GQ_jumper 4 #76 January 31, 2007 Well I guess we will just have to meet one of these days.. toss down a couple challenge coins.. and get some serious drinking on...I may not be in the best of shape for running around the mountains at 10000 ft... BUT I can still down copious amounts of alcoholic beverages...AND I dont mind buying for those who actually DO put their butts out there. Might I suggest Lost Prairie 28 July to Aug 5th?? Quote I would be honored to join you in a few if I weren't going to be in Iraq during Lost Prairie, I leave in a few weeks and will be gone the rest of the year, I can't waitHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tbrown 26 #77 January 31, 2007 QuoteThe democratic party (and Hillary Clinton) do not agree with the war but also do not have a valid plan on how to end the war (win or lose). Thus, they want the republican party (and George Bush) to end the war before the next election because they believe they are going to win the next election. I disagree. What Hillary Clinton said is that Bush is walking out on his responsibility for an exit plan. Bush has never had an exit plan, he has always believed the Iraqis would just love us to death and probably invite us to stay. Now that things have gone tits up, all he can do is escalate the war, and as for EVER getting out, well that's something the next President will have to figutre out because he is going to wash his hands of the mess and go back to the ranch in Texas. He's like the yahoo who rides a horse through a china shop and can't understand why he should pay the bill for smashing the place up. Iraq's a real mess and I'll be damned if I know what the answer is either. We've brought down a regime that kept Al Qaeda OUT. We should consider there were once reasons why Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et all were once buddy-buddy with Saddam. By turning him out we've created a shit storm and it's as dangerous to leave as it is to stay. But occupations don't work and the longer we stay the worse it gets, as we forestall the inevitable with blood and more blood. It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. But now that Boy George has gone and stirred up the hornet's nest, he's only too happy to dump it in somebody else's lap, as he wanders off into his "place in history". Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #78 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe democratic party (and Hillary Clinton) do not agree with the war but also do not have a valid plan on how to end the war (win or lose). Thus, they want the republican party (and George Bush) to end the war before the next election because they believe they are going to win the next election. I disagree. What Hillary Clinton said is that Bush is walking out on his responsibility for an exit plan. Bush has never had an exit plan, he has always believed the Iraqis would just love us to death and probably invite us to stay. Now that things have gone tits up, all he can do is escalate the war, and as for EVER getting out, well that's something the next President will have to figutre out because he is going to wash his hands of the mess and go back to the ranch in Texas. He's like the yahoo who rides a horse through a china shop and can't understand why he should pay the bill for smashing the place up. Iraq's a real mess and I'll be damned if I know what the answer is either. We've brought down a regime that kept Al Qaeda OUT. We should consider there were once reasons why Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et all were once buddy-buddy with Saddam. By turning him out we've created a shit storm and it's as dangerous to leave as it is to stay. But occupations don't work and the longer we stay the worse it gets, as we forestall the inevitable with blood and more blood. It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. But now that Boy George has gone and stirred up the hornet's nest, he's only too happy to dump it in somebody else's lap, as he wanders off into his "place in history". What did you disagree with? I stated that Bush does not appear to have a plan to end the war and thus Bush will most likely not end the war, just like you. I then stated that the democrates are the most likely to win the next election and the democrats also do not have a plan to end the war. This is bad for the democrats so they are pushing for Bush to end the war. The problem is that if Bush ends the war it increases the likely hood that the republicans could win the next election. Thus the best choice for the democrats is for Bush not to end the war and for the democrats to begin planning how to get our of Iraq now so they have a plan when the win the election."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #79 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDUDE.. Uncle Sam needs YOU YOU like the war YOU want the war YOU need to go do something about it.. not the people who think its a waste of american lives and fortune. I've been in the military or working contracts directly supporting the troops since 1984 - PROVE I'm not doing something constructive. While you're at it.. .you can PROVE that I like it OR want it. Until then...I'll be waiting for the news reports on the the lines at the recruiters in Hollywood...Ah ha. Now it comes out. War is good for YOUR bank acct. Put your ass on the front line yet? I served my time in the military and CONTINUE to provide DIRECT support to them... what are YOU doing, besides bitching about your benefits? War is good for my bank account?? Maybe you need to go back and re-read the part where I said I've been serving or supporting since 1984. I say again - what have YOU been doing?