• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Bush claims Democrats want to "cut and run"....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Duckworth's Iraq strategy is right on her website:

Duckworth served in Iraq as a member of the Illinois National Guard. During her campaign for Congress, she has called for a much more aggressive plan than the Bush Administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.

Duckworth would begin with an immediate accounting by the Secretary of Defense of the readiness level and the training of the Iraqi forces, followed by aggressive benchmarks for progress and redeployment of U.S. troops linked to the stand up of Iraqi troops. She believes we should proceed by standing down a defined number of U.S. units for every Iraqi battalion that can be properly trained and certified as combat-ready.

A firsthand witness to the waste of our tax dollars in Iraq by big defense contractors like Halliburton, Duckworth has proposed a bipartisan task force to end the blank check for defense contractors by holding them accountable for waste, fraud and abuse ? a task that the current Congress has failed to perform.
Link
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It isn't, but nevermind that. It's just something the sheeple can see.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
Its no different. Bush's plan is a phased withdrawal, but only after certain objectives have been met. The problem with Duckworth's plan, is it gives the illusion that this will happen quickly. But to stabilize the country, get an accounting of readiness, and make sure the troops there are good to go isnt gonna happen soon. It will take years.

So it isnt any different. At all.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Pabster
Throwing up war vets as poster childs isn't going to win elections.

Dems need to lay out plans and get with the program. The "We hate Bush", "We hate Republicans" mentality has long ago worn itself out.

Incidentally, where is Ms. Duckworth's "strategy for securing the war-ravaged nation", or, for that matter, any of her fellow Dems?
How many people and how many times must Democrats lay out plans and ideas before you Republicans quit saying repeating that same tired mantra? I already know the answer.

I know you hate Ms. Duckworth because she's represents everything you detest; a veteran that lived and a Democrat.
QFT, can you imagine how many soldiers went to Iraq as republicans who have come home as Democrats? The fanbois hate them all because they represent two things they will never be, brave or smart.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
QFT, can you imagine how many soldiers went to Iraq as republicans who have come home as Democrats? The fanbois hate them all because they represent two things they will never be, brave or smart.
I guess all those who went and have come back that support our efforts are paid Republican shills, too, right? :confused:

Typical hypocrisy from the typical sources.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
Its no different. Bush's plan is a phased withdrawal, but only after certain objectives have been met. The problem with Duckworth's plan, is it gives the illusion that this will happen quickly. But to stabilize the country, get an accounting of readiness, and make sure the troops there are good to go isnt gonna happen soon. It will take years.

So it isnt any different. At all.
So you say. Who TF are you? And by the way, we've already had years. 3-1/2 to be exact. What has Rumsfeld and the Administration been doing? Sitting around with their thumbs up their asses?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
QFT, can you imagine how many soldiers went to Iraq as republicans who have come home as Democrats? The fanbois hate them all because they represent two things they will never be, brave or smart.
I guess all those who went and have come back that support our efforts are paid Republican shills, too, right? :confused:

Typical hypocrisy from the typical sources.
Wow, you're full of logical fallacies today aren't you? You can't win so you invent your cute little strawmen to attack. Take a hint: it's not attractive.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
People, just ignore this troll. He will go away just like the others if you stop replying to his posts.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
Its no different. Bush's plan is a phased withdrawal, but only after certain objectives have been met. The problem with Duckworth's plan, is it gives the illusion that this will happen quickly. But to stabilize the country, get an accounting of readiness, and make sure the troops there are good to go isnt gonna happen soon. It will take years.

So it isnt any different. At all.
So you say. Who TF are you? And by the way, we've already had years. 3-1/2 to be exact. What has Rumsfeld and the Administration been doing? Sitting around with their thumbs up their asses?
Im someone with a ****** opinion, just like you, asshat. You have more posts than me therefore my opinion doesnt matter? Back off jackass.

Do you honestly think we have not been training Iraqi's national army? There is no difference in Duckworth's plan. It -also- gives NO timeline.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,988
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
People, just ignore this troll. He will go away just like the others if you stop replying to his posts.
Unfortunately, you're still here.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..
Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..

There is not a civil war. Can you please tell me what political party is currently trying to overthrow the sitting powers?


Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family

Stolen? Flamebait comment.
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

And another party or candidate would have done what exactly? Nothing you say?


Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

This "War On Terror" isnt just about payback for 9/11. I thought by now you might have known this...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
67,830
2,928
126
Last throes people! Last throes!! The increased Insurgent attacks since that statement was made some 14 months ago just proves how desperate the Insurgents are!!
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..

There is not a civil war. Can you please tell me what political party is currently trying to overthrow the sitting powers?


Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family

Stolen? Flamebait comment.
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

And another party or candidate would have done what exactly? Nothing you say?


Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

This "War On Terror" isnt just about payback for 9/11. I thought by now you might have known this...
Looks like the "War On Terror" IS GOING SO WELL :(

You are right .. it seems like bush expanded his power to include terrorizing nations who never ever attacked us or even funded the people who attacked the world trade center twice and blew up our embassies and attacked one of of naval ships killing many soldiers

War on Terror... what a joke.. our politicians are so retarded.. I guess killing and killing and killing innocent civilians will make the world a better place and make everyone never want to defend themselves and not get revenge for all the hell bush has caused in Iraq..



 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
0
0
I believe the war on terror could have been waged successfully without the war in Iraq, which just seems to have made things worse. These are two seperate issues, but apprentley some people can't seperate the wheat from the chaffe.

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..

There is not a civil war. Can you please tell me what political party is currently trying to overthrow the sitting powers?


Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family

Stolen? Flamebait comment.
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

And another party or candidate would have done what exactly? Nothing you say?


Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

This "War On Terror" isnt just about payback for 9/11. I thought by now you might have known this...
Looks like the "War On Terror" IS GOING SO WELL :(

You are right .. it seems like bush expanded his power to include terrorizing nations who never ever attacked us or even funded the people who attacked the world trade center twice and blew up our embassies and attacked one of of naval ships killing many soldiers

War on Terror... what a joke.. our politicians are so retarded.. I guess killing and killing and killing innocent civilians will make the world a better place and make everyone never want to defend themselves and not get revenge for all the hell bush has caused in Iraq..
Apperantly you need a refresher course. First of all, a "nation" didnt attack us. Not quite sure if you realize that or not, but thought I would remind you. Second, when Congress passed the bill allowing the "War On Terror" it was very clear this wasnt against any particular country. Again, just thought I would remind you.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..

There is not a civil war. Can you please tell me what political party is currently trying to overthrow the sitting powers?


Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family

Stolen? Flamebait comment.
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

And another party or candidate would have done what exactly? Nothing you say?


Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

This "War On Terror" isnt just about payback for 9/11. I thought by now you might have known this...
Looks like the "War On Terror" IS GOING SO WELL :(

You are right .. it seems like bush expanded his power to include terrorizing nations who never ever attacked us or even funded the people who attacked the world trade center twice and blew up our embassies and attacked one of of naval ships killing many soldiers

War on Terror... what a joke.. our politicians are so retarded.. I guess killing and killing and killing innocent civilians will make the world a better place and make everyone never want to defend themselves and not get revenge for all the hell bush has caused in Iraq..
Apperantly you need a refresher course. First of all, a "nation" didnt attack us. Not quite sure if you realize that or not, but thought I would remind you. Second, when Congress passed the bill allowing the "War On Terror" it was very clear this wasnt against any particular country. Again, just thought I would remind you.

Remind me the value of killing Iraqi Citizens?

Remind me how the Bush Admin told everyone that Iraq could potentially pay for itself .. how the estimates were 3billion or 10 billion or whatever

Remind me how killing people who didn't even have plans to kill us will help REDUCE TERROR

Isn't the "War On Terror" supposed TO REDUCE TERRORISM?? << You are doing a wonderful job ;)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,212
633
126
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Yeah Pabster, where's your side's plan? What's the GOP plan? Stand around in the kill zone until 50,000 of our troops have been killed? Oh yeah, some f'n "plan" you got there. Face it, our retard in chief led us into Iraq, f'd it up big time and now is flailing around (just like you) and attacking Democrats because things aren't working out.
So you're admitting the Dems have no plan, and attempting to obfuscate the situation by asking me?
Bush's plan has so far
created a Civil War..

There is not a civil war. Can you please tell me what political party is currently trying to overthrow the sitting powers?


Killed 3000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
STOLEN $300,000,000,000 from me and you and your family

Stolen? Flamebait comment.
SERIOUSLY INJURED 20,000 of our most proud and respectable citizens
CREATED MORE TERRORISTS

And another party or candidate would have done what exactly? Nothing you say?


Because his administration, like you, WAS so full of themselves and so god damned arrogant they have turned IRaq into a absolute hell on earth -




I didn't forget about 9/11 -- SO can you remind me how many of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis and remind me where did al-qaeda get their money and support from?

This "War On Terror" isnt just about payback for 9/11. I thought by now you might have known this...
Looks like the "War On Terror" IS GOING SO WELL :(

You are right .. it seems like bush expanded his power to include terrorizing nations who never ever attacked us or even funded the people who attacked the world trade center twice and blew up our embassies and attacked one of of naval ships killing many soldiers

War on Terror... what a joke.. our politicians are so retarded.. I guess killing and killing and killing innocent civilians will make the world a better place and make everyone never want to defend themselves and not get revenge for all the hell bush has caused in Iraq..
Apperantly you need a refresher course. First of all, a "nation" didnt attack us. Not quite sure if you realize that or not, but thought I would remind you. Second, when Congress passed the bill allowing the "War On Terror" it was very clear this wasnt against any particular country. Again, just thought I would remind you.

Remind me the value of killing Iraqi Citizens?

