Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on February 15, 2007, 05:49:33 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
It seems to me that Pelosi has decided that she is the defacto president of the US...
As far I was aware, the constitution provides the president with the ability to send in troops for 90 days before requiring an act of congress to continue.
Plu, if a foreign nation was supporting combat against our troops and more than likely using it's agents to engage our forces, than I would think that easily falls into a reason for the president to enact that 90 day period.
-
Iran is currently at odds with the UN and several other countries in general
If we were to take our troops and place them near the boarder to stop the influx of arms and insurgants from Iran I am all for it.
If we are going to cross the boarder and go into Iran I am dead set against it. This would be a really really bad move on the part of the US and may just be what Iran wants to happen.
Attacking Iran is not currently in our national interests. It has very little of anything we want or need at this point in time and going in there would mean a quagmire that would make Iraq and Vietnam look like a cakewalk.
We took and are taking care of Iraq.
Let France, Germany and the others deal with Iran
If we go into Iran we may enjoy some initial success but in the end we will loose. We have neither the troops, the material nor the funds for an extended operation in Iran
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Let France, Germany and the others deal with Iran
Like that would ever happen. France would rather sell it's collective soul to the devil then fight, or risk losing a possible financial deal, even if it has to be one in violation of UN resolutions or world opinion, and they would be happy to do it under the table to make a buck.
Germany isn't much better anymore.
-
I'm curious just what Pelosi and her supporters think their message to the troops is?
To me, she sounds like this....please insert the Scooby-Doo-Dream sound effect...
"We're for you, but we won't support you...because we're so focused on doing anything to embarass the President....we're really sorry about that, we do support you...we just do not beleive in the mission. We know we demanded the President to send more troops...and, by golly, he agreed....and we just can't be seen AGREEING with the President. You follow, right? Again, we're sorry"
:confused:
-
the british are setting up road blocks on the iraq-iran border, don't you people read the news?
oh and the iraq troops are going to close the Syria border.
-
Gotta love this board. Would have to listen to hours of talking heads and endless commercials on TV to get to the summaries it takes only a few seconds to glean here.
-
I just hope it gets worse before it gets better. Anyone responsible for voting this class of morons in should have to suffer a little. I mean that in a good way.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I'm curious just what Pelosi and her supporters think their message to the troops is?
The Pelosi types worry more about what the voters think then the troops.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the british are setting up road blocks on the iraq-iran border, don't you people read the news?
oh and the iraq troops are going to close the Syria border.
Something I said should have been done on the second day in Iraq.
Golly-geen it's hard being this good.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Let France, Germany and the others deal with Iran
Like they "dealt with the Oil for Food Program"?
-
I don't know what's worse....this....or the fact that they spent an entire day debating a resolution that does absolutly nothing.
You get what you pay for.
-
As it is, they are combating the Republicans more than the enemy of the USA.
They want Bush to look bad so much they want us to lose the war to punish him. If we win the war, they look bad.
If we are attacked again they will look very very bad.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
..but in the end we will loose. We have neither the troops, the material nor the funds for an extended operation in Iran
I think we have plenty of bombs and missiles for Iran and Syria. Fought correctly, there would be no need for boots on the ground ...
but Iran now knows all it would take are the right grisly pictures on the evening news, and big bad america will turn tail and run, just like the left is trying to get us to do in Iraq ..
-
just like the left is trying to get us to do in Iraq
====
If it wasn't for the piss poor leadership of George Bush in Iraq we wouldn't be losing anything. Don't misunderstand me, I supported the campaign into Iraq and I had every confidence in the civilian leadership and the military intelligence. The current assessment however has me flat out wrong and it angers me to no end. Bush has been totally incompetent in the handling of this Iraq affair.
-
Holy Cow, Yeager! That was an excellent post! Beware, you will be hating the troops and french kissing the insurgents if you post anything like that again.
BTW, anyone read this weeks TIME? Excellent article on Bush and Iran.
-
Originally posted by rpm
BTW, anyone read this weeks TIME? Excellent article on Bush and Iran.
in TIME? I'm sure it is unbias too .. LOL
Yeager
hindsight is 20/20. You still haven't posted any links stating you were against the decisions in Iraq as they were being made, only years after the fact in hindsight are you finding flaws like the left lead media has done. Yep, you are holding hands with Nancy, Ted and Kerry now.. enjoy your Bush Bashing love hug sir.