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites idrankwhat 0 #80 January 31, 2007 Quote It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. Can't say daddy didn't warn him/us. We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it. But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military? My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #81 February 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo where's all the Lefties volunteering for Afghanistan? Damn chickenhawks.... Perhaps because they are not into that whole WAR MONGER thing as some of you want to be.... and want to drag the rest of our country into incessant and unnessacary WARS to enrich a few of you. Are you still in the age range that they would take you....??? Spring is coming in the Hidu Kush.. I hear its really stunning scenery.... I think a LOT of our more outspoken right wingers would fit that bill just fine.... but will never do it because the ARMY does not pay anough... as I have been told by several of you in IM's so much for all that RIGHT WING PATRIOTISM. Ah, yes..."I'm not with you, so I'm against you", so I'm automatically a... lemme see if I can recall all of them... Neo-Con, Nazi, Fascist, Chickenhawk, rePUBEican, warmonger... I'm sure there's more. As for people that left lucrative jobs to go and fight... Pat Tillman springs to mind and I'm sure there's been plenty more. It's not something I specifically look for, but I'm sure there's information out there. In regards to patriotism, judging by the response from the Left, I'd say you're probably right in regards to the RIGHT WING PATRIOTISM protecting the country. I'm still waiting to see the lines outside the recuiters in Beverly Hills, etc with all those LEFT WINGERS signing up for Afghanistan.... I expect I'll be waiting 'til Hell freezes over... Dude, it's a no win situation to be in agreement in her not so objective thought process. I fit the bill right to the letter, taking a paycut and all those inconvenience thing, am at Iraq right now, and she still hate my guts vividly, as I have plenty of evidence, based in her dropzone messages readily available."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #82 February 1, 2007 And your contribution to this thread is... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #83 February 1, 2007 >want to make the voters happy so they can win in the next election and the Republican's want to still find a way out, but ensure victory along the way. What a load of crap! you actually believe the rep.'s are on the fringe of even seeing(with a satellite because thay are so far away) a victory in the game plan? a royal fuck up. they have a year to change the outcome and the cost the 'clean up' not to mention the cost of the inquest of the 'evil doings'. but won't. 'The Axis of evel' 'we're gonna schmoke em out' 'evil doers' how does spending billions, oops my mistake, trillions of $ on fucking over a single population in the middle of the middle eastern oilfields come anywhere close to wiping out the axis of evil and rid the world of the evildoers by schmoking em out? HUH Get the fuck back home and get rid of that stupid idiot son of an asshole. it's going to be a real c#*t to 'clean up' and impossible to stop the repercussions of what has already been done. but it is possible to begin the ending of this stupid war. Put a woman in charge it's worth a go and worked well for my country!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #84 February 1, 2007 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #85 February 1, 2007 What a load of crap! you actually believe the rep.'s are on the fringe of even seeing(with a satellite because thay are so far away) a victory in the game plan? Quote I'm not listening to the BS that either side is puttin out right now so you can calm down a little bit. But if you look at the plans that both sides are introducing there seem to be two major trends, first from the Dems. a quick exit with no concern for victory, only a set date when all our troops will be back on US soil, and on the other side, a plan to still achieve "victory"(I put that in quotation marks because the word seems to have a lot of different meeanings to a lot of different people right now). The major shortcoming is the seemingly non-existent exit strategy, IMO the best way out as I stated before was an exit strategy with set milestones or goals to achieve as we pull out, regardless of how long it takes to achieve. You can't finish a conflict based on a timeline, both sides need to check their egos at the door and figure out what needs to be accomplished to get out of Iraq in a successful manner as opposed to "OK guys it's November 12th, drop what you're doing, pack your bags and I'll see you at Hooters next week for beer."History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #86 February 1, 2007 Maybe a definition of "victory" is in order here, don´t you think? As far as i am concerned the U.S is Victorious in that Irak doesn´t have WMD. So if it is only the ego what needs to be satisfied you con pack now and go home. You can wonder wether there was WMD in Irak to begin with if you feel like when you are on U.S soil. But my opinion is that the reps are torn beetwen the PNAC definition of Victory, whatever that is since it wasn´t shared with the people, and any definition that justifies all this big mess. It usually works the other way around, first you analize the problem and then decide a course of action, not take a course of action and then look for a problem that justifies that action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #87 February 2, 2007 >both sides need to check their egos at the door Agreed 100% >to get out of Iraq in a successful manner "Successful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. In terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. "Checking your ego at the door" also means not making "saving face" or "getting out while looking like victors" your priorities. It means doing what's best for the Iraqis - and they have a pretty good idea what they want. We should listen to them over the shrill cries from either party here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #88 February 2, 2007 QuoteSuccessful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. True, the initial mission was a success, but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial mission was completed would be immoral. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. QuoteIn terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. Yes the type of democracy we wish to see over there will most likely never happen, but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are going to have to find a way to co-exist, the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is the sectarian violence, but for every militia out there murdering people there is a group willing to take action on the political side to find a peaceful solution. As for the statement that half approve of attacks on us, Bill I know you're one of the people in these forums who doesn't make a statement before you do your homework, and I'm sure you would agree with me that most of the time when a poll like that is put out the polling group specifially targets a group that will most likely have an opinion that fits what they want put into their story, both sides do it, the left and the right. i'm sure there are plenty of Iraqi's out there who love watching us get killed, but I know that the number is far less than half. QuoteIt means doing what's best for the Iraqis Couldn't agree more, and IMO that means those milestones which need to be accomplished on the way out need to focus on turning more and more responsibility over to the Iraqis to secure themselves, something they are more than capable of. they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in and we have a hard time standing at the back of the stack watching the action from the sidelines. And Botellines, I think that last sentence in your post was dead on, but to do that as I said before the left and right need to meet in the middle, and that's just so impossible to do. We're all cocky Americans, we don't know any betterHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #89 February 2, 2007 >but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of >worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial >mission was completed would be immoral. Leaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. >but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government > that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and >punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. We used to support that very regime. If it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - and support a campaign as brutal as any Saddam thought up. We've done it before. I think we should get out before we do it again. > All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to >come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are >going to have to find a way to co-exist . . . That is exactly right. But until we leave they can just assume we'll do it. >the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is >the sectarian violence . . . . I think three years ago that angle worked. But the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. So nowadays it's the media that's been proven right; the pro-war faction have the burden of proof on them. >they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they >have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in . . . I agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #90 February 2, 2007 QuoteLeaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. Drawing down is on the right track but it can' be done if the insurgents are in full stride, a short stint of increased troop numbers for a very short-term operation that would target all known terrorist cells and roll up all the big players that are threatening the Iraqis ability to control their own destiny. And with a quick solid blow that would at least slow down the movement start scaling back so the Iraqis can take over easier and leave elements to augment the Iraqis where needed and continue to provide logistical suport and training as needed. In the end after this is all said and done there are still going to be SF teams in Iraq for years helping the Iraqi military to continually develop itself. QuoteIf it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - The Sunni are slowly starting to come around, when the new government was first being formed they were so used to being in sole power that they acted much the same as a kid who takes their toys and goes home because everyone doesn't want to play THEIR game. In doing this they shot themselves in the foot, because they refused to take part in the political proccess so they ended up completely out of power rather than having a voice. they have recently begun to realize that their dynasty is no more and if they want to save themselves they are going to have to learn to "play well with others". We are seeing it more and more in certain areas, and in others where their is more violence they are sort of falling in line with the insrgents who are basically doing their dirty work for them. A firmer stance against the outside countries supporting this would probably go a long ways, and we could easily do it without another war. QuoteBut the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. A lot of the increased violence is due to troops being pulled in from the cities between Baghdad and the borders thus allowing more freedom of movement from outside countries, another mistake from those at the top. QuoteI agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. The reason this is taking so long is partly our fault, we have to force the Iraqis to the front while we guide them and provide support a few steps behind. As soldiers though we have it drilled into our heads that we need to lead from the front, get in the fight, and charge the enemy head on, it's hard to turn that off and step back when there is fighting to be done. We spent so many years not getting an opportunity to do our jobs in combat and now that we finally have that opportunity we are having to force ourselves to not take it, it's a hard thing to do. The Iraqis are every bit capable they just need a little nudge to get em movingHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
tbrown 26 #77 January 31, 2007 QuoteThe democratic party (and Hillary Clinton) do not agree with the war but also do not have a valid plan on how to end the war (win or lose). Thus, they want the republican party (and George Bush) to end the war before the next election because they believe they are going to win the next election. I disagree. What Hillary Clinton said is that Bush is walking out on his responsibility for an exit plan. Bush has never had an exit plan, he has always believed the Iraqis would just love us to death and probably invite us to stay. Now that things have gone tits up, all he can do is escalate the war, and as for EVER getting out, well that's something the next President will have to figutre out because he is going to wash his hands of the mess and go back to the ranch in Texas. He's like the yahoo who rides a horse through a china shop and can't understand why he should pay the bill for smashing the place up. Iraq's a real mess and I'll be damned if I know what the answer is either. We've brought down a regime that kept Al Qaeda OUT. We should consider there were once reasons why Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et all were once buddy-buddy with Saddam. By turning him out we've created a shit storm and it's as dangerous to leave as it is to stay. But occupations don't work and the longer we stay the worse it gets, as we forestall the inevitable with blood and more blood. It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. But now that Boy George has gone and stirred up the hornet's nest, he's only too happy to dump it in somebody else's lap, as he wanders off into his "place in history". Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #78 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe democratic party (and Hillary Clinton) do not agree with the war but also do not have a valid plan on how to end the war (win or lose). Thus, they want the republican party (and George Bush) to end the war before the next election because they believe they are going to win the next election. I disagree. What Hillary Clinton said is that Bush is walking out on his responsibility for an exit plan. Bush has never had an exit plan, he has always believed the Iraqis would just love us to death and probably invite us to stay. Now that things have gone tits up, all he can do is escalate the war, and as for EVER getting out, well that's something the next President will have to figutre out because he is going to wash his hands of the mess and go back to the ranch in Texas. He's like the yahoo who rides a horse through a china shop and can't understand why he should pay the bill for smashing the place up. Iraq's a real mess and I'll be damned if I know what the answer is either. We've brought down a regime that kept Al Qaeda OUT. We should consider there were once reasons why Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld, et all were once buddy-buddy with Saddam. By turning him out we've created a shit storm and it's as dangerous to leave as it is to stay. But occupations don't work and the longer we stay the worse it gets, as we forestall the inevitable with blood and more blood. It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. But now that Boy George has gone and stirred up the hornet's nest, he's only too happy to dump it in somebody else's lap, as he wanders off into his "place in history". What did you disagree with? I stated that Bush does not appear to have a plan to end the war and thus Bush will most likely not end the war, just like you. I then stated that the democrates are the most likely to win the next election and the democrats also do not have a plan to end the war. This is bad for the democrats so they are pushing for Bush to end the war. The problem is that if Bush ends the war it increases the likely hood that the republicans could win the next election. Thus the best choice for the democrats is for Bush not to end the war and for the democrats to begin planning how to get our of Iraq now so they have a plan when the win the election."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 January 31, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteDUDE.. Uncle Sam needs YOU YOU like the war YOU want the war YOU need to go do something about it.. not the people who think its a waste of american lives and fortune. I've been in the military or working contracts directly supporting the troops since 1984 - PROVE I'm not doing something constructive. While you're at it.. .you can PROVE that I like it OR want it. Until then...I'll be waiting for the news reports on the the lines at the recruiters in Hollywood...Ah ha. Now it comes out. War is good for YOUR bank acct. Put your ass on the front line yet? I served my time in the military and CONTINUE to provide DIRECT support to them... what are YOU doing, besides bitching about your benefits? War is good for my bank account?? Maybe you need to go back and re-read the part where I said I've been serving or supporting since 1984. I say again - what have YOU been doing?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #80 January 31, 2007 Quote It's why we never should've gone in the first place, it's why Bush Sr. didn't do it. Can't say daddy didn't warn him/us. We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it. But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military? My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #81 February 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo where's all the Lefties volunteering for Afghanistan? Damn chickenhawks.... Perhaps because they are not into that whole WAR MONGER thing as some of you want to be.... and want to drag the rest of our country into incessant and unnessacary WARS to enrich a few of you. Are you still in the age range that they would take you....??? Spring is coming in the Hidu Kush.. I hear its really stunning scenery.... I think a LOT of our more outspoken right wingers would fit that bill just fine.... but will never do it because the ARMY does not pay anough... as I have been told by several of you in IM's so much for all that RIGHT WING PATRIOTISM. Ah, yes..."I'm not with you, so I'm against you", so I'm automatically a... lemme see if I can recall all of them... Neo-Con, Nazi, Fascist, Chickenhawk, rePUBEican, warmonger... I'm sure there's more. As for people that left lucrative jobs to go and fight... Pat Tillman springs to mind and I'm sure there's been plenty more. It's not something I specifically look for, but I'm sure there's information out there. In regards to patriotism, judging by the response from the Left, I'd say you're probably right in regards to the RIGHT WING PATRIOTISM protecting the country. I'm still waiting to see the lines outside the recuiters in Beverly Hills, etc with all those LEFT WINGERS signing up for Afghanistan.... I expect I'll be waiting 'til Hell freezes over... Dude, it's a no win situation to be in agreement in her not so objective thought process. I fit the bill right to the letter, taking a paycut and all those inconvenience thing, am at Iraq right now, and she still hate my guts vividly, as I have plenty of evidence, based in her dropzone messages readily available."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #82 February 1, 2007 And your contribution to this thread is... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #83 February 1, 2007 >want to make the voters happy so they can win in the next election and the Republican's want to still find a way out, but ensure victory along the way. What a load of crap! you actually believe the rep.'s are on the fringe of even seeing(with a satellite because thay are so far away) a victory in the game plan? a royal fuck up. they have a year to change the outcome and the cost the 'clean up' not to mention the cost of the inquest of the 'evil doings'. but won't. 