Remind me how the Bush Admin told everyone that Iraq could potentially pay for itself .. how the estimates were 3billion or 10 billion or whatever

Remind me how killing people who didn't even have plans to kill us will help REDUCE TERROR

Isn't the "War On Terror" supposed TO REDUCE TERRORISM?? << You are doing a wonderful job ;)
I try to look at things realistically. Basically you have two choices. One, you do nothing. In which case, how many innocent Iraqi's died as a result of the Saddam regime? Not to mention the policical oppression.

Or, you do what were doing now. Can there really be a forceful removal of any government without civilian casualties? Nope.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
^^ So, since you are so comfortable with bush and his future plans..
where did they go wrong in Iraq
Was Iraq really a necessary target to make "America" safer? Saddam hated Osama.. right?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,261
68
86
Originally posted by: blackangst1


I try to look at things realistically. Basically you have two choices. One, you do nothing. In which case, how many innocent Iraqi's died as a result of the Saddam regime? Not to mention the policical oppression.

Or, you do what were doing now. Can there really be a forceful removal of any government without civilian casualties? Nope.
We have probably killed more civilians as "collateral damage" during our 3 years than Saddam did in 20 or so. The average Iraqi is *WORSE OFF* than before.

We have screwed up Iraq. How? Because we ignored several pieces of military doctrine that have been set for more than a thousand years. Furthermore, our inept leadership has failed at every point.

A war on terror, the way we are fighting it, is like using a sledgehammer to swat flies. All we are doing is tearing more holes in our house, letting more flies in. All this does is increase our swing rate, creating more holes for flies to fly into. Then we have attempted to saran-wrap our house, suffocating our freedoms and blocking all doors out.

That is logical and it is true.

A war on terror will never be winnable. It has no clear cut objectives that can be attainable. Terrorism has been happening for thousands of years and it still hasn't been stamped out. Why? Because they are amorphous, cellular, and are created by breeding discontent, which we are causing. They attack in oblique attacks, always where you aren't looking. They have the initiative, especially when all you do is bumble around swinging a massive sledgehammer. They sap your strength and defeat you with your own strength.

Finally, they win by making you change your way of life. Your beliefs, and your operations.

We aren't winning the War on Fear not because we haven't tried, but because we are our own worst enemy. We are actually helping THEM win the war on fear.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
Its no different. Bush's plan is a phased withdrawal, but only after certain objectives have been met. The problem with Duckworth's plan, is it gives the illusion that this will happen quickly. But to stabilize the country, get an accounting of readiness, and make sure the troops there are good to go isnt gonna happen soon. It will take years.

So it isnt any different. At all.
So you say. Who TF are you? And by the way, we've already had years. 3-1/2 to be exact. What has Rumsfeld and the Administration been doing? Sitting around with their thumbs up their asses?
Im someone with a ****** opinion, just like you, asshat. You have more posts than me therefore my opinion doesnt matter? Back off jackass.

Do you honestly think we have not been training Iraqi's national army? There is no difference in Duckworth's plan. It -also- gives NO timeline.
An opinion that seems to reward utter failure. Tell me this: Army basic training is how long? 9 weeks? So in the 3-1/2 years since taking Iraq, we could have run 20 back-to-back boot camps to train Iraqi soldiers. We're no where near any kind of reasonable target for getting the Iraqis trained.

And Ducksworth hasn't even been elected to Congress yet, how can she provide a timeline? The first thing that would need doing is a comprehensive assessment of Iraqi troop readiness to see what level of incompetence we're dealing with.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Im just wondering how this "plan" is any different than what were doing now....
It's a phased withdrawal from Iraq whereas what we have now is "stay the course" meaning the troops get to stand around indefinitely like sitting duck targets while the country devolves into civil war.
Its no different. Bush's plan is a phased withdrawal, but only after certain objectives have been met. The problem with Duckworth's plan, is it gives the illusion that this will happen quickly. But to stabilize the country, get an accounting of readiness, and make sure the troops there are good to go isnt gonna happen soon. It will take years.

So it isnt any different. At all.
It's not even close to the same plan. It has the same overall idea of a phased withdrawl after meeting certain objectives, but unlike the Republican plan, it actually has ways to MEET those objectives. Bush gives us a lot of mantras about "standing down as the Iraqis stand up", but he has NOTHING to say about how we're going to make sure the Iraqis are standing up. Read Duckworth's plan again, it involves actually holding the military, from the SecDef on down, responsible for how much (or how little) training has been going on...this is the key part that's missing from Bush's plan. He's got the same idea once the training happens, but it's like he expects the victory fairy to show up and just train the Iraqi troops for him.
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Pabster
Throwing up war vets as poster childs isn't going to win elections.

Dems need to lay out plans and get with the program. The "We hate Bush", "We hate Republicans" mentality has long ago worn itself out.

Incidentally, where is Ms. Duckworth's "strategy for securing the war-ravaged nation", or, for that matter, any of her fellow Dems?

In the numerous threads you have graced with your intellect(?) the different plans have been pointed out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY