. Cheney profiteering on Halliburton stock would've been a byproduct, not the motive. I think the motive was a sincere but misguided idea that we could successfully impose a U.S.-friendly Western-style democracy on Iraq, in the interest of American security (oil). The jury is still out on wether or not it will work, but I have doubts that the end result will be what they had in mind originally. We might even end up worse off, with a pseudo-democratic theocracy closely allied with Iran.
We have just witnessed the Republican's commitment to truth and accuracy at last night's "Murtha resolution" vote - which was nothing like what Murtha had proposed. I don't think it was democracy's finest hour. I think the House was turned into the Jerry Springer Show for all the world to see. I think that publicity stunt gave aid and comfort to the enemy, and that was Republican-initiated. What I would've liked to see is a thoughtful, rational discussion of his proposal (which almost immediately was smeared by opponents as "cut and run") over the course a week or so, followed by a vote. We got a sham instead.
I don't think I demonize those I disagree with or mistrust. And despite your ridicule of me, my responses to you have been measured and respectful, marked by genuine concern for your well-being.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Regan 1980-1988 -- Cold War, Granada
Bush 1 1988-1992 -- Panama, Kuwait (GW1)
Bush 2 2000- Present-- Iraq (is free with issues, however you feel the WAR part was won. What is going on now is not against the org. milatary machine)
"Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah, here I am in, Camp Granada...."
I think its Grenada...but I just wanted to post the lyrics to a very funny song.
Hello muddah, hello faddah
Here I am at Camp Granada
Camp is very entertaining
And they say we'll have some fun if it stops raining.
I went hiking with Joe Spivy
He developed poison ivy
You remember Leonard Skinner
He got ptomaine poisoning last night after dinner.
All the counselors hate the waiters
And the lake has alligators
And the head coach wants no sissies
So he reads to us from something called Ulysses.
How I don't want this should scare ya
But my bunkmate has malaria
You remember Jeffrey Hardy
They're about to organize a searching party.
Take me home, oh muddah, faddah
Take me home, I hate Granada
Don't leave me out in the forest where
I might get eaten by a bear.
Take me home I promise I will not make noise
Or mess the house with other boys.
Oh please don't make me stay
I've been here one whole day.
Dearest faddah, darling muddah,
How's my precious little bruddah
Let me come home, if you miss me
I would even let Aunt Bertha hug and kiss me.
Wait a minute, it's stopped hailing.
Guys are swimming, guys are sailing
Playing baseball, gee that's better
Muddah, faddah kindly disregard this letter.
-
Originally posted by Scootter
He's your Daddy's Democrat not yours, today he would be ashamed...he would also be a Rep. imho.
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican but your point is well taken. Given his track record it it unlikely he would support pulling out of Iraq and allowing Al Queda to form their very own state.
-
Originally posted by Casca
Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican but your point is well taken. Given his track record it it unlikely he would support pulling out of Iraq and allowing Al Queda to form their very own state.
Yea you are right, I meant my point in regards to F.D.R. as he is shoved in the Reps/ face as what a great Dem. is as a Pres.
-
Why did Murtha vote against an immediate withdrawl, wasnt he the one demanding it?
-
WOW this is a MUST read for anyone that might have forgotten anything over time. It's too big to rip and paste but it is a nice cronological history of Iraq and Sadam Husain.
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/003840.html
-
Originally posted by oboe
And despite your ridicule of me, my responses to you have been measured and respectful, marked by genuine concern for your well-being.
I have handled this debate completely wrong . Instead of an arguement I should have just asked simple questions.
Do you think Congressmen who get in front of TV cameras and say we should pull out now helps our troops in Iraq? Or our effort in the Middle East?
Do you think Congressmen who constantly state Bush lied to get us in this war, helps our troops in Iraq or our effort in the Middle East?
Do you think an Ex-President of the United States should go to the Middle East and make statements about how the current administration is faulty in it's handling of the war? Do you think the welfare of our troops ever entered Mr Clintons mind when he made these statements this week? Do you think this helps our effort?
To dissagree with the war , and be against it is understandable. I have to think are much better ways to work towards getting us out than simply undermining the effort.
Some of Murthas ideas I happen to agree with. However the moment he said we need to pull out immediatly all his good ideas went out the window. Instead of grandstanding in front of the cameras , wailing, and whining. Why couldnt he professionally put his ideas before congress, and the President?
If everything is as bad as the Dems say it is. How about some idea's to fix the problem and doing what we can to win the War On Terror, or at least get as good of result as possible for our country? Right now it's like their throwing gasoline on the effort , and handing matches to the AQ.
It's not just Bush that sent these young people of ours to Iraq. The responsability also rests on Congress, and those of us that voted them into office. We should be concerned about them , before our political aspirations.
Hate Bush all you want. He'll be gone in a couple of years and you'll never have to worry about him running for anything again. I don't think the Dems will ever find anything thing they can impeach him on, no matter how hard they try or how bad they want it.
Heres your chance to question my sanity again. I think he makes mistakes , and some of his calculations on this war have been way off. The Dems may get some dirt on some lowley staffer somewhere, but I think what keeps screwing their efforts is...........
Bush is just basically honest. He believes in the cause he trying to lead. Some people may view that as more dangerous then if he was just out for himself. In some repects that may be true.
Bottom line.
For better or worse we're at war. Our fellow Americans are fighting it for us. Ask one they'll tell why they fight. Love the war, hate the war, love Bush, hate Bush. Theres got to be a better way of conducting, and concluding, this war. Attacking the president every chance you get instead of attacking AQ is not going to shorten the war. Nor is it going to change the 2004 election. However it just might have Iraq end up festering in the lap of some Democrat president you do like in 2009. We need to stop the war in Washington DC, before we can stop the war in Iraq.
To dissagree with you is not ridiculeing you. In fact in every post you've replied to me, you have questioned my sanity. Above is what I believe , and questions I have for people who love the congressional war bashing. If that makes me nuts....................Okay I'm bugeyed nuts.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The economy is doing rather well...
Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.8 percent in the third quarter of 2005, according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real GDP increased 3.3 percent.
"The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the third quarter were personal consumption expenditures (PCE), equipment and software, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. The contributions of these components were partly offset by a negative contribution from private inventory investment."
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
So that "growth" was caused by the housing bubble, the government going further into debt and people spending money on consumer goods and investing less? Doesn't sound good to me.
-
So that "growth" was caused by the housing bubble, the government going further into debt and people spending money on consumer goods and investing less? Doesn't sound good to me. [/B]
The economy is all about spending as it provides the impetus that allows companies to hire and grow. Whether that spending is on homes (allows those that build, sell, etc. to buy jet skis and beer) cars or golf clubs.
Home sales also spark sales in appliances, lawn mowers, TV's, window treatments and such. Things not always associated with the construction of the home itself.
