William Kristol . . .

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
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

I wonder, could the Iraqis we are now training turn out to be the other 100,000 troops we need?That is sort of the story we are being presented with, once the Iraq military can stand up on its own it will take over the fight.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
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

I wonder, could the Iraqis we are now training turn out to be the other 100,000 troops we need?That is sort of the story we are being presented with, once the Iraq military can stand up on its own it will take over the fight.

You mean the same 100k we've been training for 2+ years now? Everytime Rummy says we've got x amount of Iraqi troops trained up and ready to go, it gets revised to 0 combat-ready brigades.

 

[CaptnKirk]

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.

Kristol was one of the architects of the pre-emptive war concept so embraced by the Administration, and cheerleaders for Rumsfelds 'on-the-cheap' method
fully supportive of the low-ball number of troops and them being greeted with hootchi-cootchie girls with flowers and love.
The stupid son-of-a-bitch knows nothing about war, tactics, logistics, or consequences.
He didn't support an adequate manpower of boots on the ground to secure the territory after the rush,
and now 3+ years later to be willing to toss more bodies as connon foder into an abyss that he still doesn't recognize speaks for itself as he smirks his way from talk show to talk show spewing his arrogance and ignorance in the promise of making the US Government the resurection of his concept of what the master race should be.

and . . .

I wonder, could the Iraqis we are now training turn out to be the other 100,000 troops we need?That is sort of the story we are being presented with, once the Iraq military can stand up on its own it will take over the fight.

or . .

could this 100,000 that we are training be the next level of militia death squads that will turn on us in the future bringing their added knowlwdge of our tactics against us as still another level of blow-back?
Most likely scenario is that we are curently training our enemies to fight us, potentially beat us with out own methods.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Oh yeah, Kristol is a SOB. He should be shipped to the front immediately. Which one? Gee, I dunno, just pick one.

And I'm sure you'll volunteer to be chief keyboard commander.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
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

I wonder, could the Iraqis we are now training turn out to be the other 100,000 troops we need?That is sort of the story we are being presented with, once the Iraq military can stand up on its own it will take over the fight.

You mean the same 100k we've been training for 2+ years now? Everytime Rummy says we've got x amount of Iraqi troops trained up and ready to go, it gets revised to 0 combat-ready brigades.

It would be interesting to have a 100 thousand Iraqis help us invade Iran. MMM Imperialism. (and yes I am joking/satirical)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
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

I wonder, could the Iraqis we are now training turn out to be the other 100,000 troops we need?That is sort of the story we are being presented with, once the Iraq military can stand up on its own it will take over the fight.

You mean the same 100k we've been training for 2+ years now? Everytime Rummy says we've got x amount of Iraqi troops trained up and ready to go, it gets revised to 0 combat-ready brigades.

It would be interesting to have a 100 thousand Iraqis help us invade Iran. MMM Imperialism. (and yes I am joking/satirical)

What a brilliant plan, invade a country, train their soldiers to fight along side ours, invade another country and repeat. Worked for the Romans... hmmmm Iran, Syria... whose next?