The great Iraq debate has begun...

[Lemon law]

TLC---your original question was---Can yiou demonstrate that other administrations have not made changes to the military command structure during the course of a war? If you can then you may have a point.

Perhaps TLC you have a certain confusion between the word administration which implies US Presidents and the word Country which could mean any Country in the world. But its pleasant to see you remain an ever slippery and do not quit while behind.

But historically when wars are fought by other countries and the USA later joins them them thereby boosting them to victory, you often see the other countries play far more musical generals before than after the US joins.

Do you still want to keep playing open mouth insert foot TLC?

What next, other planets?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74
yes, it is disgusting.. but what's even worse is the majority here at P&N who probably agree with MoveOn's bullsh*t.

Maybe if he'd quit lying and cooking the books? Where are all these trained Iraqis he claims we had, why are they still saying, after over 4 years that they need another 12 to 18 months to train them?

What is the proper term for people who keep lying to us while it cost the American people their lives and money? Shill just doesn't seem strong enough?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Calling people traitors is something Republicans made popular.

Actually they're the only ones using the word "traitor", they can't refute the facts so they're resorting back to their "swift boat" tactics to avoid talking about the issues, because if they did they would be shown for the fools they've been and still are.

See the ad for yourself:

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

No mention of traitor in that ad? Just the facts maam.... with links.

Apparently, attempting to tell the truth is all the reason needed for the right to attempt to label you as a traitor. Now if they could just expand that patriot act. :thumbsdown:

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

I try to use it only when it actually applies - those being when a citzen causes, or desires to cause, harm to the United States, or the government thereof.

Simple verbel dissent is not traitorous act.

Also, Betrayer != Traitor.

So, moveon.org may be a magnet for slimey pondscum, but perhaps they knew to stop short of calling the General a genuine traitor.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC---your original question was---Can yiou demonstrate that other administrations have not made changes to the military command structure during the course of a war? If you can then you may have a point.

Perhaps TLC you have a certain confusion between the word administration which implies US Presidents and the word Country which could mean any Country in the world. But its pleasant to see you remain an ever slippery and do not quit while behind.

But historically when wars are fought by other countries and the USA later joins them them thereby boosting them to victory, you often see the other countries play far more musical generals before than after the US joins.

Do you still want to keep playing open mouth insert foot TLC?

What next, other planets?

And here we have LL defining what is, is. Hilarious.

btw, are you asking me to remove my foot from your mouth? I find it kind of comfortable there.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

I hope you don't hurt yourself doing all that backpedaling...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Petraeus has no good news from Iraq then what is the anti-war crowd all in a dizzy tizzy about concerning his report? Why are they already working so hard to discount anything and everything he might say as neocon propaganda?

Sheesh. The willfull blindness by some in here is absolutely staggering in its proportions. And people wonder why the anti-war types are called swamp-fevered and moonbats? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.

The only thing that is obvious is your distaste for irrelavant BS. MoveOn doesn't matter much/at all, all matters is reality; and reality is that this war is a failure and isn't "winnable" but any sane definition no matter how long the occupation continues and no matter the good intentions, and that this administration has been a failure on so many levels that it doesn't have ANY right to be trusted by the American people; socially (Katrina), economically (recession, job creation, rich/poor divide), and diplomatically (Iraq).

Well now, you certainly get my vote for the Defeatist of the Year Award; However, there are a few congressman and women who might take the prize from you, so be careful!

Then again, in order to win the award, you're going to have to convince yourself that there is no way in hell that you can actually win the award... oh, what a conundrum!

good times...

I'd like to say that was funny, but I'd be lying. Instead, I'll continue to believe what history has born out and what sense tells anyone. But in the end, I'm not, after all, some fake Middle East SME pretending to be soldier on a computer hardware forum.

 

[Craig234]

The Moveon ad does an outstanding job of showing the lies of the right. That's what democracy is about - when the people in power lie, the lies are exposed.

The right, here, responds by lying again, this time about the Moveon ad.

Confronted with the lie, they squirm and slither, not admitting the lie, but rather with a phrase such as 'perhaps they knew to stop short of calling the General a genuine traitor.'

So, let's see how this goes. Let's say I accuse Palehorse of calling Hillary Clinton a crack dealer. He then quotes his post and shows he did not say it. I then say 'perhaps he knew to stop short of calling her a genuine crack dealer', and pretend I did not just admit any error. Now, that's debate for you.

One question for the right who whines about the left calling this the 'Bush report', not the 'Petraeus report': did the White House write the report, or did Petraeus write it?

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The Moveon ad does an outstanding job of showing the lies of the right. That's what democracy is about - when the people in power lie, the lies are exposed.

The right, here, responds by lying again, this time about the Moveon ad.

Confronted with the lie, they squirm and slither, not admitting the lie, but rather with a phrase such as 'perhaps they knew to stop short of calling the General a genuine traitor.'

So, let's see how this goes. Let's say I accuse Palehorse of calling Hillary Clinton a crack dealer. He then quotes his post and shows he did not say it. I then say 'perhaps he knew to stop short of calling her a genuine crack dealer', and pretend I did not just admit any error. Now, that's debate for you.

One question for the right who whines about the left calling this the 'Bush report', not the 'Petraeus report': did the White House write the report, or did Petraeus write it?

Patraeus did say this:

Rebutting charges that he was merely doing the White House's bidding, he said firmly, "I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by nor shared with anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

I hope you don't hurt yourself doing all that backpedaling...

It isn't me doing any back pedaling, it's you still attempting to put words in my mouth to define what you THINK I said. You might want to brush up on mind reading 101.

Truth is I could care less what happens to GWB. He could die tommorrow or he can lead a long and worthless existenance for all I give a shit about him. He's as worthless as.... well, frankly you. All hat and no cattle.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

I hope you don't hurt yourself doing all that backpedaling...

It isn't me doing any back pedaling, it's you still attempting to put words in my mouth to define what you THINK I said. You might want to brush up on mind reading 101.

Truth is I could care less what happens to GWB. He could die tommorrow or he can lead a long and worthless existenance for all I give a shit about him. He's as worthless as.... well, frankly you. All hat and no cattle.

I'd accuse you of knowing better and playing dumb, but we both know that you're not just playing.

 

[piasabird]

However, the term "Surrender Monkey" is perfectly acceptable!

I might choose to argue if I could actually see the report.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

I hope you don't hurt yourself doing all that backpedaling...

It isn't me doing any back pedaling, it's you still attempting to put words in my mouth to define what you THINK I said. You might want to brush up on mind reading 101.

Truth is I could care less what happens to GWB. He could die tommorrow or he can lead a long and worthless existenance for all I give a shit about him. He's as worthless as.... well, frankly you. All hat and no cattle.

I'd accuse you of knowing better and playing dumb, but we both know that you're not just playing.

More mindreading? I guess my bolded quote was too deep for you to understand without resorting to pulling crap out of thin air.... again. Handy talent to be able to hear what you want right out of thin air. It must come in handy at parties... or with the ladies. ROFLMAO!

Face it Palehorse, you got nothing but a dislike for me and a political agenda to discredit my joke as something more then what it was. Your a bottom feeding swift-boater in my book.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Clarification: You are not a traitor for simply disagreeing with the President - rather, you, specifically, are a traitor because you wished harm on a US president. You basically encouraged or hoped for his murder.

I'm also pretty damn sure that neither party has a lock on the term "traitor." It's thrown around, too frequently perhaps, by people of every political alignment.

If he had actually been in any real danger then maybe.... maybe you'd have a point, but he wasn't in any danger. Lord knows he wouldn't acutally go someplace truly dangerous.

You also know it was a joke, but being the drama queen, swift boat wannabe that you are you choose to ignore it in order to try and excuse a personal attak on me, so you can fuck off as far as I'm concerned. You and I will never have a civil discourse again.

You were, still are, and probably always will be a nancy boy drama queen. Buh bye SFB.

I hope you don't hurt yourself doing all that backpedaling...

It isn't me doing any back pedaling, it's you still attempting to put words in my mouth to define what you THINK I said. You might want to brush up on mind reading 101.

Truth is I could care less what happens to GWB. He could die tommorrow or he can lead a long and worthless existenance for all I give a shit about him. He's as worthless as.... well, frankly you. All hat and no cattle.

I'd accuse you of knowing better and playing dumb, but we both know that you're not just playing.

More mindreading? I guess my bolded quote was too deep for you to understand without resorting to pulling crap out of thin air.... again. Handy talent to be able to hear what you want right out of thin air. It must come in handy at parties... or with the ladies. ROFLMAO!

Face it Palehorse, you got nothing but a dislike for me and a political agenda to discredit my joke as something more then what it was. Your a bottom feeding swift-boater in my book.

Your original statement was not a joke; and, if it was, it was not funny - at all. We both know exactly what you meant by "get lucky," and we both know that it was a traitorous comment.

now, kindly go screw.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

now, kindly go screw.

I have been, was it as good for you as it was for me?

 

[Pabster]

How about we cut the petty personal attacks and bickering and get back to the topic at hand?

The Petraeus Report is now out. I will say that I was impressed with his demeanor and ability to stay calm under fire, particularly given the attempts by one side of the aisle to attack this man's credibility and integrity. Disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If Petraeus has no good news from Iraq then what is the anti-war crowd all in a dizzy tizzy about concerning his report? Why are they already working so hard to discount anything and everything he might say as neocon propaganda?

Sheesh. The willfull blindness by some in here is absolutely staggering in its proportions. And people wonder why the anti-war types are called swamp-fevered and moonbats? The answer to that question is painfully obvious.

How many leading Generals has Bush switched over the years of this war? Is it because they speak critically of the failures of this admin and so bye bye they go?

Bush is trying to politicize the military to fit the PNAC Design

Can yiou demonstrate that other administrations have not made changes to the military command structure during the course of a war? If you can then you may have a point.

Can you point out where in the modern history of war that politicians dictating the field of battle has actually worked?

I can highlight some major examples of where politicians dictating the rules of war despite strong military dis-approval has failed.

1. WW2 - Hitler dictating that Stalingrad *had* to be taken, focusing their power there and eliminating their biggest advantage, speed. The symbolic focus bogged down the war and essentially lost it for Hitler. He might have lost either way, but this definitely harmed the efforts significantly.

2. Post WW2, when we had the armies in place to go after the Soviets, we did not. This lead to pretty much every post-WW2 conflict, including Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and helped in the current situation in the ME.

3. N. Korea. Had we not been so timid about going after N. Korea and also putting full weight behind going after China, things might have been drastically different. Again, the military was limited by politicians.

4. Vietnam. Classic textbook case of limiting military efforts through political means. This conflict probably wouldn't have even happened had it not been for our timidity post-WW2. Despite that, the political nature of target choosing and the shackles of not winning a war as opposed to not losing it cause this quagmire.

5. GW1. I agree with the rationale behind not going after Saddam, it wouldn't have been prudent at that juncture (hah).

6. GW2. Instead of following our Generals, Bush/Rummy/Cheney decided we didn't need 2x the forces, which the Generals said were essential for victory. We went in with a faction of what they said, instead of overwhelming and smothering, we bypassed, dodged, and allowed pockets of resistance to fester into gangreen. We ignored history in not going after the Fadayeen, which required bypassing Baghdad for a few days. Had we done that we would have ripped the core out of the most fanatical portion of Saddam's army, which later became the core of the insurgents. Instead, much like Stalingrad, politicians wanted the symbolic victory, driving straight to Baghdad. This effect was multipled by our ineffectual protection of key military supply dumps, we again went after symbolic victories rather than protecting these key sites. We compounded this mistake by dismissing the entire Iraqi army, which then bolstered the insurgency which already had thousands of tons of weapons from the above sites. Then, instead of smothering the resistance there and co-opting the Iraqis, we pissed them off more by creating problems with private contractors, who were not answerable to the CMJ or any Iraqi Law, thanks to Bremer and his lackeys who were there to just pilfer Iraq.

You see, the military is to be used when politicians have failed. It is not to be limited afterwards except for strategic levels at the 10k foot view. Tactical levels and theater strategic issues should be left to theater commanders.

Every time a political leader attempts to control theater strategy and tactical strategy, the effort fails. Failure to learn from history in this matter results in repeating it.

Patraeus will probably do what every general after Shinseki did, waffle.

Politicians didn't interfere much in the past when we just went in and carpet bombed entire areas. Unfortunately, post-WW2, the left weeaseled their way into war tactics so we could employ the Rules of Engagement by Hoyle. No longer was carpet bombing acceptable. Broad attacks were spurned for attempted pin-point accuracy instead. We tied our hands in the name of fighting a kinder, gentler war.

btw, who was it that preveted the US from going into NK? iirc it was one of the greatest US generals of the 20th century who also served as President for 2 terms. Damn him for interfering in military action. What does he know about war? :roll:

We didn't tie our hands for kinder/gentler war in NK nor Vietnam, that's complete bullspit. When it came to the rules of engagement we didn't go after the right targets because we didn't want to piss the chinese off, or other political items. When it came to attacking specific sectors, specific targets in Hanoi, or going after SAM sites or aircraft bases, it was all pussy-footing around China and other political crap. The symbolic nature of many of these micro-managed items massively reduced the armed forces ability to carry out a strategic and successful war.

By the time Eisenhower came into power Truman had already f'd up the situation, especially by not listening to McArthur in many cases (although I agree with the non-usage of nukes). Eisenhower whimped out though and he was a consummate politician first and a good military general second. That's why he was allied supreme commander, not because he was a superior general. However, he was also a person who sought peace over war in many cases. When it comes to NK he saw a losing situation at that point and decided to seek an ending. However, you can be assured that if he were in a superior position it would not have resulted in the same scenario. Lastly, if we were, Ike was such a general and president that he realistically would have trusted his ground commanders with best practices.

:thumbsup:

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How about we cut the petty personal attacks and bickering and get back to the topic at hand?

The Petraeus Report is now out. I will say that I was impressed with his demeanor and ability to stay calm under fire, particularly given the attempts by one side of the aisle to attack this man's credibility and integrity. Disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

(1)- Iraq is an utter mess. Fix one problem, two new ones pop up (usually including one that was previously fixed for a period of time). It's about as 'winnable' as Vietnam was.

(2)- Petraeus has seen other Generals come and go because they didn't tote the party line on Iraq propaganda, do you think he's not smart enough to go along instead of get canned? If Bush fires him, he'll look like an idiot. If he stays on until the next admin removes him, then he'll look like he stuck to his guns. Which do you think he'd prefer? I'm fairly sure he'll say anything the administration wants him to.

(3)- As far as 'one side of the Aisle', what of Chuck Hagel's comments on Iraq? He's a real conservative (check his record on ontheissues.org), and he thinks it's a farce all the way.

On the surge

"There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be. And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us. That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country."

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
(1)- Iraq is an utter mess. Fix one problem, two new ones pop up (usually including one that was previously fixed for a period of time). It's about as 'winnable' as Vietnam was.

Perhaps I missed a few items, but I see a whole lot of positive statistics. The comparison to Vietnam is (IMHO) bunk. There's no reason to make the same mistake twice.

(2)- Petraeus has seen other Generals come and go because they didn't tote the party line on Iraq propaganda, do you think he's not smart enough to go along instead of get canned? If Bush fires him, he'll look like an idiot. If he stays on until the next admin removes him, then he'll look like he stuck to his guns. Which do you think he'd prefer? I'm fairly sure he'll say anything the administration wants him to.

What I do know is that Petraeus is a 4-star general. I'll take his word on how the situation on the ground is progressing over the political ambitions and grandstanding of Washington Politicians. And I also know that the attacks against him - personal attacks questioning his credibility and integrity - are absolutely despicable.

(3)- As far as 'one side of the Aisle', what of Chuck Hagel's comments on Iraq? He's a real conservative (check his record on ontheissues.org), and he thinks it's a farce all the way.

Chuck is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster
How about we cut the petty personal attacks and bickering and get back to the topic at hand?

The Petraeus Report is now out. I will say that I was impressed with his demeanor and ability to stay calm under fire, particularly given the attempts by one side of the aisle to attack this man's credibility and integrity. Disgusting. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Well Pabster somewhat gets to the heart of the matter by saying the fool stayed cool. Which may be a shameful bit of political counter spin that is admittedly as bogus as everything else.

When can we get past the fact that political spin is useless because it only sheds heat and not light, and that we have to confront the tough decisions in Iraq.

And step one is discarding political spin and step two is honesty. Once we do that we may get to a point where we can make the bi-partisan commitments its going to take to solve Iraq.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Arkaign
(1)- Iraq is an utter mess. Fix one problem, two new ones pop up (usually including one that was previously fixed for a period of time). It's about as 'winnable' as Vietnam was.

Perhaps I missed a few items, but I see a whole lot of positive statistics. The comparison to Vietnam is (IMHO) bunk. There's no reason to make the same mistake twice.

(2)- Petraeus has seen other Generals come and go because they didn't tote the party line on Iraq propaganda, do you think he's not smart enough to go along instead of get canned? If Bush fires him, he'll look like an idiot. If he stays on until the next admin removes him, then he'll look like he stuck to his guns. Which do you think he'd prefer? I'm fairly sure he'll say anything the administration wants him to.

What I do know is that Petraeus is a 4-star general. I'll take his word on how the situation on the ground is progressing over the political ambitions and grandstanding of Washington Politicians. And I also know that the attacks against him - personal attacks questioning his credibility and integrity - are absolutely despicable.

(3)- As far as 'one side of the Aisle', what of Chuck Hagel's comments on Iraq? He's a real conservative (check his record on ontheissues.org), and he thinks it's a farce all the way.

Chuck is entitled to his opinion.

What about all the previous highly ranked Generals who have publicly said that Iraq is a hopeless mess? What of Shinseki's troop estimates for stabilizing Iraq so that it wouldn't descend into total chaos? It seems you only pick the General currently toting the Admin party line on this.

Mark my words : Iraq will be a horrible mess 1 year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now. The question is how many more American soldiers are sacrificed for that insanity.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupidity. I say finish the job in Afghanistan, work on SpecOps in Pakistan, and let Iraq settle itself. Without the Americans holding the line and being a focal point of that huge well of bottomless hate & anger, let them find another strongman to put the bootheel down, it's all they understand : unbridled power/authoritarianism. In the Muslim world, they only fully respect complete brutality. They will never, ever respect us.

As far as 'political ambitions and grandstanding', that's a succinct way of summarizing the whole Iraqi debacle, from before the invasion to now. Only it's the Reps blathering on about endless garbage and lies that is the high-point of that definition as far as I'm concerned. We'll be greeted as liberators (for about a week), we're going to find WMDs (hmm, where are they five years on?), the insurgency is in it's last throes (still working on that?), they want Democracy (the factions all still want to kill each other and rule supreme, AFAIK, and probably always will). Etc, etc, etc.

 

[First]

ABC News

Forty-seven percent of Iraqis now favor an immediate pullout of U.S. troops, according to the poll co-sponsored by BBC News and NHK-Japan, and conducted face to face in more than 2,200 households across Iraq.

Many Iraqis said they do not believe their security has improved. In fact, 65 percent to 70 percent of Iraqis said the surge actually has made things worse.

The poll also found Iraqis are losing confidence in their own national government. Most said the living conditions are worse now than before the war.

Iraqis themselves, while not necessarily more attune to the overall effects of the surge than other U.S. officials with the training to make said analysis, agree from anywhere between 47% and 70% of the population that essentially nothing has changed or gotten worse. That's not progress, it's failure.

 

[conehead433]

Plans are in the works for a US military base on the Iraq/Iran border supposedly for the purpose of stopping weapons and suicide bombers coming into Iraq from Iran. In other words we're putting up a base there to be able to quickly strike targets within Iran. So I guess we'll be bringing democracy to yet another country in the near future. Heil Dubya!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
What about all the previous highly ranked Generals who have publicly said that Iraq is a hopeless mess? What of Shinseki's troop estimates for stabilizing Iraq so that it wouldn't descend into total chaos? It seems you only pick the General currently toting the Admin party line on this.

Everyone is untitled to their opinion. I don't recall questioning the character or integrity of any previous General. It is also quite possible to disagree with Petraeus without labeling him a traitor, or using phrases in that connotation.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupidity. I say finish the job in Afghanistan, work on SpecOps in Pakistan, and let Iraq settle itself. Without the Americans holding the line and being a focal point of that huge well of bottomless hate & anger, let them find another strongman to put the bootheel down, it's all they understand : unbridled power/authoritarianism. In the Muslim world, they only fully respect complete brutality. They will never, ever respect us.

My question to you is this: How many American [civilian] deaths shall be acceptable? If we cut and run, the enemy isn't going to disappear. The difference will be only the battlefield.

As far as 'political ambitions and grandstanding', that's a succinct way of summarizing the whole Iraqi debacle, from before the invasion to now. Only it's the Reps blathering on about endless garbage and lies that is the high-point of that definition as far as I'm concerned. We'll be greeted as liberators (for about a week), we're going to find WMDs (hmm, where are they five years on?), the insurgency is in it's last throes (still working on that?), they want Democracy (the factions all still want to kill each other and rule supreme, AFAIK, and probably always will). Etc, etc, etc.

For every statement you reference, I can find a similar one from a ranking Democrat at the same time. Are you willing to ascribe the same standard to their follies?

I think the time has long passed to be debating the reasoning (or lack of it) for going in to Iraq. We are there now, and (IMHO) it is our responsibility to finish the job. We can't put an artificial timetable or restriction on that.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Plans are in the works for a US military base on the Iraq/Iran border supposedly for the purpose of stopping weapons and suicide bombers coming into Iraq from Iran. In other words we're putting up a base there to be able to quickly strike targets within Iran. So I guess we'll be bringing democracy to yet another country in the near future. Heil Dubya!

source?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Arkaign
What about all the previous highly ranked Generals who have publicly said that Iraq is a hopeless mess? What of Shinseki's troop estimates for stabilizing Iraq so that it wouldn't descend into total chaos? It seems you only pick the General currently toting the Admin party line on this.

Everyone is untitled to their opinion. I don't recall questioning the character or integrity of any previous General. It is also quite possible to disagree with Petraeus without labeling him a traitor, or using phrases in that connotation.

I didn't label him a traitor, but I would call him committed enough to his career that he wouldn't sacrifice himself by saying things that Bush wouldn't accept.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-stupidity. I say finish the job in Afghanistan, work on SpecOps in Pakistan, and let Iraq settle itself. Without the Americans holding the line and being a focal point of that huge well of bottomless hate & anger, let them find another strongman to put the bootheel down, it's all they understand : unbridled power/authoritarianism. In the Muslim world, they only fully respect complete brutality. They will never, ever respect us.

My question to you is this: How many American [civilian] deaths shall be acceptable? If we cut and run, the enemy isn't going to disappear. The difference will be only the battlefield.

That's a BS statement. Zero. If we leave Iraq, they're not going to be capable of sending any threats our way. Iraq is not worth it. Btw, LBJ (worthless Dem POS) said the same thing about Vietnam, but where were the Vietnamese invaders after that (besides the boat people)? That's just hot empty rhetoric. Btw, the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were mainly Saudis supported by a regime in Afghanistan. Why aren't we in Saudi Arabia? Btw, when we do leave Iraq, the Iraqis will be plenty busy with each other, they're not going to be sending nukes, aircraft carriers, or cruise missiles at us. And we can use some of the money we save by ending that war on increasing our border security, no?

As far as 'political ambitions and grandstanding', that's a succinct way of summarizing the whole Iraqi debacle, from before the invasion to now. Only it's the Reps blathering on about endless garbage and lies that is the high-point of that definition as far as I'm concerned. We'll be greeted as liberators (for about a week), we're going to find WMDs (hmm, where are they five years on?), the insurgency is in it's last throes (still working on that?), they want Democracy (the factions all still want to kill each other and rule supreme, AFAIK, and probably always will). Etc, etc, etc.

For every statement you reference, I can find a similar one from a ranking Democrat at the same time. Are you willing to ascribe the same standard to their follies?

Anyone who says something retarded about Iraq deserves to be called on it. Hillary Clinton is very high on that list, and I call her on her BS. Very few politicians have any morals whatsoever. Sadly, we're losing Hagel. There are few intelligent and true conservatives left, and the Dems have yet to impress me with a capable leader.

I think the time has long passed to be debating the reasoning (or lack of it) for going in to Iraq. We are there now, and (IMHO) it is our responsibility to finish the job. We can't put an artificial timetable or restriction on that.

The point is, it's not winnable on such stupid terms as 'peaceful democracy established'. The obstacle isn't us, it's the very fabric of their society, and the sects that have hated each other for centuries before we appeared on the scene. Our artificial standards will not be applicable to their country, not now, and probably not for decades to come. The idea of 'finish the job' is a nice one, but I don't think it's worth 1 US soldier's life, or 1 dollar of our money. They're simply not worth it.