I don't think we have lost the war until we run from it which is exactly what the left wants so that they can then state that Bush screwed the pooched ... as stated in the responses above, the left are willing to sacrifice the troops and the war and IMO the security of this country in order to make Bush look like a failure
-
If Al Queda is not in Iraq, why are their leaders being shot in Iraq?
If Al Queda is in Iraq, why do we want to leave Iraq before killing every one of them?
Google images 9-11
-
Originally posted by BTW
I just hope it gets worse before it gets better. Anyone responsible for voting this class of morons in should have to suffer a little. I mean that in a good way.
I'm sure the troops and the rest of the country appreciate your sentiment.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm sure the troops and the rest of the country appreciate your sentiment.
I'm sure they don't, but I didn't contribute to putting this group of morons into the congress and senate, and the effects of that will be much worse than my sardonic quip. Save your ire for them.
-
Originally spat by Dago
...
Germany isn't much better anymore.
Ach ya... ze gut old times... how ve miss zem!
-
Originally posted by Yeager
just like the left is trying to get us to do in Iraq
====
If it wasn't for the piss poor leadership of George Bush in Iraq we wouldn't be losing anything. Don't misunderstand me, I supported the campaign into Iraq and I had every confidence in the civilian leadership and the military intelligence. The current assessment however has me flat out wrong and it angers me to no end. Bush has been totally incompetent in the handling of this Iraq affair.
Bush's main fault in the war was allowing the press into the country.
The democrats are more responsible for the insurgent issue than anyone else. There flip flopping back and forth on the war, trying to set time lines for withdrawals, and consistent resistence in everything to do with prosecuting the war is criminal and has done more to support the terrorists than anything they could ever hope for...
-
I dunno... we got two good supreme court justices for a change... we got some good anti lawsuit bills passed that kept the firearms industry from being the liberals new horn-0-plenty and we got some dumb ones repealed... the troops aren't whining about being there..
In hindsight... we could have handled the aftermath of the ousting of the sadman better but... who knows? none of us had to send troops or analyze the data.
There was no good solution... none. Every solution would have caused problems. The democrats are professional critics... so is their toady the press.
No matter how the situation would have been handled Bush would have been demonzied and... no matter what.. the democrats would not have had a plan.
Say the region went another way.. say we did nothing back then... If gas was $6 a gallon at the pumps we would have had Bush impeached by now.. and the call would have been led by the democrats who would, along with their friends in the press, be raking Bush over the coals for not getting rid of the sadman.
lazs
-
Pity any President of the United States. Talk about being the lightning rod for every problem in the world. HST should never have reminded everyone "The Buck Stops Here."
Just as the President can't take credit for every success, he isn't the cause of every problem.
Just as in Vietnam, we don't "lose" in Iraq even if we bail out. Our intentions were and are commendable. The U.S. military has achieved unprecedented dominance, particularly in aerospace and sea power, but U.S. political objectives are somewhere around a good foul shooting percentage in a local basketball league -- not bad, but room for improvement.
Democracy is so easy to want but so hard to achieve. Willing informed participation in government of, by, and for the people. Iraq and much of the Middle East demonstrate once again how hard feudalism and tribalism die.
-
LOL, you guys crack me up. Take absolutely no responsability for your (Bush's) mistakes and spin as fast as you can to put the blame anywhere but on the ones responsable. At least Yeager can see the truth thru the brown.
-
You democrats will consistently attempt to throw away everything the country works for just to take a shot at the republicans.
It is sad, and sickening.
-
You republicans will constantly blame someone else for your bungling and the mess you have made.
It is sad and sickening.
-
someone just got installed......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by rpm
You republicans will constantly blame someone else for your bungling and the mess you have made.
It is sad and sickening.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nominated for snappy/witty retort of the week.
:rolleyes:
-
What? Pelosi is anti-American because she points out that the power to go to war lies with the congress and not the president?
The horror, how dare anybody talk back to your precious, incompetent George Bush II. His feelings might get bruised and we can't have that of his imperial majestyship.
-
Karnak, this is what pelosi said:
At the same time, she said, "I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Please point out the location of the word "War" in what she said.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What? Pelosi is anti-American because she points out that the power to go to war lies with the congress and not the president?
The horror, how dare anybody talk back to your precious, incompetent George Bush II. His feelings might get bruised and we can't have that of his imperial majestyship.
The President is clearly made the Commander in Chief of all of the armed forces, in Article 2, Section 2. In this role, the President has the ability to defend the nation or to take military action without involving the Congress directly, and the President's role as "C-in-C" is often part of the reason for that.
The congress maintains the sole right to "declare war". They do not control the military however, as Pelosi is trying to maintain. The President at any time can decide to authorise force against the Iranians for acts of war against our troops and interests. Which, is very clearly happening.
-
Another point to consider in defence of my belief that Pelosi is completely off base. Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the president has 90 days after introducing troops into hostilities to obtain congressional approval of that action. That in a nutshell is how Pelosi is wrong in her statement. The President can and could introduce hostilities by congress's own actions. They created the War Powers Act after Vietnam. But, the sole problem with that act is it infringes on the President's rights under Article II, Section 2. This is why almost all President's since have basically ignored it.
-
Sorry, the Democrats in the Senate and House signed on to the war. Do overs are fine in games like Yahtzee when the dice fall off the table. Wont work in real life.
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
As far I was aware, the constitution provides the president with the ability to send in troops for 90 days before requiring an act of congress to continue.
It's actually 60 days.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
It's actually 60 days.
It is 90.
(Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It is 90.
(Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days
You are correct sir.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
You are correct sir.
Ty
-
(http://www.ocblog.net/photos/uncategorized/pelosi.jpg)
-
you can thank George Bush for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house.
-
of course, and its bush's fault that i have a flat tire,,,,,,
-
is his fault u atribbute quote to lincoln he nevar said too...drum rolls....boosh
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y185/makeith/4CHAN/serious.jpg)
-
I think that it's fairly obvious that the problem is that we have not a Republican, but a Texan in the White House.
GWB, Iraq, Texas.... LBJ, Vietnam, Texas....
Anybody that would call that God forsaken ****hole home must have questionable judgement... except for you Skuzzy... except for you.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you can thank George Bush for making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the house.
I blame the wishy washy no stomach for war Americans for that, not Bush who is doing what we ALL wanted on 9/12 - destroy terrorism before it destroys us. Seems we are probably going to destroy ourselves with just a tiny bit of outside influence ... wtg Yeager, nice flip flopping sir!
-
Actually, Bush never had a chance. His administration was marked for destruction from the very beginning by democrats embittered by his refusal to roll over and play dead in the election recount controversy in 2000. As one democratic leader said in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush's favor; "We aren't forgetting a DAMN thing!"
Their hands have been on their dagger hilts ever since, just waiting for the right moment to strike.
I doubt any president in recent memory has been so despised by an opposition party than has Bush. Not even the antipathy held toward Clinton by some Republicans can approach the hatred many on the left have for Bush.
That hatred was placed on the back burner after 911....but only briefly. The Iraqi War was the perfect issue for the left. They could read all the intelligence reports on Saddam's activities, reports which Clinton himself had believed, vote for military action, and yet safely repudiate the war if it suited them.
And repudiate it they did. During the last election, cognizant of the fact that Americans lack the capacity for sustained military endeavor, they demagogued one of the least bloody of American conflicts into a "quagmire." With the willing cooperation of the press and Hollywood's elite they were able to turn the tide of public opinion.
Now that they have won, they appear at a loss as to what to do about the war. Somewhat like Robert Redford's character in the movie "The Candidate." But they have promises to the electorate to keep, so a precipitate pull-out is a definite possibility. Pelosi and crew will force it, no later than the fall of 2007, so that it can be turned into an election issue for 2008.
In that event, all the blood shed by our troops and the wealth spent by our people will have been for nothing. The blow to our presige will be substantial.....but they won't care because they will have gotten the "demon" out of the White House.
-
I'm trying to remember where the anti-war sentiment started. Didn't it really begin in a large demonstration somewhere in Europe? I know sometime after that, there was a large demonstration in the U.S., but the first one was in Europe.
I also remember seeing the make up of the demonstration in Europe. Very visible were radical Muslim groups, socialists etc. Anyone remember that or those pictures? I think its good to remember those who were on the forefront of this anti-war movement. I also wish I could find those pictures of that first demonstration.
^^^^^^^^^
I think he means him up there
(Sorry Eagler)
-
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
what Shuckins said
-
Originally posted by rpm
LOL, you guys crack me up. Take absolutely no responsability for your (Bush's) mistakes and spin as fast as you can to put the blame anywhere but on the ones responsable. At least Yeager can see the truth thru the brown.
You democrats seem to want to lay 8 years of neglect by Clinton resulting in NK, Iraq, Iran and who knows else thumbing their noses at us at the feet of Bush. Bush did not create the international climate leading to 9/11 but Clinton most definitely did.
-
I'm still trying to figure out what is so bad about my life under the Bush admin.
Unemployment is at an all time low.. growth rate is good... the soldiers fighting over in iraq believe in what they are doing...
Good appointments for federal judges for a change..
Course.. I don't watch the news so I don't hear how bad I have it.
The democrats tell me I am misserable.. they give me a raise in the minimum wage so that the high school kids with first time jobs can cruise around my neigborhood more now that they can afford a little more gas or drugs.
They tell me that the companies are evil and that they will tax them into submission so that... so that what?
They tell me that the whole world is falling apart because gas isn't $6 a gallon.
They tell me that murders and crime are caused by me owning guns or certain types of guns so... I need to knuckle under and give em up..
They tell me that I should not be able to buy a car that I like.
They tell me that the "poor" and the illegal aliens need more benifiets.
They tell me that crime should be race based and that the punishments for crimes should be based on the races or sexual preference of the victims.
There is a slim possibility the I can smoke pot or get a late term abortion if they get in but... I don't really care about those things.
They don't have anything that I want.
lazs
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
^^^ ^^^ ^^^
what Shuckins said
Ditto.
-
You guys are all failing to get the point. Of course the liberals get blame, plenty of it, but they are not the ones who failed to properly execute the war in Iraq, causing all this mess with Pelosi and a liberal controlled legislative branch to begin with. That was purely Georges doing. And lazs, you aint complaining now but just wait till Pelosi gets her congress rolling over you. You will NOT be a happy camper.
-
Yeah...yeah. We "get it." Mistakes were made. There's never been a war fought where mistakes were not made.
Has the situation in Iraq ever been irretrievable? Certainly not.
Is success still attainable? Of course. Anybody that says otherwise is selling something.
Have the reverses there been overblown by the press and the democrats? Absolutely.
Do the terrorists in Iraq have witting and unwitting allies in the United States? No doubt whatsoever. All they have to do is hold on a while longer, and they will achieve their goals.
I think it is fair to say that the terrorists and the left in the United States have shared a common goal, while not directly cooperating toward its achievement.....derailing an American administration.
-
shuckins. agreed. I still feel that george bush has proven himself incompetent at managing this war. We should not be in this situation. Yet we are because george bush has failed to adequately command the military in the prosecution of this war and the sacrifice of life of thousands of americans in uniform is in jeopardy because of it.
I desperately wish bush had turned into a great man, a true leader of this nation after that assault on 9/11/01 but he has proven himself unable to meet the call. Not only did we get Pelosi because of his historic bumbling but we are in line to get a ANOTHER clinton in the oval office. Hell, we are going to get them BOTH!!!!!!
Thanks george. Thanks alot :mad:
-
I'm still waiting to hear (or see) a differing stratgy for the conflict. No one has really come out with a real "this is how we should do it" other than some bogus ramblings here on the bbs. I'd like to hear what the demos and other complaining repubs have to bring to the table other than it was "done wrong". Anyone can complain, it takes thought to have an alternative.
-
i don't think Iraq is going badly, every day more insurgents and their leaders are killed/captured, more arms are captured, more Iraq solders/police are going active.
the latest US/Iraq operation in bagdad has resulted in a significant drop in iraq civilian deaths.
but wile the bagdad operation is going well, pelosi is calling for a pullout of american troops. who's side is she on?
who's side are you on?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm still waiting to hear (or see) a differing stratgy for the conflict. No one has really come out with a real "this is how we should do it" other than some bogus ramblings here on the bbs. I'd like to hear what the demos and other complaining repubs have to bring to the table other than it was "done wrong". Anyone can complain, it takes thought to have an alternative.
of course the the lefts answer seems to be any way but the way it was done..
does anyone truly believe the Iraq conflict would be all over with by now and ALL of our troops would be home? Does anyone think it is a bad idea to keep a couple 100 thousand troops stationed in Iraq until Iran settles out?
our military is exactly where it needs to be .. to bad some seem to think otherwise belittling the sacrifices our troops have made in this conflict. What did Oba-momma just say the other day ?..
Obama Apologizes For Saying Soldiers' Lives Wasted (http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_044113259.html)
-
Well, "settles out" really is kinda vague.
I'm still waiting for a definition of win.
I like open ended time and material contracts when I can get them too, but they are getting less common.
shamus
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
What the Bush administration could have done better, is give the American people a better idea how incredibly difficult a war in Iraq was going to be. It was a complete blunder to paint a picture where we would be seen as liberators for more than a few days. America's affluence makes poor countries hate us. It is a mistake for any President to pretend people are going to like Americans in war zones. They may pretend to for a time to get aid, but eventually they will hate us for our affluence. We need to take that fact into account and tell the American people to expect it.
-
I say, offer a better solution.
====
I think we have gone over this before but lets do it again.
500,000 troops on the ground at the start of the campaign against Hussein.
Leave the Iraqi military and police units intact and under allied control after the initial victory.
Be prepared to take responsibility for the destroyed Iraqi infrastructure and work hard immediately after the rollover to bring the average Iraqis life up to a decent standard. With an intact military and police force this would have been possible.
Put a strong military commander Macarthur type in control, not some lackluster civilian like Brenner.
These are just a few of the better solutions that have been talked about since 2003 but you guys know all this. Stand up and take account of Bush having screwed this Iraq deal over with his ignorant refusal to make any changes until after the war situation deteriorated so badly that the American people loaded congress with democrats to wake him up out of his stupor.
-
OK, but you are still stuck in the past playing arm chair general.
Please come up with a solution for the here and now.
-
To a great extent, Bush can be accused of accepting bad advice. As an example, the reason 500,000 troops did not take part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq is because Bush was told by his commanders on the ground that they were NOT needed. Therefore, he gave them exactly what they asked for.
As to the rest of the plan for rebuilding post-war Iraq, exactly what parts can be faulted, at least in concept? The rebuilding of the pipelines and infrastructure? The establishment of an interim governmental authority? The writing of the constitution? The attempt to build up military and security forces? The holding of the elections?
There was nothing wrong with the basic plan. Implementation became problematic for a number of reasons: sectarian violence originating with former supporters of the Baathist regime which led to retaliation by shi-ite militia groups; violence sponsored by terrorists infiltrating from Syria and Iran; the rise of a vocal and ill-conceived anti-war movement within the United States; a lack of boots on the ground to mitigate these problems which was the result of U.S. commanders underestimating the size and complexity of the task.
The buck may stop on the president's desk, but at some point he has to accede to the knowledge and experience of advisers who are supposed to know their jobs intimately. As far as I have been able to ascertain, his commanders still insist that large numbers of troops are NOT needed.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You guys are all failing to get the point. Of course the liberals get blame, plenty of it, but they are not the ones who failed to properly execute the war in Iraq, causing all this mess with Pelosi and a liberal controlled legislative branch to begin with. That was purely Georges doing. And lazs, you aint complaining now but just wait till Pelosi gets her congress rolling over you. You will NOT be a happy camper.
Regardless of what Bush may have expected or any of us thought might happen in Iraq we should have realized that this would be a long and bloody fight. Iran, Syria, and others cannot sit by and let us democratize Iraq without a serious struggle. Better to fight those who would Islamicize the world there than here. Of course I realize there are those who think middle eastern muslims would have been content to simply practise their religion alone had we simply left them alone but I think they are mistaken.
-
Please come up with a solution for the here and now.
====
350,000 more troops. Deploy an additional 150,000 along the borders of Syria and Iran. Be ruthless. Destroy any resistance. Use pork as a weapon.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Regardless of what Bush may have expected or any of us thought might happen in Iraq we should have realized that this would be a long and bloody fight. Iran, Syria, and others cannot sit by and let us democratize Iraq without a serious struggle. Better to fight those who would Islamicize the world there than here. Of course I realize there are those who think middle eastern muslims would have been content to simply practise their religion alone had we simply left them alone but I think they are mistaken.
Come on lukster...
What Bush expected is what was the action was based on.
You cant now say "we" should have known better. Face the fact, it was a snafu from the beginning.
The term flip flop is popular around here..we are seeing that with our President now, but politically it's not possible to say "well maybe I made a mistake" because you already fried the opposition for saying that at one time or another.
As long as gotcha politics is the norm, we live with this.
OK...time to line up all the reasons its the democrats fault.
shamus
-
WASHINGTON - The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate President Bush's deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.
The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed to advance a nonbinding measure identical to one the House passed Friday. Seven GOP senators broke ranks, compared with only two during an earlier test on the issue.
Whew... the President just narrowly escaped a resolution that would have done nothing. Bet hes breathing easier now....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Whew... the President just narrowly escaped a resolution that would have done nothing. Bet hes breathing easier now....
Since they worded it so specifically (included the exact number of troops the plan called for). I kinda wish it would have passed. Then Bush sends 21,499 troops over there. :lol
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Come on lukster...
What Bush expected is what was the action was based on.
You cant now say "we" should have known better. Face the fact, it was a snafu from the beginning.
The term flip flop is popular around here..we are seeing that with our President now, but politically it's not possible to say "well maybe I made a mistake" because you already fried the opposition for saying that at one time or another.
As long as gotcha politics is the norm, we live with this.
OK...time to line up all the reasons its the democrats fault.
shamus
Saddam surrendered unconditionally Shamus yet he balked at just about every condition we set and even went so far as the attempted assasination of a US president. Removing him from power was really little different than removing Hitler. Islam is growing and many of it's leaders want to dominate the world with their religion. Fight them there now or here later. It really is that simple.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Please come up with a solution for the here and now.
====
350,000 more troops. Deploy an additional 150,000 along the borders of Syria and Iran. Be ruthless. Destroy any resistance. Use pork as a weapon.
Come up with a realistic solution.
-
Come up with a realistic solution.
====
350,000 more troops. Deploy an additional 150,000 along the borders of Syria and Iran.
-
Exactly where are those troops Yaeg? How many folks to you think are actually in uniform? There are other places in the globe where we maintain a presence and they can't all be folded up to put their garrison in iraq.
-
geeze mav, come on will ya? The horse is saddled up and waiting.....
anyhoo..... you asked, I answered.... and now you are just going to mess with me because you support this moronic president.
I get the distinct feeling that no matter what I suggest you fellas are just going to come back to me with an "aw schucks, we cant do that, what are you smoking" type rebuttle....quite simply wasting my time.
Lastly, If you are going to fight a war against terrorism then you had better be prepared to do whatever it takes. And dont ask me what "whatever it takes" is because if you cant figure that out then like I said, all your doing is wasting my time.
-
the govt is doing "what ever it takes", it's just going to take a little longer.
WHAT, YOUR NOT DONE YET. WHATS TAKING SO LONG.:O
-
the govt is doing "what ever it takes", it's just going to take a little longer.
====
I have no doubt you really believe that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Come up with a realistic solution.
====
350,000 more troops. Deploy an additional 150,000 along the borders of Syria and Iran.
Yeag,
I'm quoting the exact post I had responded to. Please note the very first line in your post, "come up with a realistic solution". Now I have to say that if the "solution is not possible, it's not realistic. Unless you are trying to do the same trick hitler tried to do, ordering units that did not exist into action, I fail to see how your "solution" is realistic. (And I am not saying you are hitler either.)
Secondly please quote my post here in the thread where I said I was supporting Bush.
My whole intent here is simple. I am tired of hearing nothing but complaining and accusations about how it was screwed up by those who have no clue how to "do it better". I want to see some specifics about how, using our current REAL resources not fantasy ones, it should be done. I want to see some kind of reality posed here with a differing strategy to handle the existing situation, not just some bald faced complaint about how it is being done. If you got a better idea, lets see it. If you are going to play armchair General you should have some kind of real world strategy. Here's your chance to show how brilliant you (and the others who sing the same song, it's not just you Yeag) are militarily.
Otherwise your total contribution to the thread is "I don't like bush" and "I don't want us in iraq". There's nothing wrong with that opinion. It just doesn't qualify anyone for being a real world tactician / strategist instead of just a complainer about how things are going. If you have something of substance lets see it.
That all I'm trying to accomplish. I simply do not see the demos, repubs, independents saying anything that is a true alternative except pull out the troops and come home. I just want to see the other alternative strategies to solve the current problem. Going back in time is not possible. We can't fight tomorrows conflict today. What is the solution to today?
-
Yeag, 350k more troops are not going. So, come up with a realistic plan with assets at hand, + / - 25%. Thats what Bush and his new general have done.
-
Thats what Bush and his new general have done.
