William Kristol . . .

[CaptnKirk]

Why are these cowardly bastards who have never spent one second in the Military, or any time at all fighting in uniform for our country.

So willing to send more of our troops into battle for their bloated ego trips

I don't understand how a slimey pig like this fool commands any say so with American Politics.
I don't recall him ever entering or winning any election, why should he attempt to set policy.

 

[dahunan]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/williamkristolbio.htm
chairman and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century

 

[Zebo]

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops.

LOL besides the slight problem of not having them? I guess hes right. I don't know where he's going to find 100-200K extra infantry combat rates when already those rates are doing 2-3 tours even reserves and we are way too thin.

 

[Zebo]

In related news, as we pull troops from other areas for Bahgdads photo ops, 1/3 of the country we don't even patrol anymore and AL Queta owns it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Zebo

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops.

LOL besides the slight problem of not having them? I guess hes right. I don't know where he's going to find 100-200K extra infantry combat rates when already those rates are doing 2-3 tours even reserves and we are way too thin.

The US actually has those numbers available, but they'd have to make them live there permanently.

 

[dahunan]

The reason they are stalling on Katrina repairs is so they can convince the African Americans to join the military

 

[Moonbeam]

He is right but for the wrong reasons. We need more troop in Iraq for the sake of the mess we made there. As we boost our troop level we should also be having Bush appear before the Hague for the crime of starting this criminal war as he is simultaneously impeached.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Zebo

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops.

LOL besides the slight problem of not having them? I guess hes right. I don't know where he's going to find 100-200K extra infantry combat rates when already those rates are doing 2-3 tours even reserves and we are way too thin.

The US actually has those numbers available, but they'd have to make them live there permanently.

And from Korea and from everywhere else. 50% of military is paper pushers. 30% is on ships or in aircraft hangers and have nothing to do with ground combat. Realistically, according to Zinni we need 300,000 troops on the ground to secure Iraq which we don't have and even so it's too late now. Too much water under the bridge too much hate and distrust too much momentum for insurgency.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why are these cowardly bastards who have never spent one second in the Military, or any time at all fighting in uniform for our country.

So willing to send more of our troops into battle for their bloated ego trips

I don't understand how a slimey pig like this fool commands any say so with American Politics.
I don't recall him ever entering or winning any election, why should he attempt to set policy.

They are mid-level managers for the Powers That Be. Everything is scripted. The PNAC documents cover the ideology of Kristol, that organization's founder. Using and abusing our Soldiers is a very big part of their Machivillian game of chess. Kristol's constant smirking is truely disgusting, i agree. Trotskyites apparently have no respect for Representative Government. They always seek to hijack control and rule by subterfuge our Nation.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why are these cowardly bastards who have never spent one second in the Military, or any time at all fighting in uniform for our country.

So willing to send more of our troops into battle for their bloated ego trips

I don't understand how a slimey pig like this fool commands any say so with American Politics.
I don't recall him ever entering or winning any election, why should he attempt to set policy.

They are mid-level managers for the Powers That Be. Everything is scripted. The PNAC documents cover the ideology of Kristol, that organization's founder. Using and abusing our Soldiers is a very big part of their Machivillian game of chess. Kristol's constant smirking is truely disgusting, i agree. Trotskyites apparently have no respect for Representative Government. They always seek to hijack control and rule by subterfuge our Nation.

Trotskyites ?

 

[Jadow]

So, one has to have served in the military to have an opinion on this issue? When was that law enacted?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
He is right but for the wrong reasons. We need more troop in Iraq for the sake of the mess we made there. As we boost our troop level we should also be having Bush appear before the Hague for the crime of starting this criminal war as he is simultaneously impeached.

:thumbsup:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zebo

There is now no good argument for not sending more troops.

LOL besides the slight problem of not having them? I guess hes right. I don't know where he's going to find 100-200K extra infantry combat rates when already those rates are doing 2-3 tours even reserves and we are way too thin.

Wait a second... I thought the Democrats were complaining that we didn't send enough troops in the first place?
John Kerry

"if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos that's what we have to do."

Joe Biden

"I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."

Now sending more troops is a bad idea? Can you please make up your mind.
If we NEED more troops and William Kristol is calling for more troops shouldn't we praise him?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zebo
In related news, as we pull troops from other areas for Bahgdads photo ops, 1/3 of the country we don't even patrol anymore and AL Queta owns it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html

I think you are engaged in a little partisan exaggeration Zebo.

I read the article and the intelligence report mentioned in it talks specifically about the Anbar province. Now problems in the Anbar province don?t equate to 1/3 of the country.

The story also points out that not everyone agrees with:

Not everyone interviewed about the report agrees with its glum findings. The Defense Department official, who worked in Iraq earlier this year, said his sense is that Anbar province is going to be troubled as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. "Lawlessness is a way of life there," he said. As for the report, he said, "It's one conclusion about one area. The conclusion on al Anbar doesn't translate into a perspective on the entire country."

Check out this link. It shows a map of Anbar and states that Saddam had worried about Anbar as well. Also not that Anbar is closest to Syria and therefore the place most likely to be getting Syrian aid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate

Edit: forgot link, oops

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jadow
So, one has to have served in the military to have an opinion on this issue? When was that law enacted?

Many years ago by the brotherhood of having placed your own ass in jeopardy.

 

[Zebo]

I'm not exaggeratng...Anbar is 1/3 of Iraq drawfing all other provinces. If anything I'm understating the disater. we only patrol 3/14 provinces now, surrendered the Shi'a and Kurd areas a long time ago to hard core militias scarced shitles of getting the Shi'a and kurds on us too..

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm not exaggeratng...Anbar is 1/3 of Iraq drawfing all other provinces. If anything I'm understating the disater. we only patrol 3/14 provinces now, surrendered the Shi'a and Kurd areas a long time ago to hard core militias scarced shitles of getting the Shi'a and kurds on us too..

QFT. Anbar is almost the entire western half of the country.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zebo
In related news, as we pull troops from other areas for Bahgdads photo ops, 1/3 of the country we don't even patrol anymore and AL Queta owns it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html

I think you are engaged in a little partisan exaggeration Zebo.

I read the article and the intelligence report mentioned in it talks specifically about the Anbar province. Now problems in the Anbar province don?t equate to 1/3 of the country.

The story also points out that not everyone agrees with:

Not everyone interviewed about the report agrees with its glum findings. The Defense Department official, who worked in Iraq earlier this year, said his sense is that Anbar province is going to be troubled as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. "Lawlessness is a way of life there," he said. As for the report, he said, "It's one conclusion about one area. The conclusion on al Anbar doesn't translate into a perspective on the entire country."

Check out this link. It shows a map of Anbar and states that Saddam had worried about Anbar as well. Also not that Anbar is closest to Syria and therefore the place most likely to be getting Syrian aid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Anbar_Governorate

Edit: forgot link, oops

You posted an actual map of Anbar province. Can you help explain to the rest of us how that is not nearly 1/3 of the entire country?Why? Because it's more like 3/8? Or perhaps 5/16? You need to flesh out your argument when it clearly contradicts evidence.

I'm also trying to figure out who you were before you were banned. Your desperate attempts to justify this administration and its actions echoes Zendari, Cad or Crimson.

 

[yllus]

I agree with Moonbeam, wirelessenabled and the article writer. Get it done properly by sending more troops, the way they should have been sent from the beginning if this was to be accomplished.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Jadow
So, one has to have served in the military to have an opinion on this issue? When was that law enacted?

No, they just have to not be wrong about everything, all the time,and not be eager to commit troops to unwinnable situations.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm not exaggeratng...Anbar is 1/3 of Iraq drawfing all other provinces. If anything I'm understating the disater. we only patrol 3/14 provinces now, surrendered the Shi'a and Kurd areas a long time ago to hard core militias scarced shitles of getting the Shi'a and kurds on us too..