When people spend, when the government spends, it causes growth in the economy. Investing may not be good for the economy, proof? How about "investing in some real-estate with me. First send me a check for 100k and then lets see how it helps the economy.
So what part about the growth in the economy doesn't sound good to you?
Remember someone’s personnel financial status does not need to be good but they are still helping the economy. Buying on credit may be bad for you personally but it still can be good for the economy (note I said can be good).
The unemployment rate is lower then it was under Bill Clinton and the economic growth numbers for the most part are better as well notwithstanding all the challenges never seen before such as the events of 9/11.
But the Clinton administration was heralded as providing one of the most robust economic times in our lives, this I don’t understand. But as we know it’s all about politics and who’s dog is in the fight …sigh!
-
Originally posted by Scootter
The economy is all about spending as it provides the impetus that allows companies to hire and grow. Whether that spending is on homes (allows those that build, sell, etc. to buy jet skis and beer) cars or golf clubs.
Spending itself isn't what drives an economy, it's capital investment that does. A company that makes profits from increased spending doesn't increase it's production unless it invests it in captial to increase production.
Home sales also spark sales in appliances, lawn mowers, TV's, window treatments and such. Things not always associated with the construction of the home itself.
Increasing the speed of currency circulation doesn't increase production capability. You are just trading around money faster. Again, investing it allows companies to by more equipment to manufacture more goods.
When people spend, when the government spends, it causes growth in the economy.
It depends on what people are spending it on, if they are spending it on consumer goods they temporarily have a higher standard of living, but they don't get wealthier. If they invest it wisely then they will get wealthier, production capacity increases and everyone's standard of living goes up (more, less costly goods), and they get wealthier.
Government spending does not help an economy. The government steals money from people (where they would have spent that money on consumer goods or investments, but inevitalby on what they demanded)and allocates it to sectors of the economy where there is no demand. Thus misallocating scarce resources and hurting the economy.
Investing may not be good for the economy, proof? How about "investing in some real-estate with me. First send me a check for 100k and then lets see how it helps the economy.
Fair enough, let's say "investing wisely".
So what part about the growth in the economy doesn't sound good to you?
Well, the part of the growth that isn't really growth.
Remember someone’s personnel financial status does not need to be good but they are still helping the economy. Buying on credit may be bad for you personally but it still can be good for the economy (note I said can be good).
Buying on credit is imho one of the...let's say irresponsible things a person can do. Buying something you can't afford at the risk of defaulting on it not only hurts you but also the economy. Of course chances of defaulting changes with various factors. But as more people in your country and mine go further into debt, the chances of people defaulting increases. Remember demand means wanting something...and having the wealth to purchase it. When you buy something on credit, you inevitably skew the market outlook. People believe there is more actual demand for something than there actually is and invest accordingly....you said something about the housing market? ;)
The unemployment rate is lower then it was under Bill Clinton and the economic growth numbers for the most part are better as well notwithstanding all the challenges never seen before such as the events of 9/11.
But the Clinton administration was heralded as providing one of the most robust economic times in our lives, this I don’t understand. But as we know it’s all about politics and who’s dog is in the fight …sigh!
I try and keep my information about the economy separate from politics. The only thing a President really can do to effect your economy is to just veto spending bills that come across thier desk. But no way a Democrat or Republican is going to do that, so what the hell.
As for employment numbers, apparently about half of those created in the past few years have been do to the housing bubble.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The only thing a President really can do to effect your economy is to just veto spending bills that come across thier desk. But no way a Democrat or Republican is going to do that, so what the hell.
A very quick search (because this sounded so off to me....).....
Clinton used the line item veto 82 times in 11 different spending bills, in 1997 alone.
Bush? Not once. He's never done it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
A very quick search (because this sounded so off to me....).....
Clinton used the line item veto 82 times in 11 different spending bills, in 1997 alone.
Bush? Not once. He's never done it.
Line item veto was declared by the SC an unconstitutional shift of power from the legistative to the executive branch.
Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York, 118 S. Ct. 2091 (1998)
-
Thanks Thrawn,
Points well made and taken,
Investment is much better but spending needs to increase for this to happen (chicken or egg), Investment is going on as well.
I am a General Contractor and have an interest in the housing "bubble". I believe the cycle (better word then bubble) is at or a bit past its peek and as buyers buy and interest rates rise we will see a down trend in this market. This is a normal cycle I have observed for the last 20 years and is nothing to get to bent out of shape about. I have done well and as a resolute have increased my investment in real estate as well as in other business opportunities.
I feel the energy costs will be a large damper on growth and may keep a cap on interest rates in the short term but over all will keep a downward pressure on growth over the next several years. Over all growth will be up as customers get used to the gas prices and confidence is already on a rebound.
You have it seems a greater understanding about economics then I, and I appreciate the time you have taken with your reply, may the next year find you with success with your investments and aspirations.
Regards,
-
a soldier is three times more likely to be killed if he lived in Washington DC than if he was fighting in Iraq. We woulda lost 6000 troops in DC in the same time... thank god we sent our boys to iraq out of harms way.
I don't think the troops are all that demoralized over there.
lazs
-
Thanks Scooter, I'm not sure how knowledgable I am about economics but the following book taught me alot about some of the socialist fallacies that seem to be everywhere in our countries. I can't recommend this book enough.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0517548232/104-3005751-3727141?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
-
Yeager, maybe it would help some of us understand, if we knew what the republican plan is in Iraq? 'if we win we are genuises, if we lose blame the democrats?' Its only common sense after 2 years of getting Brave, highly skilled US warriors killed day after day, that somebody might want to either see some headway or a plan of somekind. I guess the silver lining is the billions of dollars the war planners are making every month this thing drags on, eh?:aok
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Yeager, maybe it would help some of us understand, if we knew what the republican plan is in Iraq? 'if we win we are genuises, if we lose blame the democrats?' Its only common sense after 2 years of getting Brave, highly skilled US warriors killed day after day, that somebody might want to either see some headway or a plan of somekind. I guess the silver lining is the billions of dollars the war planners are making every month this thing drags on, eh?:aok
That's just it, headway could land on some of the medias faces dance a jig and do the wiggle and they still wouldn't report it.
After alot of thinking today I came to the conclusion.....If you had a battle plan, would you make it public?
-
Dude, that's conspiracy theory logic.
If the world secretly run by a cabal of lizards from another planet. They won't leave any evidence of this. As there is no evidence, the world must be run by a secret cabal of lizard aliens.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Dude, that's conspiracy theory logic.
If the world secretly run by a cabal of lizards from another planet. They won't leave any evidence of this. As there is no evidence, the world must be run by a secret cabal of lizard aliens.
:huh
-
Yeah sure, like you don't know anything about your lizard overlords.
Here is what your arguement is.
There is no evidence for X.
Therefore X must be.
I've been going though the usual fallacy sites. And you know what, I can't find that specific case covered. But geez, lack of evidence for something is evidence for it? You touched on at least two fallacies that I have definitions for.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.
There is no evidence against Bush having a secret plan.
Therefore there is a secret plan.
Of course, by definition there wouldn't be evidence of a secret plan.
Affirmation of the Consequent
If p then q.
q.
Therefore, p.
If there is a secret plan then there would be no evidence.
There is no evidence.
Therefore there is a secret plan.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
]I've been going though the usual fallacy sites. And you know what, I can't find that specific case covered.
Found it.
Subverted Support
Definition
An explanation is intended to explain how some phenomenon happens. The explanation is fallacious if the phenomenon does not actually happen of if there is no evidence that it does happen.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/explan/subsup.htm
-
no mines based more on common sense if you ask me.
one should make no more assumptions than needed
Here's the latin version
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate
or
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
Here's an example if you're still scratching your head:
For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms tends to indeed indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (non-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferable.
I have to make ALOT of asumptions to think that Bush and CO. let alone ALL of the Generals in charge are incompitent and NOT have a plan.
My question is simple (wich you didn't answer) If you had an exit plan would you publish it? Seriously, why would you? If I knew the exact date and timeline my enemy was leaving I'd plan accordingly, you don't think terrorists think this way?
It just makes sense to me. Personally I'd think it would be great if Bush pulled in all the senior leaders (IE Politicians from BOTH sides) and generals into one room and said we arent leaving here until we all agree on a "Victory Strategy" and quit politicising this war.
Now on WMDs I know Sadam had them, that's not an assumption. He hasn't shown any proof that he destroyed them, in fact there's more evidence to the contrarey. So where'd they go?
And when all else fails use the K.I.S.S. method.
-
But I don't think your arguement is simpler.
Okay, we don't have evidence that there is (or at least was) an exit strategy. Let's draw a couple of conclusions.
1. There isn't (or at least wasn't) an exit strategy.
2. There is an exit strategy in place that no one outside of X amount of people that know about it.
The first case can't be proven, the whole proving and negative thing. But it is a logical assumption as there is no evidence for an exit strategy. The second case can be proven, and needs to be in order to be accepted, because it is a positive.
No evidence for my space lizards.
1. There aren't any damn space lizards.
2. There are space lizards but no one outside of X amount of people know about.
Neat thing about conspiracy theories, any evidence against is transformed into evidence for it. Of course, I'm now arguing against the existance of space lizards...they got to me! ;)
Saw a great movie today, about Edward R Murrow going up against Senator McCarthy.
McCarthy: Commies have infultrated teh everything.
Murrow: You're an ****** McCarthy.
McCarthy: See! He must be a commie and that proves that commies are everywhere.
-
On to your questions.
"My question is simple (wich you didn't answer) If you had an exit plan would you publish it? Seriously, why would you?"
Sure, how else is Iraq supposed to know what the hell we are up to and what we expect from them. Or fellow coallation members, citizens of my country etc. It let's everyone make informed decisions, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let terrorists dictate what policies I should and shouldn't implement, because hey **** them and I don't want to give them the initative.
"If I knew the exact date and timeline my enemy was leaving I'd plan accordingly, you don't think terrorists think this way?"
What are they going to do? Attack more?
"It just makes sense to me. Personally I'd think it would be great if Bush pulled in all the senior leaders (IE Politicians from BOTH sides) and generals into one room and said we arent leaving here until we all agree on a "Victory Strategy" and quit politicising this war."
Yeah, that would be great.
"Now on WMDs I know Sadam had them, that's not an assumption. He hasn't shown any proof that he destroyed them, in fact there's more evidence to the contrarey. So where'd they go?"
I recommend sending in inspectors to find out.
-
Space lizards aside.
It is not a big suspension of disbelief to think that Generals of the Armed Forces of the United States are conducting war with a strategy.
OTOH
It is a HUGE suspension of disbelief to think that Generals of the Armed Forces of the United States are conducting war without a strategy.
-
Not at all, the Generals don't have a choice but to conduct a war whether there is a, let us say "clear", strategy or not.
Unfortunately it means that they can't do a good job persecuting it. Kind of saw that reflected in the on again, off again, on again, off again....on again!, theme of the Falluja and Mahdi Army operations.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Not at all, the Generals don't have a choice but to conduct a war whether there is a, let us say "clear", strategy or not.
Unfortunately it means that they can't do a good job persecuting it. Kind of saw that reflected in the on again, off again, on again, off again....on again!, theme of the Falluja and Mahdi Army operations.
Soooo by what you are saying in that second paragraph specifically the "Falluja and Mahdi Army operations." That sounds suspiciously like a PLAN!
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday made no promises for a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq next year, sticking to the Pentagon’s long-held assertion that field commanders will determine when to begin a military drawdown.
Wich to me is the way it should be.
It's funny you sit here and site Falluja and Mahdi but if the assault went as orriginally planned you'd probably be here blaming them for the mass amounts of civilian casualties that would have resulted. Last time I checked massive ammounts of civilian casualties don't help the cause.....so again it sounds like a PLAN! was enacted.
tell me about them space lizards again?
:lol
EDIT: most generals I know do not conduct warfare without a plan....and yes they have a choice albeit not a very good one when it means them resigning.
-
I just don't see the point in continuing the argument as to the quality of this administration (their war, policy, motives, corruptness, proffiteering,...).
at this point nobody's mind is going to be changed. in fact Bush and company can now do just about whatever they want without fear of it hurting their approval by the American people.
Bush, Chaney, and Rummy could sit down to a table on live television tonight and eat an infant for all of America to see.
and come tomorrow morning we'd have 5 pages of 'rip-n-paste' from neo-con experts telling us how it helped the economy, brought freedom to parts of the world too ignorant to know how to run their own countries, fought terrorism or if we weren't buying any of that they'd find some CIA document showing how the kid was a collaborator working for Saddam and Al'Quada anyway so his life is worthless and he has no rights under the constitution.
the rest of us would see it as not much of a surprise from an administration that has no problem sending bleeding our treasury, and some of our countries finest young men and women off to die so their friends can skim cash off of no-bid defense and reconstruction projects.
Bush could do just about whatever he wants and I couldn't imagine despising him and his cronies any less, and anyone who hasn't opened their eyes yet is likely not capable.
-
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Sunday made no promises for a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq next year..."
Right, so Rumfeld said nothing.
"...sticking to the Pentagon’s long-held assertion that field commanders will determine when to begin a military drawdown."
Wich to me is the way it should be.
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?
