• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush Lies Again (what's new?) -- "Surge" May Require 35,000 - 48,000 Troops.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: JD50I respect the rest of your argument, but this part is getting a little old. Have you ever been a Police Officer? Probably not, so I hope that you don't ever comment on crime because your opinion won't mean crap since you aren't out there locking up the crackheads.
Click to expand...
It's not the same, at all. Law enforcement officers volunteer to put their lives on the line to uphold the laws of thier city, county or state. Presumably, they believe in those laws, and for the most part, they are part of the legal and social fabric of our nation, and they have remained unchanged in principle for hundreds of years.

Bushwhacko's not so excellent adventure in Iraq was a bone headed fiasco based on lies from day one. Whether or not you were sucker enough to fall for his BS at the start, it's abundantly clear that every excuse he gave for it has proven to be false. There is no truth, honor or justification in either the facts or our American tradition to support the war, in the first place, let alone squandering more lives and money in a dishonorable continuation of this folly.

Those who are so willing to waste the lives of others in such obvious misadventure are hypocrites if they're not willing to risk thier own lives.

And, as I said, even if they are, I still disagree. I'd just respect their opinon a little more.
 
I figured Democrats would know this, given the number of times they have visited Syria. I wonder if the DNC is sliding Syria some money from Nancy's corporations who don't have to pay a "living wage" in Samoa in an effort to "give them [the Syrian insurgents] the tools they need" to inflict more death on America so they win the '08 elections.
Click to expand...

Is the right fringe really that desperate? That's one of the slimiest attacks yet on the integrity of Dems, basically accusing them of paying to have american GI's killed...

Joe McCarthy would be proud, indeed...

Apparently, it's of paramount importance to deflect blame from where it really belongs, squarely of the Bush Admin. They insisted on invasion and occupation w/o sufficient cause or strength to achieve their ends, which turns out to be an impossible, delusional capitalist wetdream, anyway...

It's not surprising that "20K troops" might turn out to be "20K combat troops", with another 30K in support roles... Why, uhh, dubya just didn't explain it well, that's all- he just figured everybody knew what he meant, anyway, right?

It probably won't matter, anyway. I doubt that 500K troops could quell the forces that the invasion and botched occupation have created... Shinseki might have been right, in the beginning, wanting 350K troops for the adventure- but that didn't happen, and the window of opportunity that existed in the few short months after the invasion is long gone, never to return...

Welcome to the reality of what happens when you gamble on war and lose, gentlemen... when your ideological vision of reconstruction is completely detached from reality.

Basically, the Bush Admin has seriously strengthened the Iranians' hand... and they know it, which is why they'll probably attack Iran next, trying to knock 'em down a peg... which won't work, either, but it'll give the Neocons an excuse to stay in Iraq, bet on that... Their "vision" of global dominance doesn't include much in the way of compromise, let alone failure... to think that they won't expand the war to achieve their ends is foolish in the extreme... even if actually doing so is a fool's move, they'll make it anyway- they're that arrogant.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Apparently these stock did ok...

Ten best stocks since 1997
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but do you actually play the stock market? You really come accross like you know nothing about what happened during the 90s and then the crash...

People were going crazy after tech and internet stocks and made a fortune and then lost everything because they wouldn't cut their losses. Naming 10 stocks that have done wel out of 1000s upon 1000s of stocks or naming the indices as proof that people didn't lose their life's savings and the stocks that they had their money in never came back is ridiculously ignorant... Again, did you have your money invested during the 90s? If so, what were you in?

 
At first glance of seeing Bush's new "surge" plan I was skeptical, 20,000 is not enough. In reality Bush should be asking for 50,000+ troops. This request would be bring us to the amount of troops Bush should have sent to begin with.

Basically, Bush and the American Public need to agree to send 50,000+ troops to Iraq which I believe will help. If we don't decide to do this then we need to leave. Like, right now.
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: JD50
Who was it in the other thread that complaining about conservatives criticizing dems on what they are going to do and not what they have done?

So which is it Harvey, are you going to blame Bush for not sending enough troops because 20k just isn't enough, are you going to blame him for not supplying them with the proper equipment (which costs extra money, probably the money that you are complaining about now), etc..
Click to expand...

Get it through your head. IT IS A BAD IDEA IN EITHER CASE... time to cut our losses.
Click to expand...

I have seen libs saying that 20k is not enough for a troop surge and that he is not equipping them properly, now Harvey is complaining that he is sending more troops and spending more money on them (which will probably get them the required gear).
Click to expand...

Dreamer! They went without needed gear before , didn't they?
 
I am still confused here, weren't Democrats as late as spring 2006 calling for more troops?


So what gives? Do we want more troops or not? Or are our troop numbers to be based on polling data and cliches?
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I am still confused here, weren't Democrats as late as spring 2006 calling for more troops?


So what gives? Do we want more troops or not? Or are our troop numbers to be based on polling data and cliches?
Click to expand...

Of course you're confused. You're a Bush supporter.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
I am still confused here, weren't Democrats as late as spring 2006 calling for more troops?


So what gives? Do we want more troops or not? Or are our troop numbers to be based on polling data and cliches?
Click to expand...

As late as a year ago? Things change in a year.. believe it or not...
 
Originally posted by: xxxInfidelxxx
Originally posted by: shadow9d9The plan is to cut our losses and leave, get the surrounding countries to get involved as we leave.
Click to expand...

"The surrounding countries" are already "involved," which is why we need more troops on the ground, as the Democrats stated before Cindy went back to Washington and threatened them.

I figured Democrats would know this, given the number of times they have visited Syria. I wonder if the DNC is sliding Syria some money from Nancy's corporations who don't have to pay a "living wage" in Samoa in an effort to "give them [the Syrian insurgents] the tools they need" to inflict more death on America so they win the '08 elections.
Click to expand...


I like your username. 😀
 
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Well, people didn't own the indeces that lost their millions.. they owned individual stocks and watched them go down to pennies... and they haven't rebounded. None of the huge gainers from the 90s have. Well, a couple, but very very very few have reached even close to even from their peaks in 2000.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not going to argue with you about the stock market, but what do you think makes up the DJIA, Nasdaq, etc.... They are just a collection of individual stocks, just like mutual funds. So something had to have rebounded for the Dow to hit record highs. Anyways, many many people invest in mutual funds, 401ks, etc...
Click to expand...

I do the stock market for a living.. if you think that people didn't lose millions/their entire life savings, then you are ignorant of what happened in the 90s-2002. Things rebounded, but NOT THE TECH/INTERNET STOCKS THAT PEOPLE LOST MONEY ON. If they sold those stocks and bought other stuff, they'd have done well.. but they would have had to FIRST CUT THEIR LOSSES and move on... which is what we are talking about here.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey

I'm still waiting for all you pissant chickensh8 chickenhawks to show your support by volunteering to go to Iraq and put your bodies on the line as part of this "surge." I still won't agree with you, but I might respect your opinion a little more.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for all you pissant chickensh8 peace activists to show your disdain for the violence by volunteering to go to Iraq and put your bodies on the line to stop the violence, ALA Ghandi. I still won't agree with you, but I might respect your opinion a little more.

Last count, there's several hundred thousand that have volunteered to support it. What's the Ghandi approach count now?
 
Meh, I'm content for now to kick back and watch Bush's strategy either work or not work. If I were to make an educated guess, I believe it will be the latter. Perhaps after six more months of total failure in Iraq, the remaining 30% of the country who are still hungry for war will finally see the error of their ways. Though somehow, I suspect the usual knuckle-heads will still be flailing around trying to squeeze out yet another six months to "let the strategy work" or maybe send "just another 20K troops."
 
48,000 sounds like a far better number than 15,000 or whatever it was initially. If you're going to surge, do it proper.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
48,000 sounds like a far better number than 15,000 or whatever it was initially. If you're going to surge, do it proper.
Click to expand...
Then, there's those pesky, nagging little questions like:
  • Where do we find that many trained troops?
  • Where do we get all that extra money it will cost?
  • WTF will we do if we really need that manpower and money to deal with any near term emergency in places like Afghanistan where we have some more real interestes ane where it might do some good?
The point of my OP is, once again, the Liar In Chief is lying to Congress and the American people about why he's doing such stupid things and how much it will cost in both human lives and money. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: yllus
48,000 sounds like a far better number than 15,000 or whatever it was initially. If you're going to surge, do it proper.
Click to expand...

I agree. Hell, let's go 148K and start blowing up grid squares until all resistence ceases.
 
I fear that the "surge" is just a diversion so we can go into Iran. Bush has 2 more years and therefor time to get more unspoken agenda done.
Hopefully neither you nor your loved ones will die b/c of this.
 
Bush lied and thousands died. More Bush lies, and more thousands die.
Click to expand...
what was the first lie again?

Still have not heard what that was exactly. Don't tell me "common knowledge" BS either. Calling something Common Knowledge that is a widely held opinion does not make it fact. No matter how many times the biased media replays/reprints it.
 
Originally posted by: EXman
Bush lied and thousands died. More Bush lies, and more thousands die.
Click to expand...
what was the first lie again?

Still have not heard what that was exactly. Don't tell me "common knowledge" BS either. Calling something Common Knowledge that is a widely held opinion does not make it fact. No matter how many times the biased media replays/reprints it.
Click to expand...

First lie was about the reliability of the intelligence that Saddam was an "imminent" "grave and growing" threat with an active WMD program and nucular weapons program. When the CIA expressed no confidence in many of the claims made, Dick Cheney et al. said the CIA was a bunch of libbies and wanted the terrists to win.

Exhibit A was Colon Powell's laughably amateur "presentation of conclusive evidence" to the UN. Many of the claims in that presentation were disproven the next day.

Haven't we gone over this ad nauseum already, and you still don't know???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top