I know exatly what and who Kirk is refering to and if your weren't such a kool-aid drinking phoney you'd realize it too.
I know exatly what and who Kirk is refering to and if your weren't such a kool-aid drinking phoney you'd realize it too.
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Fantastic, look at this item which backs up my idea from an Iraqi perspective :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
That is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. People on here make dubious claims to being in the military, and Kirk sees this based on their posting history. Now you're asking him to, in effect, stalk and investigate people just so he can prove that they're full of shit? How creepy is this?
Accusing someone of being a phony soldier isn't any more serious a claim then calling someone a phony for any other reason. And how can a claim be outlandish when you freely admit that it's true?
Back to Sanchez though, of COURSE it matters if Iraq was a mistake. Do you need any more reason for this then all the people agitating for a new war with Iran? I'm so sick of everyone trying to blame the media for their failures. When we invaded Iraq it wasn't because the people were too stupid to believe the horseshit that the administration was feeding them. When our invasion is a catastrophic failure it's because the media made everyone at home sad and Al-Qaeda happy. Screw that. It's because people thought we were going to kick ass and were excited about it, and now it's because we're stuck in a war we don't know how to win. You're responsible for your own decisions, and if people are too dumb to see through the BS, then they deserve what they get.
Strangely enough speaking of being in the military and the Iraq war, it was amazing how different my view of the war was then people at home. I deployed in November of '02, and so I missed the propaganda blitz by the administration, and was instead reading actual news and information off of message traffic. It's amazing how crazily people's opinions about Iraq changed in just a few months. I remember being the only person I knew who was pretty certain Saddam didn't have any WMD, and everyone called me a fool for thinking it. It just turns out that by being stuck out in the middle of the ocean I wasn't being bathed in trash 24/7.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
You seem to be forgetting the fact that every major Democrat candidate for President has also said that we could be in Iraq 5 years from now if they were elected.
It seems that the Democrats were hoping like hell that they could force a withdrawal of troops before Bush left office so they could blame anything that happened afterwards on him.
But since that seems unlikely now they are all starting to change their tune and agree that we will have to stay in Iraq for foreseeable future.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Totally wrong Non Prof John.
1. For now, Republican opposition and democratic division makes it impossible to do anything regarding Iraq at this time. So both Reid and Pelosi have opted to concentrate on other things while GWB continues to bungle Iraq all by himself.
2. At some future time the political climate will improve and more responsible Iraqi plans
can be developed on a non-Partisan basis. Meanwhile why bother wasting time trying to fight GWB&co and a totally lockstep GOP bound and determined to stay the bungling course in Iraq regardless of what the slogan or reality is. Once the GWB&co&GOP roadblock is removed, then RESPONSIBLE IRAQI PLANS BECOME POSSIBLE.
3. Most democrats have always felt that simple withdrawal from Iraq is totally irresponsible.
To imply that the democrats are simply the party of withdrawal or that GWB wins on this issue is simply not the case.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
None of them have stated that is a likelyhood, and all of them have publicly stated they would prefer to pull out much sooner. They bring up that number (though not specifically, as I'm sure you've exaggerated here) only because they don't know how much worse it'll be with the same failed policy a year from now. Perfectly reasonable given that Iraq has gotten worse since 4.5 years ago.
Things have gotten worse year by year in Iraq. There's really no arguing that had the administration not thought that less than 100,000 troops would suffice or not thought that they had to run Iraq themselves immediately after intial invasion, among many other blunders, we'd be able to pull out now like all the smart people had been saying for years. Now, we can still pull out, but it may take many more months thanks to a continued failed policy and failed surge.
And again, those saying that things will go all to hell if we leave, without giving ANY timeline as to when we should leave (as obviously we wouldn't stay there until the end of time I assume) are the same people that have made continuously disasterous predictions. Those people don't have any credibility anymore, so people don't take them seriously and it's why a supermajority of Americans either want immediate pullout or pullout in the immediate future.
The people Americans will take seriously (anywhere on any side of the aisle), however, are the retired generals with nothing to lose. And ALL of those generals who have come out publicly have not backed the administration's policy. An inconvenient fact for the neoconservatives that have highjacked and distorted true conservative values.
Thanks, Capt and thanks to your son for his service!
I agree with your post 100% - the keyboard commanders are little more than propagandists
offering obfuscation and personal attacks.
... the left are unpatriotic degenerates...
...expressing an opinion of dissent is unAmerican.....
BS! Remember **Nattering Nabobs of Negativity** ???. It fits these clowns and their personal attacks and lies. It's also an anagram for ""Fat Annoying Bitter Voting Base"" !!!
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
There have been a couple of "real" soldiers within the past couple of years who have been publicly profiled and applauded, at least initially, for their anti-war stance. The left just loves it when they come out with their stories of the atrocities they witnessed in Iraq. Two in particular come to mind - Jesse Macbeth and Scoot Thomas Beauchamp.
The problem is they were BOTH lying through their teeth.
So before you keep continuing with your rants about who is patriotic in regards to soldiers and who isn't, just keep that in mind. Even when they ARE real soldiers some with a left leaning slant have shown a propensity for being lying little twits. And we know how the lefties despise liars, don't we?
:roll:
The problem is they were BOTH lying through their teeth.
So before you keep continuing with your rants about who is patriotic in regards to soldiers and who isn't, just keep that in mind. Even when they ARE real soldiers some with a left leaning slant have shown a propensity for being lying little twits. And we know how the lefties despise liars, don't we?
:roll:
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Lemon and Evan, nice attempts to deflect what I said.
But you are both wrong. When specifically given a chance to declare that troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term the top three Democrat Presidential candidates all declined to make that pledge.
I guarantee you that within a few weeks of taking office a Democrat President will pull a Bill Clinton* and all of a sudden decide that it is important for us to stay in Iraq until the country is stable, even if that takes 4 more years.
*When talkng about breaking his Middle class tax cut promise Bill said ?I just didn?t know things were so bad.?
But you are both wrong. When specifically given a chance to declare that troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term the top three Democrat Presidential candidates all declined to make that pledge.
I guarantee you that within a few weeks of taking office a Democrat President will pull a Bill Clinton* and all of a sudden decide that it is important for us to stay in Iraq until the country is stable, even if that takes 4 more years.
*When talkng about breaking his Middle class tax cut promise Bill said ?I just didn?t know things were so bad.?
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
This is merely distractionary conjecture. There is no reason to believe this, and for good reason. Again, people will take retired generals more seriously and they'll continue to disapprove of an old, tired, and dangerous neoconservative agenda that this administration still adheres to.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Ding, ding, and chances are if an arson puts my house on fire I don't want him trying to put the flames out.
Oh, there is too much ownage there. It's like a treat bag stuffed with little bits of ownage.
Because this time it will be better, so much has been learned in Iraq that an attack on Iran would be flawless!
This is true. Even if Iraq turns around tomorrow and becomes a haven of democracy overnight, that won't change the obvious incompetence to date which resulted in billions lost and thousands of lives down the tubes.
Pathetic... if he saw it was failing the day he took command, why didn't he speak out sooner?
Looks like another general who was too busy focused on his career instead of doing whats right. Now that he has no career anymore, he comes out with this.
Looks like another general who was too busy focused on his career instead of doing whats right. Now that he has no career anymore, he comes out with this.
Why is it that republicans always think they can get away wit saying democrats are the same when it comes to their mistaken policies, but not the same if they did anything right?
PJ, for all your attempts to exploit the fact that the differences are merely substantive and not Manichean, do you deny that the democrats are less in favor of the Iraq war, and that they very likely would not have started it if they had gotten to the same point as Bush with the UN inspectors receiving 'adequate' cooperation and being within months of confirming that there were no WMD's? That the dems, just as they denied the request from the Bush administration members' request as private citizens while Clinton was president to invade Iraq, would have not had the 'PNAC' agenda that drove the desire for war for removing Saddam the way the republicans were so committed, private talking about it from day one of the Bush administration - just as the dems for years had an official policy calling for regime change but did not come close to seeing starting a war as a way to implement the change?
Do you deny the democrats have a much lesser inclination to start a war like Iraq than the republicans? And that the public might prefer their lesser desire for starting a war like Iraq?
(If you try to compare Iraq with Bosnia, it'll be amusing).
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Like many others - what he said fell on deaf ears. You cannot educat those who are unwilling to learn.
Does anyone have a running body-count on how many Carrer Officers have had their entire service record discarded
by Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Draft-Doging 'Know-It-Alls' ?
Sometimes no amount of telling whats actually going on is allowed to be relayed to the top.
There is an entire office of filtering in place to prevent things that don't want to be heard from reaching those who need to hear it.
There is also the willingness to hear and understand facts, instead of mocking those who state facts, or to assassinate their characters.
Bush & Company have never allowed dissention to be heard, shoot all the messengers.
The Bush administration politicizes the generals and undermines civilian authority (and therefore the public's) over the military by using the generals' opinions in the public policy debate, even while the generals' job is to *implement* policy and not challenge their civilian bosses.
Because the generals, for good reason, are not in a position to come out in the public debate arena and argue against the president, the president grabs the cheap political points available by pointing to the generals' 'agreement' with his policies, even while they are bound to do so since the military is under the civilian leadership and is supposed to 'do as they're told'.
Not that the military doesn't have opinions they express privately - as when they tried to push Kennedy into combat troops in Viet nam - but they don't come out in the public arena and try to undermine the president. Imagine MacArthur asking the public to side with him and not Truman over their differences, in effect putting the military at odds and in competition with the elected government. Very dangerous for democracy - but not a problem for he Bush administration who is happy to grab the political points.
The White Went so far as to use Patreaus as their spokesman to defend the war policy to congress and the public, when that should be done by civilian officials.
They pretended the 'Patraeus report' was something they would use to form policy, when they actually were writing it to say what they wanted, again exploiting the military.
At least the generals are saying something much of the time after leaving; it would be nice if they said, while on duty, something about their duty to follow orders rather than that they are expressing their personal opinions, as if we want the civilians leaders to be told 'no' by the military and to contradict them in the public forum, rather than merely to offer military advice for policymakers. No wonder the generals get tempted to throw out the middlemen clowns and take over countries sometimes.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Its somewhat also odd that Sanchez blames the bad PR of Abu Ghrab for his failure. Supposedly the papers authorizing torture passed through his office, but he seems very silent on the subject of exactly who authorized what. Methinks some congressional committees might loosen his tongue on the subject, but as a personal opinion, I think Cheney and Rummy were the rascals who were really behind authorizing most of the shenanigans at Abu Ghrab. And much of the role of independent contractors interrogators is also unknown.
Its nice to see another RETIRED GENERAL speak out, but this is more a teaser than a complete record.
Its nice to see another RETIRED GENERAL speak out, but this is more a teaser than a complete record.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter