• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The new McCain Plan ad blasts him. And it would be hilarious if it weren't tragic.

For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
 
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
the saddest part is that some people still take moveon.org seriously... what a collection of kooks!
Click to expand...

True, though I think 'escalation' is a word that can apply to the families watching their loved ones being shipped off to that total and utter waste of money, lives, and time known as Iraq.

Moveon.org and freerepublic are both nutjob-magnets.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

you're absolutely correct in my opinion. it's not an escalation. but neither is it a "new plan". it's the same 'ol stay the course dead horse that bush has been flogging since the predicted parade of conquering heros down main street baghdad turned out to be as non-exsistent as bush's post-war planning was/is.

the only thing different about the dead horse is that the more bush flogs at it, the worse its stench becomes.

 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

It's also the media's word for it too.

Also it is an accurate term.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/escalation

1. an increase or rise, especially one to counteract a perceived discrepancy
2. a deliberate or premeditated increase in the violence or geographic scope of a conflict
Click to expand...

So there's nothing really wrong with the term escalation for sending in or escalating the amount of troops.

It really doesn't matter what you call it.
All of it means were sending more people.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

Sort of like the word for FUBAR in the conservative dictionary goes something like 'mission accomplished?'
 
Originally posted by::roll: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

:roll:

I would hope that everyone would look through the sensationalism of the war and try to look at the actual progress rather than nitpicking on words. With that said the only reason those opposed to the war have chosen the word "escalation" is because of what they grew up in. The vietnam generation is currently in the hotseat folks.
 
escalation is more accurate than surge. how does "surge" mean an increase in troops ?

Calling it a surge is an exercise in obfuscation. Why is that ok ? it's like shock and awe, propaganda.

On the other hand, the moveon ad is a distortion too. McCain wanted to do this, or more, a long time ago, which would have made more sense.

how come P&N has to be like talk radio, what's the point of trying to win points here ? There's no audience except us.


Tab-

What progress are you talking about ? I'm not attacking you, I want you to elaborate your point. Do you mean the elections, or something more recent ?

 
The Bush plan is to save Bagdad by destroying it.🙁 After the last civilians flee the fighting in the city, it will be declared a Victory, proof of the correctiveness of Neocon ethics. :brokenheart: (I really do need a greenfaced, gagging emoticon to express my feelings)
 
For the record--and according to Condi---its not an surge or escalation---its an augmentation.---these subtle wording clearly escape us lesser beings.

But I have a suggestion---lets send Condi over to Iraq so she can open up that dialog with terrorists on a one to one basis, Either she will baffle them with bullshit
or they will just blow the bitch away---either way it will be of no real consequence. She is no longer relevant and has nothing to offer.---and is best ignored.

As is McCain.------------some people never learn.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But I have a suggestion---lets send Condi over to Iraq so she can open up that dialog with terrorists on a one to one basis, Either she will baffle them with bullshit
or they will just blow the bitch away---either way it will be of no real consequence. She is no longer relevant and has nothing to offer.---and is best ignored.
Click to expand...
Did you just advocate for, or dismiss, the death of one of America's top leaders simply because you disagree with her policies? You think that's funny?!

you're disgusting.
 

My problem with McCain is that he supports illegal alien amnesty. It's too bad that MoveOn.org isn't saavy enough to realize that importing impoverished people is bad for the lower and middle classes.
 
Originally posted by: wizboy11
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

It's also the media's word for it too.

Also it is an accurate term.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/escalation

1. an increase or rise, especially one to counteract a perceived discrepancy
2. a deliberate or premeditated increase in the violence or geographic scope of a conflict
Click to expand...

So there's nothing really wrong with the term escalation for sending in or escalating the amount of troops.

It really doesn't matter what you call it.
All of it means were sending more people.
Click to expand...
i took that into account when i replied to ntdz's post.

your reasoning is logical. i agreed with ntdz in the sense that we've increased force levels similarly a few times, with no apparent improvement in conditions there. so, from a broader perspective, nothing's changed in that regard. if anything, it's going to get worse. worse.

edit - syntax

 
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
The Bush plan is to save Bagdad by destroying it.🙁 After the last civilians flee the fighting in the city, it will be declared a Victory, proof of the correctiveness of Neocon ethics. :brokenheart: (I really do need a greenfaced, gagging emoticon to express my feelings)
Click to expand...
No, you need an "I wish I had kneepads and my name was Monica" emoticon because you know this is your true feeling.

Anybody using the term "Neocon" is a terrorist.

How do you like stupid thrown back at you? :laugh:

 
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

My problem with McCain is that he supports illegal alien amnesty. It's too bad that MoveOn.org isn't saavy enough to realize that importing impoverished people is bad for the lower and middle classes.
Click to expand...
Why pick on poor people? Regardless of their status? They aren't taking away any jobs that Americans want. And if you are competing with an illegal for a dishwasher job then maybe you shouldn't be voting either.

I truly hate that people hate on other people that want to be Americans. This is a nation of immigrants. What gives you the right to crap on new immigrants? I am 12th generation American(that is way way back) and I still believe that people should be allowed to come freely into this country. You commies and NeoLib's can argue otherwise. 😛
 
Originally posted by: wizboy11
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
For some reason to me, escalation would refer more to expanding the war, IE - new terrain, remote locations not touched by US troops. Why does sending in more troops to help curb the current situation (may/may not work) become an "escalation" of hostilities.
Click to expand...

It's not escalation, it's just the liberals word for it.
Click to expand...

It's also the media's word for it too.

Also it is an accurate term.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/escalation

1. an increase or rise, especially one to counteract a perceived discrepancy
2. a deliberate or premeditated increase in the violence or geographic scope of a conflict
Click to expand...

So there's nothing really wrong with the term escalation for sending in or escalating the amount of troops.

It really doesn't matter what you call it.
All of it means were sending more people.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure it fits in the definition you just provided. I'm not sure than the increase in troops will lead to more violence (the goal is to decrease violence, right?). To me, escalation relating to war means opening another front or bringing the war to the next level. This isn't a policy change or increase of violence, it's merely an attempt to crease the violence in the capital city of Baghdad. I can only hope it's at least mildly successful.
 
Originally posted by: Beachboy
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

My problem with McCain is that he supports illegal alien amnesty. It's too bad that MoveOn.org isn't saavy enough to realize that importing impoverished people is bad for the lower and middle classes.
Click to expand...
Why pick on poor people? Regardless of their status? They aren't taking away any jobs that Americans want. And if you are competing with an illegal for a dishwasher job then maybe you shouldn't be voting either.

I truly hate that people hate on other people that want to be Americans. This is a nation of immigrants. What gives you the right to crap on new immigrants? I am 12th generation American(that is way way back) and I still believe that people should be allowed to come freely into this country. You commies and NeoLib's can argue otherwise. 😛
Click to expand...


I agree with you Beachboy. As far as McCain's position on the current situation, it's the only rational way to go that I've heard of. If for no other reason than an underground society makes us less secure.

 
Getting back to the thread topic---which is basically a whats wrong with this picture question. And the question or thread interpretaion really can concern at least three picture elements. Which are ---

1. The current GWB&co. of adding 20,000 or so troops to what is there.---our opinions are?

2. The McCain plan which is to add far more than 20,000 troops.---our opinions are?

3. The ad run by Moveon.org---which attacks McCain as clueless.----our opinions are?

The first thing wrong with the total picture is that almost four years into this Iraqi occupation, we
are still deeply divided on what "our opinions are."----at exactly the time this country needs to have
a long terms concenus plan we can all commit to.---so if Moveon.org weighs in---is that contruting to or detracting from the national debate we need to have.

The second thing wrong with this picture is that both the GWB and the McCain plans are attempts to impose a military solution onto what many say is a political problem. What is not being said is that if either plan becomes a reality and follows the stated goals----we are going to see some very bloody urban warfare and a probable sharp spike in US combat deaths. The other danger for the emperor wears no clothes crowd is that we will find very few AL-Quida types in the dead on the other side.
Or vice-versa---maybe settling the is this a war on global terrorism or a home grown insurgency question.

The third thing wrong with this picture is that the American people yearn to see a drawdown-not an
increase in troop levels. After being lied to many times, its not an easy sell to say we increase troop
levels so we can decrease them later.

The fourth thing wrong with this picture is that we assume the status quo won't change until we--the USA change it----but all kinds of external or internal events could throw all plans into a cocked hat.

I could list more---but I hope this post can keep this thread focused.
 
Originally posted by: Tom
how does "surge" mean an increase in troops ?
Click to expand...

Well, that's the term the military itself uses for increasing troop levels.

They do seem to have their own lexicon.

FWIW, I think the whole thing about an extra 20k now is blown waaay out of proportion. The trook levels over there have fluctuated by that number, or near abouts, many times and no big deal was ever made of it b4.

Fern
 
The bottom line here of course, is that a "surge" of troops to the tune of 20K has already been tried before as the troop level in Iraq has increased at various points during our engagement. So unless there's more to the decider's strategery, it's destined to fail like it's failed before. And furthermore, it would not be considered a "new strategery" by any stretch of the imagination. From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?
 
To DealMonkey--who wrote--From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?

Far be it from me to say that you are per say wrong---but at the 42'nd month of our occupation a rather strange and unpredented event occured---namely the Repubs lost control of both wings of congress. That very evening Rummy got fired---and GWB&co. was in the hot seat--now at month 44 the delayed reality of democratic control was realized----and GWB went to the American people and outlined the new game plan. Unless our commander and thief is totally lying, he fully intends to use these extra 20,000 or so addition troops--agumented by vatious Iraqi forces---to take the fight directly to the insurgents with Al Sadr being likely target number one.

So this maybe very different strategy from the Rummy minimize US casualties.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To DealMonkey--who wrote--From what I've seen thus far, it's the same old stuck-on-stupid, stay-the-course BS + 20K extra troops. So the F what?
Click to expand...

Look to the lower right side of the post you wanna quote & respond to. There's a "magic" button labled "Quote". Try it next time.

TIA,

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top