- Status
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,929
- 2,931
- 136
Originally posted by: Harvey
See [/b]Shivetya[/b]'s previous reference to "painting a new line in the sand." I took that to be the same as moving the goal line to suit the admin's alleged target du jour.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to your conscience as you pimp squandering more American blood and lives for the Bushwhackos' LIES.
At 65, I'm probably older than you, and I did put in my six years in the Army Reserve from 1961 - 1967.
You are ridiculous.
Edit- Didn't we already go over the point that just because you support the war RIGHT NOW, and staying there until we get the job done, that that DOES NOT mean that you "pimp squandering more American blood and lives for the Bushwhackos' LIES"?
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
All this name trading still gets us nowhere. As we lose sight of why this Patraeus report is so vital. So we have to understand EXACTLY WHY the Patraeus report is so important.----regardless of who writes it or how true or untrue it is.
Because the entire nation now regards it as a GO NO GO DECISION POINT.
In a better world, the election of 11/06 would have been a mandate for the democrats to have a role in Iraqi war directions and strategy. Basically the mini-surge plan is just a phony mechanism to deny that mandate by GWB&co. And its only semi-worked because the dems, just by having a slight congressional majority, retain the killer card to cut all funding for the Iraq war. And thus far are straddling the fence by doling funding out for very short terms. In this case for only the three months of July, August, and September
of 2007. GWB could still retain some limited ability to continue into October and maybe November, but thereafter things get real dicey in the fund shifting department.
So GWB&co., to retain the status of being the DECIDER is under tremendous pressure to deliver a positive report. Which will in theory get the congress to approve the funding to continue the Iraq war under sole GWB&co. control----but for how much longer is the joker in the deck. Buying just a another two or three months more funding just kicks the can a short distance down the road.
But we must all concede that we must ask what happens if the scenario is not so rosy come September 15? And also concede that regardless of what anyone advocates NOW,
that future 29 days is still in the domain of the unknowable. But since I presume everyone agrees that positive results in Iraq will likely result in continuing Iraq war funding,
what will happen if the Patraeus report--even if written by GWB is not positive. And we must also realize that even if the GWB written report is a outrageous fraud, events on the ground will just HIGHLIGHT that fraud. So there will be natural limits on how much the Patraeus report can be puffed. But if its clear on 9/15 that the Iraqi outlook is grim,
we must then conclude that congress will likely pull the plug on funding.
And then we are left with the JD50 question-----is that what we want and should we question what wrong with our political systems in being faced with ONLY those two alternatives?
Because the entire nation now regards it as a GO NO GO DECISION POINT.
In a better world, the election of 11/06 would have been a mandate for the democrats to have a role in Iraqi war directions and strategy. Basically the mini-surge plan is just a phony mechanism to deny that mandate by GWB&co. And its only semi-worked because the dems, just by having a slight congressional majority, retain the killer card to cut all funding for the Iraq war. And thus far are straddling the fence by doling funding out for very short terms. In this case for only the three months of July, August, and September
of 2007. GWB could still retain some limited ability to continue into October and maybe November, but thereafter things get real dicey in the fund shifting department.
So GWB&co., to retain the status of being the DECIDER is under tremendous pressure to deliver a positive report. Which will in theory get the congress to approve the funding to continue the Iraq war under sole GWB&co. control----but for how much longer is the joker in the deck. Buying just a another two or three months more funding just kicks the can a short distance down the road.
But we must all concede that we must ask what happens if the scenario is not so rosy come September 15? And also concede that regardless of what anyone advocates NOW,
that future 29 days is still in the domain of the unknowable. But since I presume everyone agrees that positive results in Iraq will likely result in continuing Iraq war funding,
what will happen if the Patraeus report--even if written by GWB is not positive. And we must also realize that even if the GWB written report is a outrageous fraud, events on the ground will just HIGHLIGHT that fraud. So there will be natural limits on how much the Patraeus report can be puffed. But if its clear on 9/15 that the Iraqi outlook is grim,
we must then conclude that congress will likely pull the plug on funding.
And then we are left with the JD50 question-----is that what we want and should we question what wrong with our political systems in being faced with ONLY those two alternatives?
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,139
- 236
- 106
Man, if you believed other wise, then maybe you thought that the election in Iraq you remember all the people in Iraq running around with inked fingers.... Yeah, you know, the fake BS election that anyone with bush trumps as such a success! hahahaha Yeah, right...
After they counted all the votes they threw them away and let bush select their president! Democracy at it's best!
So now were upset that he is going to say what Bush wants him to say? Sheesh....
Who said I support the war, RIGHT NOW? I never supported the war, and I don't support it, now in any way. I knew the jump from Afghanistan to Iraq was lies and bullshit from the beginning. I just know that, for many reasons, from logistics to humanitarian considerations, theres no way to pull up stakes and leave by tomorrow morning. If it were possible, I'd be for it.
Those responsible for starting it are traitors and murderers. Those who still try to justify what they've done are lower than pimps and street whores.
If you have a problem with that, tell it to those hanging their asses on the front lines, daily, and the families and friends of those 3,706 (up from a few hours ago) who have already given their lives, and the tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life for the Bushwhackos' lies.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes,"
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."
Brian Baird, five term Democrat
He also said we should stay with the surge through early next year because:
"One, I think we're making real progress."
"Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ? and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
Link
"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."
Brian Baird, five term Democrat
He also said we should stay with the surge through early next year because:
"One, I think we're making real progress."
"Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ? and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
Link
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Regardlss of who said it---we have---He also said we should stay with the surge through early next year because:
"One, I think we're making real progress."
"Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ? and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first argument premise of I think we are making real progress after four years of total failure is the question the Patraeus report is supposed to answer. But the Paraeus report can't be based on any one person's think---it must be based on verifiable facts.
The second argument premise is what we should spend our time debating-----and not waste time in name calling or speculations of what the exact contents of the Paraeus report will be.
The third thing that we should be doing is figuring out is how to change the current toxic debate into a process where we can more rationally address the real questions---what is best for our own security and is in the best interests of a larger world.
As for GWB&co.----I didn't vote for them and they cannot speak for me---I feel absolutely no obligation to that lot of liars and thieves. But thats just my opinion. But I think we need to demand they become part of the future solution and cease being 99% of the roadblock
regarding a national consensus solution for Iraq.
"One, I think we're making real progress."
"Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility ? and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first argument premise of I think we are making real progress after four years of total failure is the question the Patraeus report is supposed to answer. But the Paraeus report can't be based on any one person's think---it must be based on verifiable facts.
The second argument premise is what we should spend our time debating-----and not waste time in name calling or speculations of what the exact contents of the Paraeus report will be.
The third thing that we should be doing is figuring out is how to change the current toxic debate into a process where we can more rationally address the real questions---what is best for our own security and is in the best interests of a larger world.
As for GWB&co.----I didn't vote for them and they cannot speak for me---I feel absolutely no obligation to that lot of liars and thieves. But thats just my opinion. But I think we need to demand they become part of the future solution and cease being 99% of the roadblock
regarding a national consensus solution for Iraq.
Are you trying to play duck and cover with Rep. Baird's words, Johnny boy?
Unfortunately, we can't just turn off a war like waking up from a nightmare, regardless of how stupid it was to start it. Are you now saying you agree with Rep. Baird that "the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation." ????
Unfortunately, we can't just turn off a war like waking up from a nightmare, regardless of how stupid it was to start it. Are you now saying you agree with Rep. Baird that "the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation." ????
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
Inject 500k more into Iraq and i'll be one of them, but this surge, heh, I know for sure none of us who've been there think that will work.
The fact of the matter is that about 60% of the troops educated in Iraq are using their guns against the other 40% and are supporting the insurgency, we have no way of knowing which group is which either so the situation is hopeless.
500k soldiers is the minimum limit to resolve this situation and the cost of casualties will be high, if that is not to be done then pull out because a "surge" of a few tens of thousands that brings this to even less than the invading force isn't going to do jack shit.
Changing the tactics is also bullcrap, while they focus on one area the insurgents just move, they have done that from day one, they did that when i was there six months ago and it works just fine for them, even if 100% of Baghdad is safe the countryside sure as fuck isn't and it's not only one organization it's severeal, in the north the Kurds are joining PKK like never before, you actually think that Turkey is going to stand for that? The sunnis and the Shia have pretty much divided Iraq into their own little neighbourhoods right now and there isn't shit anyone can do about any of it.
There WAS a time at the start of the invasion when this could have been settled but some idiot thought that it would be all roses from there on, and naturally it was not, people don't take to kindly when you are killing their relatives and invading their homes.
The fact of the matter is that about 60% of the troops educated in Iraq are using their guns against the other 40% and are supporting the insurgency, we have no way of knowing which group is which either so the situation is hopeless.
500k soldiers is the minimum limit to resolve this situation and the cost of casualties will be high, if that is not to be done then pull out because a "surge" of a few tens of thousands that brings this to even less than the invading force isn't going to do jack shit.
Changing the tactics is also bullcrap, while they focus on one area the insurgents just move, they have done that from day one, they did that when i was there six months ago and it works just fine for them, even if 100% of Baghdad is safe the countryside sure as fuck isn't and it's not only one organization it's severeal, in the north the Kurds are joining PKK like never before, you actually think that Turkey is going to stand for that? The sunnis and the Shia have pretty much divided Iraq into their own little neighbourhoods right now and there isn't shit anyone can do about any of it.
There WAS a time at the start of the invasion when this could have been settled but some idiot thought that it would be all roses from there on, and naturally it was not, people don't take to kindly when you are killing their relatives and invading their homes.
Maybe, except that we don't have 500,000 spare trained, equipped troops to send anywhere, right now. The Bushwhackos saw to that.
Yer doin' a heck of a job, Bushie. :roll:
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
But that's the thing. Nobody here is trying to "justify" the initial invasion of Iraq. Instead, many of us are focused on the here and now, and we're trying to figure out a way forward... you, on the other hand, are stuck in 2003 trying to hang Bush&Co - which doesn't really get you anywhere, does it?
I'm one of those who hangs my ass on the line, nearly every day, and I still think you're stuck in 2003 and that you're totally full of sh*t.
Nah. That's someone else's distraction. Go back to my OP. It's about the Bush's pathetic, deceitful bait and switch. He and his cabal pimped The Petraeus Report time and again, and only now do we learn they're writing the whole script.
Really? Are you posting from Iraq or Afghanistan? If not, tell us where you are and what you're doing that puts your ass is as much on the line as our troops, there. If you're in an American city, tell us where in the U.S. it's THAT dangerous. :roll:
Glad you think so. It's mutual. :lips:
I'm not "stuck" in 2003, but the only way to prevent any repetition of the heinous crimes against the American people by the Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal is to try them and convict them for their crimes.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,929
- 2,931
- 136
Harvey, you're BS line about only those that are on the frontlines being allowed to support the war has been addressed so many times its not even funny, just let that one go, you look foolish. And yes, you very much are stuck in 2003 when you label anyone that supports what we are doing in Iraq as supporting Bush.
Not everyone has decided to make the killing of many Muslims their personal hobby.
Many others want to only risk their life for real threats to the US, which are ridiculously rare.
If we lost a thousand people a year to terrorists, I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't see it as a major issue. We lose less than that now, including 9/11 over the years.
Seems to me that the 'war on terror' is a mask for yet more war of domination/power, mostly.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
We still have to remember that Patraeus is our best thinker on counter insurgencies and how to defuse an insurgency. I very much wonder what would happen if Patraeus did indeed read a few post written by palehorse74. But I would be willing to bet, that if he did, he would hustle palehorse74 and some of his buddies out of the field and into some other posting where their sick and sorry attitudes would not damage the works Patraeus is trying to accomplish. Because a counter insurgency effort is really about winning hearts and minds and palehorse74 is about as useful as Charles Granger and Lindie England put together.
Simple question: Is it even allowable for a General in uniform to disagree with the President in public?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
who cares wtf the report is called?! The production of said report has always been laid out in a law written and passed by Congress. It's not Bush's fault that some people were too dumb to figure that out.
not at the moment.. i'm actually enjoying a nice beach vacation.. WOOHOO! But, I've been to both, and will go back again sometime in early '08 for another 6-9 months. I also work the WOT as a civilian back in the States, and elsewhere.
As usual, you ignored the entire point. Stop obsessing with 2003 and hanging Bush and try to actually contribute something meaningful that may impact the here and now; or, better yet, the future... We have a crisis to solve, and your rants against Bush for the initial invasion are nothing more than verbal diarrhea that contribute nothing to the discussion of current events.
I know it's extra tough for you, as you cannot get through one thread without shouting "He lied and our soldiers died! WMD'S, OIL, AND HALIBURTON OMGWTF!!" But hey, give it your best shot... try to join us in 2007, a year in which none of those initial issues have any impact on solving the current problems in Iraq and elsewhere.
good luck with that.
Why is it sig-worthy? Terrorism is a tactic, not some type of enemy. I'm sure we lose tens of thousands of people to the tactic of terrorism every year but people see it through different lens.
nick1985
Lifer
- Dec 29, 2002
- 27,153
- 6
- 81
It is sig-worthy because losing over 1000 people a year to terrorists is a major issue. Hell, losing 1 to those nuts is 1 to many. To sit back and allow terrorists to kill us at will (as long as its not over 1k a year) is crazy. Im sure you disagree though Narmer...
edit
I forgot to mention his ignorant comment where he nicely generalizes all service men and women as killing muslims as a "hobby"
- Status
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter