-
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 Tells Troops 'Much More Will Be Asked of You'
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Good to see you're still confused, lack any real informative input, and still rely primarily on rhetoric and hyperbole to make any statements. It warms my heart. Really, it does. :roll:
And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil. Yeah, that was a real sound strategy.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Of course, that makes it perfectly fine and acceptable losses for a phoney War. :roll:
sandorski
No Lifer
They're still alive ain't they?
For those who signed up after 9/11, this probably isn't bad. For those who always wanted to serve their country as part of the military, this probably isn't too bad. For those wanting to "Be all they can Be" or who want a College fund, this isn't great, though part of the Deal, I'll keep my head down. For those in the National Gaurd, this has to suck just a little bit. For thos who served about a decade ago and left after their term for civilian life, this must just Plain Suck!
kage69
Lifer
Why would I be trying to scare Bush fluffers like you?
There's plenty of basis for my disagreement over Bush's rather myopic ass kissing, you choosing to it ignore doesn't bother me at all.
Such an insightful, pertinent rebuttal. *sigh* I especiallly like how it followed "Good to see you're still confused, lack any real informative input, and still rely primarily on rhetoric and hyperbole to make any statements."
Please just go back to sucking your bong, your 'older n wiser' routine grows increasingly more tiresome.
ive been twidling my thumbs over a year now, only thing I've been asked to do is go to DC fora big ol party.
Hell I'm almost itching to get back on active duty.
lol, 130,000 at a time, there have been like 1.2 Million troops total rotated through last time I checked, it will probably hit 1.5 Million this year.
The whole "stretched too thin" argument is a tired one, with no basis. All anyone pulls up is some article about a guardsmen who pissed cuz he gets pulled twice in a year, omg suck it up. Or the poor MP's who never get to come home, sorry guys, should have known better than to pic the MOS that never even gets vacation during peacetime. Its the Army's fault for being so top heavy and arranging themselves so that over 40% of thier infantry are guardsmen.
yikes, hold on there cowboy, we lost over 1300 in 'nam in a single month. return to history 101 (and math 101 while your at it) do not pass go, do not collect $200
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
iow, you still have no real rebuttal except your childish, weak, and immature attempts above?
Figures.
Your responses are quite ironic in juxtaposition as well. LOL.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
As long as you insist our presence in Iraq is only about Iraq or because of Iraq, you'll never understand. I think you're smarter than that and know what I'm talking about though. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
No attacks on US soil since 9/11.
We have clearly demonstrated to those who claimed we have a "soft belly" that that is nowhere near the truth.
It has been demonstrated that there are severe consequences for fvcking with the US, something that Clinton didn't seem to make clearly known. Now they do.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Well, that and getting his cigars lubed by interns. 😉
Quite a few decisions in Iraq have been poorly advised and poorly executed. However, would it really have changed anything at all? Would a well-planned war have prevented the insurgency or even decreased its participation? imo, that's questionable, very questionable. In fact, most of the poor results have come about due to trying to do things in the "kinder, gentler, 'let's let them handle this themselves'" way, such as Fallujah, when we should have just gone in kicking ass and taking names the first time around.
What's it supposed to be about? It's certainly not about fighting the war on terror. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Any tenuous links pale in comparison to other terror states out there.
Bush has said that America *and the world* are safer. I think Bali, Spain, and Iraq would beg to differ with your assessment of safety. As for no attacks here, that's a lame excuse. If we were safer, why is security so overblown nowadays for things like the RNC, DNC, and the upcoming inauguration? Safer implies less of a need for security than before.
Again you fail to understand why the west is a target of terrorism. It has *nothing* to do with any perceived lack of response from Clinton. Your short-sightedness is a major weakness of yours.
The job of the military is to fight wars and defend the country. There is no "defense only" status of the military.
Wait a minute, checkout my sig? Is Conjur flip-flopping?
And about a third of the troops we lost in the first 8 hours of Normandy.
While tragic we cant fight wars based soley on numbers. If numbers is all we go off tyhis country would have ran away from WWI, WWII, Korean war, Vietnam, Cival War, and the Revolutionary war.
A. What did Germany every do to us in WWII?
B. It was pre-emptive, Saddam failed to comply. We have gone over this enough times for you to know this
C. You think the regime where soccer players had their legs cutoff because they werent playing upto standards, the dictators sons picking women out from the crowd then raping them and killing their husbands, and creating massive graves in the desert and filling them with political opponents isnt terrorism?
1 attack in 4 years under Bush, 4 attacks in 8 years under Clinton and the making of the 5th and worst of all. It doesnt take a genius to see the writing on the wall here.
Invalid comparison.
Comply with what? He was complying with the inspections. Inspectors were back in Iraq and had unprecedented access to whatever site they requested. I believe it was David Kay that went to Cheney (or Rumsfeld) and said there was nothing there. He was told to go back and keep looking (to give the Bush admin a bit more time to prepare for the invasion which was going to happen no matter what.)
Ever read about what was done by the US in Central America under the direction of Negroponte?
Doesn't matter. Your third point there is moot as it has *nothing* to do with the Iraq invasion. The justification given for invading Iraq was "known" stockpiles of WMDs.
See my previous post.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Obviously you didn't read what i wrote because your reply doesn't address it.
Does being in Iraq mean we only fight terror in Iraq? Or does it give us a central locale in the ME from whcih to do so?
Think about it.
Bush has said that America *and the world* are safer. I think Bali, Spain, and Iraq would beg to differ with your assessment of safety. As for no attacks here, that's a lame excuse. If we were safer, why is security so overblown nowadays for things like the RNC, DNC, and the upcoming inauguration? Safer implies less of a need for security than before.[/quote]
You're confusing safer with more peaceful. "Safer" is a relative term based on the potential threat level.
Again you fail to understand why the west is a target of terrorism. It has *nothing* to do with any perceived lack of response from Clinton. Your short-sightedness is a major weakness of yours.[/quote]
It's not short-sightedness or a weakness. The failure to recognize Clinton's lack of response to Islmaic terrorists in the 90s is being short-sighted and apologetic as well. He could of done something about it then and stomped it out when it was easier to handle. Instead he let it fester and grow and now it's become a major infection. If you don't want to recognize that plain and simple fact, that's not my problem.
kage69
Lifer
I didn't see anything of merit from you worth a rebuttal of substance, that and I'm done trying to draw common sense out in pictures for idealogues like you. You'd be a hell of a lot more credible concerning your labels if you didn't exhibit them so well yourself.
Sure it does.
That would mean something were I the one ranting about others being confused, lacking input, or relying on rhetoric and hyperbole to make statements, so I guess the irony is all yours bub. You enjoy that now, ya hear?
How? You asked about a pre-emptive attack on a nation that was no real threat to us at the time.
Unprecedented yet not total access like the resolution his govt signed 12 years earlier. Also they failed to provide documentation or proof of known stockpiles destructions.
You said Creating terrorism where none existed before makes sense?
I am asking you if you think the above examples are not terrorism? While it might not have been the main theme behind the invasion. It was used and it is a vaild point to your question.
how is that a lame excuse? Wasnt one of the points of the invasion of Iraq to fight terrorism? If terrorist attacks are being reduced due to the battle for Iraq. That is not a lame excuse, it is a valid point.
As for security concerns. Just because you havent been robbed do you leave your doors unloacked at night?
Your original post to which I replied stated:
"And sitting around in a Clintonesque manner with our collective thumbs up our butts - and our cigars who knows where - was a complete failure and didn't prevent enemies from taking up arms against us on our very own soil."
How did Iraq attack us on our very own soil?
Oh, you're saying it's ok to invade a country that has nothing to do with the war on terror in order to fight those countries that *are* targets in the war on terror? I suppose we should take out Michigan since Terry Nichols was from there and he was a terrorist. Then we could launch attacks on Ohio or something.
No. You're playing semantics. Bush said "safer". Or, are you implying you have met with Bush and know what he meant by it? To me, safer means safe from attacks. Safer means I can walk about my city streets in less fear of being attacked by a rogue terrorist. Safer means a politician should be able to hold a rally with less security than before 9/11.
Clinton didn't have a lack of response to terrorists in the 90s. That's been proven up here time and time again.
But, again, your short-sightedness rears its ugly head as you fail to understand the root cause of the west being targets of terrorism.
P.S. Learn how to quote.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
What's that? You still have no real response?
I see. Thanks for playing. Please drive through.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
