Someone explain to me how this 'troop surge' is supposed to work.

[jackschmittusa]

Sadaam did not want to appear weak in the M.E.. He had no WMD, but playing games with the inspectors not only left his enemies in the M.E. think he might still have them, but he appeared to be tough enough to thumb his nose at the U.S..

He was a paper tiger, and his BSing around not only concealed it, but gave him a sort of street cred with his neighbors. Boasting and posturing has always had value in the cultures of the M.E..

He finally decided he could not keep the charade up any longer and gave the inspectors free access. But Bush pulled the plug on the inspectors by announcing war.

I think Bush knew that there were not likely to be any WMDs by this time and decided to jump the gun when the inspectors were about to prove it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Here is how this will be different...If I understand. (big if)

Remember up til 12-2003...the death count was 486. This included the invasion and the beginning of peacekeeping.

We were on offense.

In 2004 it was 848
In 2005 it was 846
In 2006 it was 824

So actually deaths have been declining since 2004, albeit not by much.

So with the surge, we blend Iraqi and US troops and go back on offense.
We are dropping the hammer and we are dropping the PC crap.

No matter what happens, and for future reference, a US Soldier is not a peace officer. They are a killing machine. Thats what they are paid to do.

Does anyone hear hope they fail?

Sounds like November is the deadline...if this isnt working, then its time for them all to come home.

 

[Lemon law]

I think I can explain why Saddam fostered the myth he did have WMD--and that being that he did not want everyone to know how dangerously weak Gulf war one left him.
Leaving him vulnerable to other countries and also vulnerable to being deposed by internal opposition. But dead men tell no tales so its a fact to say we will likely never know.
BTW---Kruschef did that same tough talking in the 1950's---while being totally unable to stop SAC---only after they basically invented the ICBM in the early 1960's did the Russians becomes a real nuclear threat.

In terms of the surge---lets talk in six months.-----------I will be very pleased to admit I am wrong IF IT WORKS.---but I see this as a rebranding of the same thing GWB&co. has been trying for the past 3.5 years----------how many are left that have ANY FAITH---and Faith that now is better labeled GULLIBILITY.

In terms of playing politics with the lives of our troops---we don't even know if the dems will stop Bush from using the surge.---so how are they playing politics now?

In terms of your mazda---with a possible wandkel engine---I would refer you to the EPA---but GWB has gutted the EPA.----and your car choice may explain your current gullability.
Some people never learn---once a fool---always a fool.---maybe you should try being born again.---try for a better brain next time.

 

[EXman]

:laugh:What are you 10 years old LoL

He finally decided he could not keep the charade up any longer and gave the inspectors free access. But Bush pulled the plug on the inspectors by announcing war.

There you go again spewing falsehoods as truth. That is simply not true and just saying it over and over doesn't make it so. And for you to say It's Bush's fault about my car is silly at best.

In terms of your mazda---with a possible wandkel engine---I would refer you to the EPA---but GWB has gutted the EPA.----and your car choice may explain your current gullability.
Some people never learn---once a fool---always a fool.---maybe you should try being born again.---try for a better brain next time.

ROOOOOAAAAAAR thanks for the laugh! :shocked::roll::shocked:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To EXman,

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts.

Fact----we should not have deposed Saddam in the way that we did because it resulted in over 600,000 additional people being killed.

umm next time you lecture on facts you should try to use some good ones yourself. NO ONE believes the 600,000 figure.
The true total is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000. A lot yes, but FAR short of 600,000.

Does it really even matter? Anything more than 1 is a statistic. Your heart doesn't bleed for those 50K-100K civilians killed anymore than it would for 600K.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On a side note: Can someone please tell me what the hell Saddam was doing by playing games with the inspectors if he truly did not have the weapons? This whole mess would have never happened if Saddam had cooperated with inspectors, and even Han Blix, the hero of the left, said "Why did they conduct themselves as they did throughout the '90s?" "Why deny access if you are not hiding something? What I am groping at now is whether pride was at the root of it."

It seems pretty obvious what he was doing, doesn't it? Saddam had many perceived enemies both inside and outside of Iraq. Saddam was a man who held onto power with an iron fist and through violence and fear. He wouldn't look so tough to Iran, to the Kurds, to the ME region if it was found that he had no chemical or biological weapon stockpiles. Conventional weapons are one thing, but nothing strikes fear into common folks like a possible chemical weapon attack on their village. It was a charade and one he had to keep up in order to retain power.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Martin
I really don't get it. Here is a graph of US troop levels since the start of the war. Currently there are a shade over 130k soldiers and Bush is proposing an extra 22k, which would bring the total to about 153k. But as you can see from this article, there were 153k troops there just over 1 year ago and they didn't exactly achieve victory, did they? Not only that, but there were 148k troops there this summer. How is restoring that number going to achieve or even change anything?

I have a hard time seeing how this can result in anything but failure.

There are way more Iraqi soldiers in uniform and properly trained now than a year ago.

Oh, no wonder they're getting to be so good at abductions, torture and murder. I wondered.

 

[kage69]

Let's just leave and honor our dead by turning yellow.

Spare me your image-obsessed tripe. Withdrawal does not correlate to cowardice, no matter how much you wish otherwise. How about we honor our living troops by not treating them as an expendable medium, instead of sacrificing them in action over our government's blunders and scheming? The dead would not want others to die just because they did, or at least I'd like to hope so.

Funny, I don't recall you getting all uppity about us scaling down in Afghanistan before the job was done - and unlike Iraq, we had a legitimate reason for going in. One I heartily approved of btw.

You know this is a volunteer army right?

Yes, I am quite aware. This is would be relevant if the military said to it's enlisted "Alright, who wants to volunteer to go to Iraq?"

And sometimes armies go to battle.

And you have a firm grasp on the obvious. Again, relevance?

Sometimes people even die

I bet you think you're actually being witty, right?

Die to protect freedoms you use as a punchline.

For someone so concerned with "punchlines," you throw around a lot of patronizing cliches yourself. What "punchline" were you referring to anyway? I guess this is to be expected though, you seem to be under the (faulty) impression that I'm ignorant of warfare and it's history, in addition to having an overall problem with war in general. Here's a hint for you: all wars are not created equal.

Yes, quite the patriot you are. The thought of holding this admin responsible for the unnecessary deaths of our enlisted is less appetizing than continuing to throw lives at the problem so we can save face.

Guess it must just piss you off to no end thinking about how we left Beirut and Somalia huh?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On a side note: Can someone please tell me what the hell Saddam was doing by playing games with the inspectors if he truly did not have the weapons? This whole mess would have never happened if Saddam had cooperated with inspectors, and even Han Blix, the hero of the left, said "Why did they conduct themselves as they did throughout the '90s?" "Why deny access if you are not hiding something? What I am groping at now is whether pride was at the root of it."

It seems pretty obvious what he was doing, doesn't it? Saddam had many perceived enemies both inside and outside of Iraq. Saddam was a man who held onto power with an iron fist and through violence and fear. He wouldn't look so tough to Iran, to the Kurds, to the ME region if it was found that he had no chemical or biological weapon stockpiles. Conventional weapons are one thing, but nothing strikes fear into common folks like a possible chemical weapon attack on their village. It was a charade and one he had to keep up in order to retain power.

So instead of blaming Bush for faulty intelligence we should be blaming Saddam for starting this whole charade?

While we are on this topic, what exactly happened to all the WMDs that Saddam had, supposedly got rid of, but no one can account for? I believe there are TONS of this stuff missing. Could it be that he buried it all in the desert, just like he buried the plans for his nuke in someone?s front yard? There are so many unanswered questions about the WMD and where they went, and we may never know the total story.

 

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So instead of blaming Bush for faulty intelligence we should be blaming Saddam for starting this whole charade?

NO! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest of these knuckle dragging neocons KNEW that the intel was faulty, and completely full of holes. Cheney visited the CIA and demanded that intelligence that fit their agenda be produced.

These scum bag liars knew they were lying, and they were going to war, to hell with the facts.

Bush lied to go to war, go read the years of proof for yourself at http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

 

[trenchfoot]

everyone knows that it's up to bush to save his own a$$ as no one else has the notion. the problem is, it's not his biggest concern. his biggest concern has already been taken care of.

he started this whole mess with a "plan" that had as its highest priority the enrichment of big oil interests and cheney's other business partners-in-crime. they saw huge profits at the end of the rainbow, with us taxpayers footing the whole bill. and, not only were there untold fortunes to be made by invading iraq (unlike invading afghanistan), rummy convinced bush that it could be done on the cheap, with hardly any losses in the way of personnel and materiel.

the deal was so sweet, it made ignoring the reality of it all that much easier. the fortunes to be made there was too much of a temptation to pass up.

they either created for themselves an opprtunity or the opportunity presented itself immediatly after 9-11 and they knew the "once-in-a-lifetime" combination of timing and circumstances had to be exploited at that precise time to cash in.

what does bush care at all that we're stuck in a quagmire that leaves no honorable way out. he's found himself in situations like that all his adult life. all he's waiting on is his end of term. everything else will take care of itself once he and his fellow rip-off artists are out of office.

heretofore, all he's had to do was walk away from his failures and have others clean up the mess after him, just like he's doing with the present fiasco he and his get-rich-quick buddies created.

as far as he's concerned, he's already accomplished his mission in grand fashion: make him, his family and friends much much richer. and what's even more hilarious to them is that they didn't have to use a penny of their own money to do it.

it's all on us, the troops who sacrificed life and limb and us taxpayers who are financing the whole freak'in mess. all of it, because bush and friends get to walk away from this whislting, hopping and skipping to the off-shore banks with their ill-gotten and well-hidden booty, leaving us with the bill.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: WiseOldDude
NO! Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and the rest of these knuckle dragging neocons KNEW that the intel was faulty, and completely full of holes. Cheney visited the CIA and demanded that intelligence that fit their agenda be produced.

These scum bag liars knew they were lying, and they were going to war, to hell with the facts.

Bush lied to go to war, go read the years of proof for yourself at http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

So you are saying that Clinton also lied when he talked about WMD?

May not sound serious, but imagine if Clinton had never talked about Iraq and WMD etc. It would have been far harder for Bush to convince the country that Iraq was still a threat with its WMD. The fact that Clinton, who as President had access to the same intelligence came to the EXACT same conclusions speaks volumes about what happened.

The fact that Bush was saying the EXACT same thing that Clinton had said certainly gave Bush credibility. If Clinton and the dozens of other Democrats had not made statements similar to Bush?s there is no way that Bush could have convinced the country that Iraq was a threat to us.

Clinton-"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."

Bush-"The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror? It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.

John Kerry- ?When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region.?

George Bush- "We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."

So I ask again, was Clinton lying when he made his statements about Iraq and WMD in 1998?

Clinton quote
Kerry quote
Bush quotes

 

[Lemon law]

To Non-Prof John,

Once more your revisionist history must be debunked---with the basis being pure politics.---that all concede both parties play. Its no different than kids on some playground ganging up
and called the unpopular kid names---as each vie---and sorry to use the politically incorrect term---as each vie to out ****** bash the other. Its always good politics if you deny the
the people you bash any vote.---and who is fool enough to think there was much of a pro-Saddam lobby in the USA---so name calling is free of negative consequence.

Its quite another thing---aka--Lord of the Flies to then translate that name calling into an actual physical attack. George H. Bush refrained---Clinton refrained---Kerry on the record only granted partial permission on the grounds he felt he should not limit the Presidents options in negotiations.---and foolishly assumed GWB was rational.

Leaving GWB as the only savage Lord of the Flies poster child to actually jump from political pandering rhetoric to an all out attack---and as the facts later come out---there is already a damning case to be made that GWB knew at the time the intel was not true---and we don't know a 1/4 of it yet.---with the key operative term being YET.

So here we are almost four years later, the average Iraqi is infinitely worse off than under Saddam, we know GWB&co. can't plan their way out of a paper bag, we are stuck with a turkey, and now GWB wants more of the same plus 10%.

Only GWB could could cast the USA into a pit where Saddam looks good by comparison.

Do you have any more ill thought out revisionist history that needs debunked non-Prof John?

 

[JD50]

To Non-Lemon Law

How is it "revisionist history" when you are actually quoting something that someone said? Are you saying that ProfJohn made up those quotes?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Do you have any more revisionist history that needs debunked non-Prof John?

Non-lemon law... you have yet to 'debunk' anything. All you did was post a bunch of gibberish in attempt to explain away the facts.

What?s that old lawyers saying?
When the facts are on your side argue the facts,
When the fact are not on your side argue the law.

I think you just argued the law, now do you have any facts to argue?

And you still did not answer the main question.
Was Bill Clinton lying when he said ?the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists??

 

[Lemon law]

No JD50---only GWB translated political pandering into ill conceived action.---I may not like non-Prof John and his morally bankrupt thoughts---but I sure don't advocate murdering him.
Much less actually doing the necessary spying to track down his lair and committing murder .--or having the the taxpayers do the job either.

Hope that explains it to you.

Talk is cheap---action is real.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: JD50
To Non-Lemon Law

How is it "revisionist history" when you are actually quoting something that someone said? Are you saying that ProfJohn made up those quotes?

Drink the Libby Peace love Coolaid It makes perfect sence!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No JD50---only GWB translated political pandering into ill conceived action.---I may not like non-Prof John and his morally bankrupt thoughts---but I sure don't advocate murdering him.
Much less actually doing the necessary spying to track down his lair and committing murder .--or having the the taxpayers do the job either.

Hope that explains it to you.

Talk is cheap---action is real.

You are still dancing around the issue. You claim that GWB lied when he said that Iraq had WMDs, ProfJohn gave you some quotes that shows that the previous administration believed the same thing. So, was Clinton lying as well?

 

[Lemon law]

Non-Prof-John---Hope it explains it to you also---ever hear of sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.?

As someone who claims to be an attorney--you know a threat damages a suspect---but without doing the dirty deed---they are innocent of a murder---that in this case only GWB committed by marrying threat to action.

 

[JD50]

Non-Lemon Law

I'll make it easy for you and all the anti-Bushwackos,

GWB said that Iraq had WMDs, he was lying

Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs, he was ?

 

[Lemon law]

I will make it easy for you JD50---who asks---Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs, he was ?

Some what unsure and engaging in political pandering---but at least Clinton was rational enough to not translate mere suspicion into an invasion and subsequent occupation when he was also RATIONAL enough to know Saddam was already like a bug impaled on a pin---almost totally unable to do much of anything but flail his legs and bleat because of the UN sanctions.

And BTW, who the hell expedited Saddam getting WMD back when he was out man in the mid-east?---I will give a few clues---last name begins with R---recently got fired--morally bankrupt.---a serial liar---GWB cabinet member in adm one and two.---widely blamed for the failure of the occupation.

But we also had much intel Saddam per surrender terms did indeed destroy the WMD in the early 1990's.---we will know more about what GWB knew at the time shortly before the invasion at some future date with more certainty.-------are you waiting for the total smoking gun that PROVES IT--or do you remain stuck on stupid---grasping at straws---unable to connect the dots--in the vain hope that history will somehow vindicate GWB?

Get a clue---others engaged in shameless political pandering---only GWB ACTED unjustifiably---and therein lies the difference.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No JD50---only GWB translated political pandering into ill conceived action.---I may not like non-Prof John and his morally bankrupt thoughts---but I sure don't advocate murdering him.
Much less actually doing the necessary spying to track down his lair and committing murder .--or having the the taxpayers do the job either.

Hope that explains it to you.

Talk is cheap---action is real.

You are still dancing around the issue. You claim that GWB lied when he said that Iraq had WMDs, ProfJohn gave you some quotes that shows that the previous administration believed the same thing. So, was Clinton lying as well?

Christ on a stick.

How many times are you brain-dead automatons going to beat this horse skeleton?

That crap's been shot down more times than a nerd at a supermodel convention.

I can't believe anyone with the mental and physical capacity of typing on a computer would even begin to consider intelligence from 1998 as justification for invading a country 5 years later.

Then again, I guess that's why Bush still has a 32% approval rating. The brain-dead are just too numerous in this country.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I will make it easy for you JD50---who asks---Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs, he was ?

Some what unsure and engaging in political pandering---but at least Clinton was rational enough to not translate mere suspicion into an invasion and subsequent occupation when he was also RATIONAL enough to know Saddam was already like a bug impaled on a pin---almost totally unable to do much of anything but flail his legs and bleat because of the UN sanctions.

And BTW, who the hell expedited Saddam getting WMD back when he was out man in the mid-east?---I will give a few clues---last name begins with R---recently got fired--morally bankrupt.---a serial liar---GWB cabinet member in adm one and two.---widely blamed for the failure of the occupation.

But we also had much intel Saddam per surrender terms did indeed destroy the WMD in the early 1990's.---we will know more about what GWB knew at the time shortly before the invasion at some future date with more certainty.-------are you waiting for the total smoking gun that PROVES IT--or do you remain stuck on stupid---grasping at straws---unable to connect the dots--in the vain hope that history will somehow vindicate GWB?

Get a clue---others engaged in shameless political pandering---only GWB ACTED unjustifiably---and therein lies the difference.

Once again, you are dancing around the issue. Clinton and GWB both thought that Iraq had WMDs, but GWB is the only one that was lying? I am trying to get into an argument about the Iraq war, if they had WMDs, etc.. I am just wondering why GWB is considered a liar and Clinton is not.

This is not about the fact that GWB acted on it and Clinton did not, they both thought that Iraq had WMDs. Was Clinton lying?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No JD50---only GWB translated political pandering into ill conceived action.---I may not like non-Prof John and his morally bankrupt thoughts---but I sure don't advocate murdering him.
Much less actually doing the necessary spying to track down his lair and committing murder .--or having the the taxpayers do the job either.

Hope that explains it to you.

Talk is cheap---action is real.

You are still dancing around the issue. You claim that GWB lied when he said that Iraq had WMDs, ProfJohn gave you some quotes that shows that the previous administration believed the same thing. So, was Clinton lying as well?

Christ on a stick.

How many times are you brain-dead automatons going to beat this horse skeleton?

That crap's been shot down more times than a nerd at a supermodel convention.

I can't believe anyone with the mental and physical capacity of typing on a computer would even begin to consider intelligence from 1998 as justification for invading a country 5 years later.

Then again, I guess that's why Bush still has a 32% approval rating. The brain-dead are just too numerous in this country.

At least Lemon Law doesn't sink down to personal attacks, he is at least capable of discussing an issue without calling people "brain-dead automatons". But go on, keep avoiding the debate and calling people names, I already know that you are a complete a$$hole so you can call me whatever you'd like.

 

[Lemon law]

Well at least Clinton never claimed Saddam was buying Uranium from Niger---after Bush's own CIA had told him and told him said intel was totally bogus. The only way it ever found it past CIA vetting and into the State the Union speech was that some total CIA rookie was on duty at the time.---for the record Bush had tried in previous speeches and the CIA did reject it in the vetting process. I will leave it to others to judge if you address the point and understand the difference between mere shameless political pandering and out and out war.

But for what its worth---I am definitely not too happy with Kerry or either Clinton. They should also pay that price of reckless words.--and I do not defend them for it. But GWB really screwed the pooch and his sin is of a far greater magnitude.