The Kurdish areas are now and have been relatively peaceful, they have been mostly autonomous since GF I anyways, from my understanding. But yes, the Shiite areas are run by Sadr, should have killed him about 3 years ago.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Zebo
In related news, as we pull troops from other areas for Bahgdads photo ops, 1/3 of the country we don't even patrol anymore and AL Queta owns it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204_pf.html

That sounds like Afghanistan, the country we abandoned to attack another country for no reason, thereby letting the real perpetrator of 9/11 go scot free. He now lives in an area protected by Pakistani military (they have a nice new agreement to live and let live) with U.S. knowledge.
Oh yeah, Kristol is a SOB. He should be shipped to the front immediately. Which one? Gee, I dunno, just pick one.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Strk
You posted an actual map of Anbar province. Can you help explain to the rest of us how that is not nearly 1/3 of the entire country?Why? Because it's more like 3/8? Or perhaps 5/16? You need to flesh out your argument when it clearly contradicts evidence.

I'm also trying to figure out who you were before you were banned. Your desperate attempts to justify this administration and its actions echoes Zendari, Cad or Crimson.

Ok, clarification:
I made an incorect reading of the article. Specificly "that country's western Anbar province " I thought it was saying the "western" part of the Anbar province, not the entire province.
That being said, Anbar is only 30% of the country and 30% is not 1/3, so Zebo did exaggerate, a little

Also, about the "we only partol 3/14 provinces now" comment. As I understand it there is only a problem with violence in 3 provinces, therefore there is no need for the US military in the other 11 provinces. The Kurds pretty much take care of their own area, and have for a long time. The British are also patroling some of the southern provinces, is that including in the 3/14 comment?

I do agree that Iraq looks like a mess, so what is the solution?

And Strk, I have never been baned before. I joined AT while looking for a new computer and asked a whole bunch of questions in the hardware threads before I even commented in P&N.

Here is my first post on 7/28:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=27&threadid=1900972&enterthread=y
and I believe one of my first P&N posts
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1918125&enterthread=y

Notice the month difference? If I am someone who was baned why did I join up and wait a month before commenting in P&N?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why are these cowardly bastards who have never spent one second in the Military, or any time at all fighting in uniform for our country.

So willing to send more of our troops into battle for their bloated ego trips

I don't understand how a slimey pig like this fool commands any say so with American Politics.
I don't recall him ever entering or winning any election, why should he attempt to set policy.

One of the biggest compliants about the Iraq war (besides poor planning) is that we have not had the man power to do it. Opponets of the war have brought this up time and time before - and rightfully so.

I can understand critizing the war for many reasons - but it seems strange to critize some one for trying to address one of the biggest issues we've had over there, man power. Particularlly when the person's reasoning is not expansion of the war, but securing what has been accomplished already.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Why are these cowardly bastards who have never spent one second in the Military, or any time at all fighting in uniform for our country.

So willing to send more of our troops into battle for their bloated ego trips

I don't understand how a slimey pig like this fool commands any say so with American Politics.
I don't recall him ever entering or winning any election, why should he attempt to set policy.

One of the biggest compliants about the Iraq war (besides poor planning) is that we have not had the man power to do it. Opponets of the war have brought this up time and time before - and rightfully so.

I can understand critizing the war for many reasons - but it seems strange to critize some one for trying to address one of the biggest issues we've had over there, man power. Particularlly when the person's reasoning is not expansion of the war, but securing what has been accomplished already.

I wonder if another 100 thousand troops would make any real difference to the suicide bombers and hit and run tactics of the insurgents? Interesting question. Afghanistan is a real problem brewing in the background and the fact that Bin Laden is not our number one priority blows my mind. Even with many people still believing Saddam (who hated Bin Laden at least as much as we do) had something to do with 9/11 I don't think there is enough political capital/will for the President to send another 100 thousand troops.

A. Not enough man/woman power
B. Mid term elections coming up
C. American people would not support (an adjunct to B)
D. The weakening of other security forces unacceptable
E. The military itself may "revolt" (ie balk and protest)
F. Would appear as a defeat for Bush and Republicans on war on terror (even though there is no link between Iraq and 9/11 terrorism other than in spin city)
G. The extra cost and burden on economy (when added together the lost productivity of 200 thousand people minus the full time active military personnel is not insignficant)
H. Conspiracy theory states other 100 thousand needed for Iran invasion
I. Political fallout in Muslim world as liberating force becomes more clearly seen as an Imperialist occupying force. Disenfranchised Iraqis flock to terrorist/extremist banner