Are they so sick of not having a concrete strategy that they have decide to it themselves? ;)
It's funny you sit here and site Falluja and Mahdi but if the assault went as orriginally planned you'd probably be here blaming them for the mass amounts of civilian casualties that would have resulted.
Which assult?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah.htm
Last time I checked massive ammounts of civilian casualties don't help the cause.....so again it sounds like a PLAN! was enacted
Hmmm, to kill a bunch of people, pull out. Go in with Iraqi soldiers, kill a bunch of people, pull out. Tell eveyone to leave, and then practically level the city was the PLAN?
That wasn't a plan, that was reacting. To go after Al-Sadr, stop, go after him, stop again etc, isn't a plan, it isn't acting following an understood strategy. It's reacting.
-
You really have no clue do you. It seems to me the same critics crying about civilian casualties are the same ones crying about the pains the military takes to avoid them.
EDIT: and I never said Field commanders determine policy when I said "that's how it should be" I was referring to them deciding when it was appropriate to draw down troops......cause I don't know....maybe they are there and know better. Yup better than some politician in Washington and better than some guy with a computer in Canada.
Are they so sick of not having a concrete strategy that they have decide to it themselves?
again I don't know a single officer that would conduct war without a plan. And for the armchair quaterbacks "no plan survives contact with the enemy "-Murphy
-
Senate adopts 'exit strategy' from reality
November 20, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
A busy time in the U.S. Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body." Judging from the 2006 conference report, the Senate subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education -- Chairman Arlen Specter (R), ranking member Tom Harkin (D) -- has been deliberating especially hard:
"Sec. 221. (a) The Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center Building (Building 21) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Arlen Specter Headquarters and Emergency Operations Center.
(b) The Global Communications Center Building (Building 19) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is hereby renamed as the Thomas R. Harkin Global Communications Center."
Good to see that even in the viciously partisan atmosphere of today's politics, Republicans and Democrats can still work together to carry out the people's business. In the same spirit, I wonder whether the Senate chamber itself should not be renamed the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi United States Senate. With increasingly rare exceptions, just about everything that emerges from the chamber tends to support the Zarqawi view of Iraq -- that this is a psychological war in which the Great Satan is an effete wimp who can be worn down and chased back to his La-Z-Boy recliner in Florida.
Last week, the Republican majority, to their disgrace and with 13 honorable exceptions, passed an amendment calling on the administration to lay out its "plan" for "ending" the war and withdrawing U.S. troops. They effectively signed on to the Democrat framing of the debate: that the only thing that matters is the so-called exit strategy. The only difference between Bill Frist's mushy Republicans and Harry Reid's shameless Democrats is that the latter want to put a firm date on withdrawal, so that Zarqawi's insurgents can schedule an especially big car bomb to coincide with the formal handover of the Great Satan's cojones.
"Exit strategy" is a defeatist's term. The only exit strategy that matters was summed up by George M. Cohan in the song the Doughboys sang as they marched off to the Great War nine decades ago:
"And we won't come back
Till it's over
Over there!"
And that's the timetable, too. If you want it fleshed out a bit, how about this? "The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail.'' That's Goh Chok Tong speaking in Washington last year. Unfortunately, he's not a U.S. senator, but the prime minister of Singapore, and thus ineligible to run, on the grounds that he's not a citizen of Blowhardistan. What does the Senate's revolting amendment tell America's enemies (Zarqawi) and "friends" (Chirac) about her will to prevail?
Any great power -- never mind the preeminent power of the age -- should be engaged with the world. That means, among other things, that it has a presence in those parts of the globe that are critical to its interest. For two years, the Democrats have assiduously peddled the line that Bush "lied" about Iraq. A slightly less contemptible class of critic has sneered that the administration never had any plans for postwar Iraq, hadn't a clue what it was getting into, couldn't tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia and a Kurd if they were painted different colors and had neon signs flashing off the top of their heads. If there's anything to this feeble second-guessing, it's that the U.S. government simply didn't know enough about Iraq -- and, in a crude sense, they're right. U.S. taxpayers would be justified, for example, in feeling they're not getting their $44 billion worth from the intelligence community.
But the only way to know the country is to be there on the ground, in some form or other. I'm all for "Iraqification" -- though those Democrats urgently demanding everything be done by the locals will be the first to shriek in horror once the Iraqis start serious score-settling with the foreign insurgents. But, even with full-scale Iraqification, America would be grossly irresponsible if not clinically insane not to maintain some sort of small residual military presence somewhere in the western desert.
Sorry, but that's part of the deal of being the world's hyperpower. To pretend otherwise is an exit strategy from reality. If you're worried about the ''cost,'' stop garrisoning your wealthiest allies -- Germany, Japan et al. -- and thereby absolving them from stepping up to the traditional responsibilities of nationhood.
One expects nothing from the Democrats. Their leaders are men like Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, who in 2002 voted for the war and denounced Saddam Hussein as an "imminent threat" and claimed that Iraq could have nuclear weapons by 2007 if not earlier. Now he says it's Bush who "lied" his way into war with a lot of scary mumbo-jumbo about WMD.
What does Rockefeller believe, really? I know what Bush believes: He thought Saddam should go in 2002 and today he's glad he's gone, as am I. I know what, say, Michael Moore believes: He wanted to leave Saddam in power in 2002, and today he thinks the "insurgents" are the Iraqi version of America's Minutemen. But what do Rockefeller and Reid and Kerry believe deep down? That voting for the war seemed the politically expedient thing to do in 2002 but that they've since done the math and figured that pandering to the moveon.org crowd is where the big bucks are? If Bush is the new Hitler, these small hollow men are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis whose whining defense was, "I was only obeying orders. I didn't really mean all that strutting tough-guy stuff." And, before they huff, "How dare you question my patriotism?", well, yes, I am questioning your patriotism -- because you're failing to meet the challenge of the times. Thanks to you, Iraq is a quagmire -- not in the Sunni Triangle, where U.S. armed forces are confident and effective, but on the home front, where soft-spined national legislators have turned the war into one almighty Linguini Triangle.
It's easy to laugh at the empty shell of a Jay Rockefeller, bragging about how he schmoozed Bashar Assad, dictator of a terrorist state, about Bush's war intentions. But look at the news from France and ask yourself what that's really about? At heart, it's the failure of Europe's political class to grasp the profound and rapid changes already under way. This Senate is making the same fatal error. I'd advocate throwing the bums out if there were any alternative bums to throw in. But maybe the Thomas R. Harkin Centers for Disease Control could persuade them to be the first deliberative body to donate itself to medical science.