====
Yeah.....AFTER Pelosi took the house. You guys just arent getting it. I support the surge (should have happened two years ago) but I think Bush has done a TERRIBLE job managing this war. Now remember fellas he is the CIC and we know where the buck stops, dont we :rolleyes:
Dont fool yourself mav..... we are a nation of 350,000,000 people. We could muster 500,000 troops for deployment in Iraq if we had to. I mean we want to win this war against islamic radicalism, dont we?
-
i am confused, the same people that want to run away from Iraq also want to raise a army of 500,000 to occupy Iraq, make up your mind.
-
why dont you find a logical place to enter the discussion, thanks :D
-
Yeag,
Congress is now starting action on reducing funding for iraq operations. The number of troops in the service is mandated by law at current levels. Guess who controls the funding for the military. Country population at this time is irrelevent. Even if somehow Congress mandated an increase in force strength and funded it, the arrival of those forces in the numbers you continue to bandy about would be at least 2 to 3 years down the road. there is insufficient infrastructure to enlist and train that number of troops any faster.
In short, your concept has no merit in solving todays issues with todays assets which is all that there is to work with. It is not a feasible nor realistic solution. It's time to drop it and try another one.
-
Congress is now starting action on reducing funding for iraq operations. The number of troops in the service is mandated by law at current levels. Guess who controls the funding for the military. Country population at this time is irrelevent. Even if somehow Congress mandated an increase in force strength and funded it, the arrival of those forces in the numbers you continue to bandy about would be at least 2 to 3 years down the road. there is insufficient infrastructure to enlist and train that number of troops any faster.
===
Beautiful mav and who have you got to thank for this pathetic mess again?
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
bodhi, The democrats (your american Al-Qaeda) are in power because of the incompetence of george bush. He is not only the commander-in-chief of the armed forces he is the de facto leader of the republican party. This entire mess has been brought to you compliments of the this mans shameful neglect of power.
-
Yeager it freaks me out. It's like you are reading my mind.
If we had rebuilt Iraq's infrastructure most rikki tick, things would be MUCH different today. The blame lies squarely on the CIC's shoulders. Instead of listening to his commanders in the field who had the hard answers, he replaced them with yesmen. Now we have a 3 or 4 way battle going on and are woefully outnumbered.
-
Oh Puh-leeze. Iraq has been awash in civilian contractors from every major western nation and many from the middle east since Saddam's government fell. Old infrastructure is being reconstructed and new infrastructure is being planned and built, even as we speak.
The argument being forwarded here that an extra 350,000 troops should have been sent to maintain security is a retrospective, after the fact attempt to eat your cake and have it too. Given the political realities of America during the entire Iraqi war period, we all know that the extra troops could never have been sent. The mere request for extra troops would have ignited a firestorm of criticism....with the press and Hollywood throwing fuel on the fire....and our foreign critics waxing catatonic about American imperialism.
While some of the administration's critics have recently embraced the argument that more troops should have been sent, this is merely an attempt to cloud the issue and embarass the president. When the Iraqi government fell, their attitudes were poles apart from those they are now espousing.
The decision to make do with what was already there was predicated upon the wishes of the commander (Frank) who didn't want them, and the attempt to keep the administration's predatory critics at bay.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yeager it freaks me out. It's like you are reading my mind.
(http://www.andertoons.com/images/blog/IMG_2804.jpg) :)
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
yeager - who did you vote for in Nov 06?
-
jeeze guys, just admit that bush is a dolt. you will set yourselves free.
:D
-
Still waiting to hear (see) your realistic solution Yeag. C'mon there has to be more room in there for something other than boosh = teh debil.
-
you and I are just going to have to disagree mav, sorry.
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
well you can thank bush for giving your Al Qaeda in america the power they needed to take over the house and marginalize the senate. his extremely poor leadership brought this about. You have him to thank and no one else.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
well you can thank bush for giving your Al Qaeda in america the power they needed to take over the house and marginalize the senate. his extremely poor leadership brought this about. You have him to thank and no one else.
I actually think I should thank the lackeys in the press, Hollywood, and Al Quaida America (the democrats) for bringing in their imbeciles to hatchet up our country.
Were it not for their lies and biased reporting along "fact(less) finding" missions and rediculous half baked opinions, half the clueless dolts who got in would never have even been considerd.
Oh, I could also thank the misguided people who voted for the democrats that got in too, but that would be like being mad at a ****... for being what it is.
-
Yeager has a "plan".