© Mark Steyn, 2005
-
I would hope that our generals and leaders are using Abrahms exit strategy that he used to win the war in vietnam and that they would also be strong enough to not allow the anti war crowd to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
We need a strong Iraqi police and militia force in Iraq and then we need to loan them the money and tools to keep it functioning and we probly need some small military force there for many years... the potential rewards are great for us and the world.
lazs
-
I agree with that, Lazs. I think we will have strategic military bases in the Middle East for years to come, and I think that this was the plan from the beginning. When I hear "exit strategy" I realize that the Vietnam Syndrome is still wrapped around the axle. And the politicians will continue to jump up and down on the issue like it was a trampoline.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again I don't know a single officer that would conduct war without a plan. And for the armchair quaterbacks "no plan survives contact with the enemy "-Murphy
Well sure, Shinseki had a plan too....hey wait a second you devious weazel. You have me arguing about whether or not Generals have plans when we where discussing whether or not Bush had an exit strategy. Red herring me not!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well sure, Shinseki had a plan too....hey wait a second you devious weazel. You have me arguing about whether or not Generals have plans when we where discussing whether or not Bush had an exit strategy. Red herring me not!
Isn't that the same thing? Do you think Bush or his cabinate (besides the Joint Cheifs) have time in their schedules to draw up war plans.....I doubt it. This is done by Generals in the JCS and Pentagon. And AGAIN it's a far cry to say there was NO plan. Kinda hard to beleive.
-
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?
-
If we leave Iraq, at least secure its oil refineries etc... UN charter it or whatever to see what happens in Iraq after US forces leave. If a buncha beheading terrorists take over and get friendly with Iraqi Nationalists like sadr and dont play ffriendly ball with the US and UN, at least we got their oil. Obviously Im totally unqualified to remark on the situation but feel I must post.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
you missed the big blue vein :rolleyes:
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.
:rofl
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
(http://static.flickr.com/2/3538786_4015783e54_m.jpg)
-
clinton is a potato.
-
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
-
You can either have terrorist attacks "over there" or you can have them here in the U.S.
If troops pull out of Iraq, then where are they going to attack Americans in the open?
This is a war of terrorism and big surprise that everyone lets the U.S. take it on at full steam. If we had every country that is "with us" busting their bellybutton around the world trying to end terrorist action, we'd be fine.
Truth is, other countries are content with us taking the hit. They could give two flying rat's arses that the U.S. will be attacked and turned into a battleground.
If you want to see how much Bush has screwed up, look at post 9/11. We practically had the entire world pledging their support for us. Now look.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Capt...
(http://static.flickr.com/2/3538786_4015783e54_m.jpg)
I dont get it, but somehow its still funny.
Is it a Jonestown reference? or an "OH, YEAH!" thing? or some reference to the power of red (states)?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
clinton can't tie Bush shoes - guess thats what makes the world go round - 180 degree views
then again, neither can Bush.
-
george is a simple minded dork I agree, but at least he is one dimensional and easily tracked (dick is the one you got to keep an eye on).
clinton is a lying cheating deceptive snake who would kill his own child if it gave him just one more day in power. clinton is a dog. a scumbag. he is not even a human f$$king being.......he is nothing but a grabastic piece of.........oh well....you get my drift.
-
I can't argue in favor of Clinton's character. IMHO your wife should be the person you are closest to in the world, if you can screw her over nobody is safe.
but the man did a good job running this country. much better than curious George (with Chaney playing the man in the yellow hat)
morally Clinton dis-appointed me in a big way. but the thing is I don't look to the president or the gov't at all for moral guidance. they are simply the people I hire to run the country for me. we all vote for the one we want to hire and the winner gets the job.
he's not my leader, I'm his boss and monkey boy needs fired.
-
Originally posted by 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.
I got to just about here. The sad thing is that it is true that if you say a lie loud and long enough it becomes truth. There is NO evidence AT ALL of political pressure to "cook" the intel on Iraq, nore is there any evidence to withhold such evidence.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
-
having your wifes covert job outed isn't pressure?
-
By whom?
Who outed her?
Not the liberal guess but who has been proven to have outed her?
As far as Clinton doing a "good" job while he was in office I must disagree.
Clinton was/is a disgrace to this country and the sooner he is gone the quicker we can forget him.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
having your wifes covert job outed isn't pressure?
again there is NO evidence that happend. There's no grand conspiracy, there's barely even a crime. Do I need to bring up the prosecuters statements reguarding the libby case?
EDIT:
and really is this the BEST you have?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In order to regain the seat of power....
Will they succeed?
I thought the Shrub had already spun that the "war" was won?
Its the "peace" that dont stand a hope in hell.........................
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I thought the Shrub had already spun that the "war" was won?
Its the "peace" that dont stand a hope in hell.........................
The war against Iraqi forces under Saddam was indeed won. The war against terrorism continues, including these insurgents that have come out of the woodwork.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
having your wifes covert job outed isn't pressure?
Not if it was Bob Woodward who outed her
(BTW, she had'nt been covert for more then 5 years)
-
I stopped paying attention to this thread a while back, when it started to drift into something else. Not knockin' that or anything. That's what threads do.
But for several days now, this thread has been on the front page here with the title: "Democrats Want to Lose another war."
And the title itself, while ridiculous, deserves not only a mocking rebuke but an honest appraisal.
The war in Iraq, unlike the war in Afghanistan, was optional. No Al Qaeda , no connection to 9-11, and no WMD. There's just no question about that. One brutal dictator brutally dictating, as brutal dictators do the world over. Even so, his country was contained tighter than a noose. Embargo, daily fly-overs and attacks by enemy aircraft, and foreign inspectors weaving all throughout his country.
Indeed, this became a full scale war of choice, not of necessity by any means whatsoever.
Now? The situation in Iraq is grim.
Frankly, it's a nightmare in not just the human toll, but the toll it's taken on what it took the United States two hundred and fifty years to create. A beacon. A better way. A just way.
My god. Before the United States, there was Britain. And before Britain there was Rome.
And now a maniacal and unnecessary war threatening to tear the whole thing down..... The administration advocating torture... The squandering of untold amounts of capital... The squandering of lives.... The loss of trust... The loss of respect.... The loss of the world's good will.... and the sorrow of our better angels.
The US has by far, by FAR the strongest military the world has ever known.
But it is about to lose a war.
The ramifications being almost too complex and indeed too horrible to contemplate.
And you want to blame Democrats for that? That is just about the most stupid thing I think I've ever heard in perhaps my whole entire life.
The nation has turned a sharp corner that the Republicans are either too scared or too inept to face. The citizens of the United States do not support this war. They are overwhelmingly doubtful of the evidence given to justify it, and have serious misgivings when it comes to trusting those responsible for presenting that evidence.
Now.... Where do the Democrats fit into all of this?
They voted to give the President the ability to go to war. They did not vote for the war itself. I see the former as lending leverage that Bush could bring to bear diplomatically... and the latter as a last resort. But as we know, when it comes to Iraq, there was no such need for a "last resort."
He took that vote and ran away with it. Like a kid catching a pass and running clear past the end zone, over Mable's flower garden, over the fence and up to his room. This was a Senate used to dealing with sane people.
So I kind of understand where the Democrats were coming from on this.
But how about the citizens themselves? Are the Democrat citizens going to be responsible for losing the war in Iraq? This would be their fault?
For one thing... More people want the withdrawal than voted for Bush. So that means that it's not exactly an entirely Democrat sentiment.
And how's about the unrest? Toad rightly pointed out back in August that Sheehan's protest, much to the dismay of the protesters themselves, would fizzle out in September. It did. So where is the civil unrest?
It just doesn't fly.
I know the meme that's starting to take foot with some of you. "If we lose, it will be because Republicans were stripped of the ability to win by the Democrats."
That is utter crap. Republicans have been given free reign for years. A meal ticket. Carte blanche. They simply screwed it up. And that's nobody's fault but their own.
And the tab is nowhere near close to being paid for.
"Democrats Want to Lose another war"
Give me a break.
-
Well said Nash.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well said Nash.
well said????? He used every farce/propaganda/DNC talking point he could. It's obvious he hasn't paid attention to the thread because alot of what he says has easily been rebuked. Nash just want's to rant and rave and call things grim in wich he absolutly has no clue what he's talking about. I won't disput him, it's really not worth my time being such a waisted effort. The really said part is people like you MT actually listen and beleive people like him and Moore.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
people like him and Moore.
This is the saddest thing in this thread. I'd explain why, but it would fall on deaf ears.
-
Restore Iraqi Electricity Directorate by May 2005 put 2,083 MW on the grid, enough to provide power to more than 5.4 million Iraqi homes. RIE also built about 8,600 kilometers (5,332 miles) of 400kV/132kV transmission line and 1,200 towers.
USAid has rehabilitated 2,510 schools countrywide, trained nearly 33,000 secondary school teachers (17,513 women) and administrators, including 860 master trainers (264 women), nationwide. Printed and distributed 8.7 million revised math and science textbooks to grades 1-12 by mid-February 2004.
In 2003, Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities were operating at about 35 percent of their design capacity (three billion liters a day), primarily due to inadequate maintenance, lack of plant operators, power shortages, and looting of plant parts and standby generators.
USAid restored water treatment service to 4.0 million, and sewage treatment to 7.7 million nationwide. In Basrah, rehabilitated the Sweet Water Canal system, which included repairing breaches, cleaning and repairing the main water storage and settling reservoir and refurbishing 14 water treatment plants. Treated water production increased 100 percent, serving over 2 million people.
In Bagdhad, the Kerkh wastewater treatment plant began operating on May 19, 2004, the first major plant to operate at full capacity in more than 12 years in Iraq.
-
heres an opinion: kerry was a switboat officer and he testified in front of congress calling his fellow brothers in arms murderers. murtha called for the retreat of american forces from iraq. I got news for you. just because someone is a hero doesnt make you squat for a politician. both these men are adorned with my thanks, blessings and respect yet both are criminals in my opinion.
I would go easy on murtha, he is being tooled by his minority leadership. kerry is scum.
thats just the way it goes......
-
I would expect it not unlikely that a guy of Nash's reputation for political leftism would dislike Kerry & a dude like Yeager wouldn't, due to Kerry miserable performance in the last election. Like him or not, his was a terrible campaign, when it could have just as likely been victorious. He looked like the black sox minus Shoeless Joe.
-
LOL even Bush and and the VP have figured out that playing the Michael Moore card on all occasions looses effectivness :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Restore Iraqi Electricity Directorate by May 2005 put 2,083 MW on the grid, enough to provide power to more than 5.4 million Iraqi homes. RIE also built about 8,600 kilometers (5,332 miles) of 400kV/132kV transmission line and 1,200 towers.
USAid has rehabilitated 2,510 schools countrywide, trained nearly 33,000 secondary school teachers (17,513 women) and administrators, including 860 master trainers (264 women), nationwide. Printed and distributed 8.7 million revised math and science textbooks to grades 1-12 by mid-February 2004.
In 2003, Iraq's 140 major water treatment facilities were operating at about 35 percent of their design capacity (three billion liters a day), primarily due to inadequate maintenance, lack of plant operators, power shortages, and looting of plant parts and standby generators.
USAid restored water treatment service to 4.0 million, and sewage treatment to 7.7 million nationwide. In Basrah, rehabilitated the Sweet Water Canal system, which included repairing breaches, cleaning and repairing the main water storage and settling reservoir and refurbishing 14 water treatment plants. Treated water production increased 100 percent, serving over 2 million people.
In Bagdhad, the Kerkh wastewater treatment plant began operating on May 19, 2004, the first major plant to operate at full capacity in more than 12 years in Iraq.
Don't see this in the news, do ya ?
-
I certainly don't.
I'm a comics & sports page guy
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well said????? He used every farce/propaganda/DNC talking point he could. It's obvious he hasn't paid attention to the thread because alot of what he says has easily been rebuked. Nash just want's to rant and rave and call things grim in wich he absolutly has no clue what he's talking about. I won't disput him, it's really not worth my time being such a waisted effort. The really said part is people like you MT actually listen and beleive people like him and Moore.
And you accuse me of boozonics?
Where do I even start with you? Give me a clue.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The war against Iraqi forces under Saddam was indeed won. The war against terrorism continues, including these insurgents that have come out of the woodwork.
Oh the war against terror :rofl
and where is that being fought?
Has that got something to do with Iraq?
well I suppose it has now.
how quickly we forget.......
Next we'll be told that this mess was what was planned for all along........................ .
Should we withdraw..............no IMO what we break we have to fix.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Oh the war against terror :rofl
and where is that being fought?
.
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/119773364.jpg)
And its being fought by more than 50 countries. Glad we're all in this together. ;)
By the way, without using google, can you tell me who said this below, and when they said it?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance. "
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I agree with that, Lazs. I think we will have strategic military bases in the Middle East for years to come, and I think that this was the plan from the beginning. When I hear "exit strategy" I realize that the Vietnam Syndrome is still wrapped around the axle. And the politicians will continue to jump up and down on the issue like it was a trampoline.
You cant agree with lazs and go on to say that the war-makers lied to us from the get go. If you are saying that the real goal was to establish a US military presence in the mid-east , and not to dissarm saddam from his vast arsenal of holocaustic WMD's, then you agree with those of us who are saying WTF! We being bled to death in Iraq on a daily basis. Give us a freakin plan!!! We are not asking for a exit stratgey, but a freakin victory strategy. Meanwhile, we can only wonder if Bush's Carlsyle group and Cheneys Haliburton were losing money along with the rest of us, if they would hurry the f up and make a move. One way or the other. Total war, occupation, and victory or this half arsed, 'lets be friends with the iraqi people, put smiley faces on our tanks, and have a nice day' crap. Wipe em out and move in, or get the f out.
-
The PLAN is for Iraq forces to be able to guard their own squealing country---takes quite some time to build a COMPETENT army, (something they've never had) There arent enough guys in all our armed services together to clamp down their borders, but there WILL be in Iraq's army--as they are deemed ready, we move out. The war for Iraq was over 2 1/2 years ago, but the terrorists have decided to make their stand there--Iraq is as good a place as any, IMO. We kill a couple-three dozen of them for every one of ours, the soldiers don't think we are losing, only the American left does. (Ok, and the Canadian left, and the European left, and wherever else they have leftists:p )
-
Ah yes..the old "body count" dog and pony show, remember it well, didnt work 35 years ago and it wont work now.
shamus
-
whitehawk... we are just now getting out of germany. I am saying that our presence in Iraq would be much like it was in yoour op or in korea for the forseeable future... I think it makes more sense than the latter two examples too.
some not only want us to abandon progress in Iraq but to throw the jews to the wolves too and have no friends in the area.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ah yes..the old "body count" dog and pony show, remember it well, didnt work 35 years ago and it wont work now.
shamus
Yea it especially doesn't work well in the "against" catagory either.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The PLAN is for Iraq forces to be able to guard their own squealing country---takes quite some time to build a COMPETENT army,
Do you believe that was the PLAN from the beginning?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you believe that was the PLAN from the beginning?
As opposed to permanent occupation and colonization? yes.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
By the way, without using google, can you tell me who said this below, and when they said it?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...................
Nice pic of North America.............
re quote dunno Bush, Blair or Moore? it makes no difference to the actuality...............
Blair followed Bush in on a lie ....... the only thing uncertain is their complicity............
Not one of the reasons given for the invasion (other than SH is a nasty man) have since been validated...............
I hope we do right by Iraq and leave it as this peaceful state enjoying the fruits of democracy and freedom................. that is what was promiced as I remember........that will be the victory.
I certainly would not measure success by the number of sanitation plants Cheney's chronies have had contracts for................
and hopefully a better victory than Afghanistan.......... where the elected president is jokingly refered to as the Mayor of Kabul still protected by US body guards(cant trust afghan ones) and afraid to leave his house.........where the war lords sponsored to kick out the Taliban rule their regions with the AK 45 and are now the biggest poppy growers in the world. Where the UK just sent in an extra 4000 troops........why?
Well guess who was pulling out whilst the focus is elsewhere?
Where OBL or whats left of his group still hide and where the Taliban still move between Afghanistan and Pakistan............
will this be the victory for Iraq? will this be the shining example of western democracy and freedom lived out in the middle east? I hope not......
Seems that was the talk before the invasion............the talk now is of a different nature..............
-
Originally posted by Tilt
Blair followed Bush in on a lie ....... the only thing uncertain is their complicity............
A lie is a knowing intent to present falsehoods as the truth. One can be wrong about the facts of a situation and still not be a liar.
Whether Bush/Blair lied about the facts (WMDs) or were wrong is presently a matter of opinion and conjecture, not fact. IIRC no country objected to the war based on intelligence, only that the policy of sanctions and inspections had not been given enough time. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I am not lying.
Originally posted by Tilt
Not one of the reasons given for the invasion (other than SH is a nasty man) have since been validated...............
Three reasons pretty much accepted as ture by most:
excerpt from House Joint Resolution 114 RH (Oct 2002)
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
I don't know if the '93 assassination attempt has been proven, but shooting at air patrols sure has.
-
The Crying Game
So near in Iraq, so far at home.
"The president misled us." "Still no WMDs." "If I had only known then what I do now…"
This is the intellectual level of Democratic wartime criticism about the Bush administration as we near the third Iraqi election — the one that will finally give faces to the first truly elected parliamentary government in the Arab world.
So what is behind this crying game at home — when we are so close to achieving our goals abroad?
Bad polls and far-worse casualties. With over 2,000 American dead in Iraq, the politicians think their own brilliant three-week war was ruined by George Bush’s 32-month failed reconstruction.
But the Democratic establishment’s anger is even more complicated than that since it is not yet quite sure of the mood of the fickle American people.
True, from the very beginning a small group of leftists has done its best to mischaracterize the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as some sort of Halliburton, “no-blood-for oil,” “Bush lied/thousands died,” “neocon” war “for Israel.” But despite the occasional auxiliary efforts of the elite press, until now there were really no takers in the mainstream Democratic party for the vehement antiwar crowd’s slander for at least three reasons.
One was the crazies. By that I mean that the Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Cindy Sheehan factions have a propensity to go lunatic and say or do anything — like shamefully praising the murdering terrorists who blow apart Iraqi women and children and U.S. soldiers as "Minutemen,” or calling the president of the United States “the world’s greatest terrorist.”
A sanctimonious Jimmy Carter may sit next to the buffoonish Michael Moore at the Democratic Convention in VIP seats, but the inclusion of his name with Rep. John Murtha’s is still apparently considered by liberals to be an outright slander. So up until now invoking Bush as a "liar" and our enemies as "heroes" was considered over the top.
Two, the Democratic left wing was wrong on the Cold War and mostly wrong on Gulf War I. With minorities in the Congress, fearful that they might never again be trusted on national security, and cognizant that both Bill Clinton’s campaign against Milosevic and George Bush’s war against the Taliban had been relatively cost-free, they outdid themselves in calling for invasion of Iraq.
Go back and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein and the need to take him out. Only then can you understand why the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly, with a strong Democratic majority, to authorize a war.
So up until now, Democrats had an embarrassing paper trail that in the era of Google searches made it hard to claim that the war was Bush’s alone and not their own. Indeed, as long as casualties were considered "tolerable" and the polls stable, most Democrats continued to talk in accordance with their own past votes and wanted to bask in the success of ending the Hussein nightmare.
Three, most Democrats knew the history of the George McGovern pullout campaign of 1972 that ended in disaster for the party at large. It just isn’t smart to lose American wars by cutting out — unless you have a Watergate for cover. Yet so far not outing a CIA employee who was not a covert agent does not make a scandal.
For all the media pizzazz about the peace candidate Howard Dean, the good Dr. had not a prayer of winning either the nomination or the presidency. Indeed, his tenure as chairman of the Democratic party has been a Republican godsend, since, like McGovern, he has the propensity in a single moment of heartfelt sincerity to scare the hell out of the American people.
Thus the savvy strategy as the casualties grew was to quibble, ankle-bite, and offer empty platitudes like “Get the U.N. back there,” “Get NATO in,” and “Get the Arab League on board,” rather than offering an ad hoc alternative plan of leaving Iraq in the style of Vietnam, Lebanon, or Mogadishu.
Two of those reservations have now vanished, as George Bush’s flight suit; the museum looting; Saddam’s public dental exam; the embalming of the Hussein boys; naked pictures from Abu Ghraib; a supposedly flushed Koran in Guantanamo Bay; rants on the Senate floor; the Scooter Libby indictment; comparisons of the U.S. military to Saddam Hussein; Nazi Germany; Stalin; and Pol Pot; the broadsides of Joe Wilson; Richard Clarke; General Anthony Zinni; Brent Scowcroft; Lawrence Wilkerson, et al.; lies that our soldiers targeted Western journalists; the meae culpae of prominent former war supporters from Francis Fukuyama to George Packer; white phosphorus; leaks about supposed CIA torture prisons abroad — along with mostly silence from the embattled administration and U.S. combat dead exceeding 2,000 — have changed the political calculus.
So Democrats have overcome two caveats. First, they are beginning to sound like Michael Moore while distancing themselves from Michael Moore. Second, they have come up with a clever escape ploy from their own previous rhetoric. Yes, they voted for the war, but the intelligence they had was “not the same” as the president’s. And besides, they were merely senators who fund wars, while George Bush was the commander-in-chief who directs them. “He started it — not us” may be the stuff of errant boys on the playground, but it apparently offers a way out of past embarrassing speeches and votes. Even more clever, they now claim that voting “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” in October 2002 is not quite the same as actually authorizing a war in March 2003.
Consequently, the Democrats are now inching toward jettisoning their final reservation and embracing the Howard Dean cut-and-run position. Still, shrewd pros like a Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, or Chuck Schumer are not quite there yet for two other understandable worries. The polls say Americans are tired of the war, but not yet ready to quit and give up on all that has been achieved, leaving brave Iraqi reformers to ninth-century beheaders and suicide-murderers.
Second, these more astute Democrats are not sure that the Iraqi gambit might not work, especially with the December election coming up, the public trial of Saddam, the growth of the Iraqi security forces, and the changed attitudes in Europe, Jordan, and Lebanon. Many talk a lot about Vietnam circa 1967 but deep down and in silence most have mixed emotions about Saigon 1975.
For now Democrats stammer, sputter, and go the Bush shoulda / coulda route — not quite ready to take the McGovern sharp turn, forever waiting on polls and events on the ground in Iraq, always unsure whether peace and democracy will come before the 2,500th American fatality.
Yet as they hedge — on television praising Congressmen Murtha who advocates withdrawal, but making sure they vote overwhelmingly on the record to reject his advice — they should consider some critical questions.
First, are the metrics of this war in the terrorists’ or our favor? Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking? Are elections postponed or on schedule? Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq? Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam? Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position? Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank? And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?
I ask those questions in all sincerity since the conventional wisdom — compared to the true wisdom and compassion of those valiantly fighting the terrorists under the most impossible of conditions — is that we are losing in Iraq, our enemies are emboldened, and the Arab world has turned against us. But if we forget the banality of New York Times columnists, the admonitions of NPR experts, and the daily rants of a Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, or Al Gore, more sober and street-smart Democrats are in fact not so sure of these answers.
So these wiser ones wait and hedge their wagers. They give full rein to the usefully idiotic and irresponsible in their midst, but make no move yet to undo what thousands of brave American soldiers have accomplished in Iraq.
What exactly is that? Despite acrimony at home, the politics of two national elections and a third on the horizon, and the slander of war crimes and incompetence, those on the battlefield of Iraq have almost pulled off the unthinkable — the restructuring of the politics of the Middle East in less than three years.
And for now that is still a strong hand to bet against.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The Crying Game
So near in Iraq, so far at home.
Bad polls and far-worse casualties. With over 2,000 American dead in Iraq, the politicians think their own brilliant three-week war was ruined by George Bush’s 32-month failed reconstruction.
this is what concerns me about this country.
We as a nation have gotten way too soft, too used to everything happening "right now"
2,000 dead. Yes terrible number very sad 2,000 died.
Still less then what died on the very first day of D-Day
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
this is what concerns me about this country.
We as a nation have gotten way too soft, too used to everything happening "right now"
2,000 dead. Yes terrible number very sad 2,000 died.
Still less then what died on the very first day of D-Day
Or compared to any other war of simular duration and scale. We got real used to the Gulfwar briefing videos of pinpoint accuracy and low body counts. The evidence is also in Somalia. Army rangers take casualties and bodys are dragged through the streets but instead of fighting harder the public wants a pull out.
What's even more sad is many on the left are still "stuck on stupid" The "neo-con bush lied, no WMDs" argument doesn't hold a thimble of water when compared to actual facts and recent history.
Yes there are Democrats that want our troops out now with out accomplishing the mission. This is called wanting to lose. Even a few republicans have joined in this rant and it is the wrong course for America.
Yes I will agree that the occupation fuels the inurgancy but we aren't just fighting insurgants there, we are fighting jihadist terrorists and they are desperate.
Just today the King of Jordan called for a war on ISLAMIC militancy.....sorry folks THAT is progress.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
To dissagree with you is not ridiculeing you. In fact in every post you've replied to me, you have questioned my sanity. Above is what I believe , and questions I have for people who love the congressional war bashing. If that makes me nuts....................Okay I'm bugeyed nuts.
:noid
:aok
-
I very rarely, if ever agree with Nash when I read his posts, but I have to agree with MT and say that his post was well written and very well reasoned, and I find it compelling and he summed my thoughts very well.
I'm registered as an Independent, but I vote mainly along Republican issues. I wrote-in Powell in '04.
I believe in taking responsibility and I think the Bush Admin., needs to take responsibility. The Iraq War was optional equipment in this deal.
I thought the Democrats crying about how bad Bush was and how could America be so stupid as to elect him were looking in the wrong direction. They should have blamed themselves for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in '00 and in '04. I mean if Bush is so stupid, how can they loose to him?....well, they proved they could by putting up Gore and then Kerry...unbelievable. What should have been A slam dunk win both times (according to their propoganda), and they blow it.
Well, I feel the same way towards any Republicans who blame Democrats for the how mis-managed this has become. And I don't just mean the prosecution of the war itself, but also in the handling of the state-side dealing with the citizens spin as well.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Well, I feel the same way towards any Republicans who blame Democrats for the how mis-managed this has become. And I don't just mean the prosecution of the war itself, but also in the handling of the state-side dealing with the citizens spin as well.
In many ways I agree with you. Bush has been VERY quiet in terms of accepting responsability for failures (even though they ask for it, it wont satisfy his critics) But also failures in not fighting back at some of the "talk" and countering some of the "Bush lied" arguments.
I couldn't begin to tell you how this guy thinks but the only explination I can offer is maybe he doesn't want to give it legitimacy by offering up an reason or a fight.