'The Axis of evel' 'we're gonna schmoke em out' 'evil doers' how does spending billions, oops my mistake, trillions of $ on fucking over a single population in the middle of the middle eastern oilfields come anywhere close to wiping out the axis of evil and rid the world of the evildoers by schmoking em out? HUH Get the fuck back home and get rid of that stupid idiot son of an asshole. it's going to be a real c#*t to 'clean up' and impossible to stop the repercussions of what has already been done. but it is possible to begin the ending of this stupid war. Put a woman in charge it's worth a go and worked well for my country!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #84 February 1, 2007 Your one warning. Cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #85 February 1, 2007 What a load of crap! you actually believe the rep.'s are on the fringe of even seeing(with a satellite because thay are so far away) a victory in the game plan? Quote I'm not listening to the BS that either side is puttin out right now so you can calm down a little bit. But if you look at the plans that both sides are introducing there seem to be two major trends, first from the Dems. a quick exit with no concern for victory, only a set date when all our troops will be back on US soil, and on the other side, a plan to still achieve "victory"(I put that in quotation marks because the word seems to have a lot of different meeanings to a lot of different people right now). The major shortcoming is the seemingly non-existent exit strategy, IMO the best way out as I stated before was an exit strategy with set milestones or goals to achieve as we pull out, regardless of how long it takes to achieve. You can't finish a conflict based on a timeline, both sides need to check their egos at the door and figure out what needs to be accomplished to get out of Iraq in a successful manner as opposed to "OK guys it's November 12th, drop what you're doing, pack your bags and I'll see you at Hooters next week for beer."History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #86 February 1, 2007 Maybe a definition of "victory" is in order here, don´t you think? As far as i am concerned the U.S is Victorious in that Irak doesn´t have WMD. So if it is only the ego what needs to be satisfied you con pack now and go home. You can wonder wether there was WMD in Irak to begin with if you feel like when you are on U.S soil. But my opinion is that the reps are torn beetwen the PNAC definition of Victory, whatever that is since it wasn´t shared with the people, and any definition that justifies all this big mess. It usually works the other way around, first you analize the problem and then decide a course of action, not take a course of action and then look for a problem that justifies that action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #87 February 2, 2007 >both sides need to check their egos at the door Agreed 100% >to get out of Iraq in a successful manner "Successful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. In terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. "Checking your ego at the door" also means not making "saving face" or "getting out while looking like victors" your priorities. It means doing what's best for the Iraqis - and they have a pretty good idea what they want. We should listen to them over the shrill cries from either party here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #88 February 2, 2007 QuoteSuccessful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. True, the initial mission was a success, but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial mission was completed would be immoral. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. QuoteIn terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. Yes the type of democracy we wish to see over there will most likely never happen, but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are going to have to find a way to co-exist, the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is the sectarian violence, but for every militia out there murdering people there is a group willing to take action on the political side to find a peaceful solution. As for the statement that half approve of attacks on us, Bill I know you're one of the people in these forums who doesn't make a statement before you do your homework, and I'm sure you would agree with me that most of the time when a poll like that is put out the polling group specifially targets a group that will most likely have an opinion that fits what they want put into their story, both sides do it, the left and the right. i'm sure there are plenty of Iraqi's out there who love watching us get killed, but I know that the number is far less than half. QuoteIt means doing what's best for the Iraqis Couldn't agree more, and IMO that means those milestones which need to be accomplished on the way out need to focus on turning more and more responsibility over to the Iraqis to secure themselves, something they are more than capable of. they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in and we have a hard time standing at the back of the stack watching the action from the sidelines. And Botellines, I think that last sentence in your post was dead on, but to do that as I said before the left and right need to meet in the middle, and that's just so impossible to do. We're all cocky Americans, we don't know any betterHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #89 February 2, 2007 >but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of >worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial >mission was completed would be immoral. Leaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. >but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government > that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and >punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. We used to support that very regime. If it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - and support a campaign as brutal as any Saddam thought up. We've done it before. I think we should get out before we do it again. > All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to >come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are >going to have to find a way to co-exist . . . That is exactly right. But until we leave they can just assume we'll do it. >the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is >the sectarian violence . . . . I think three years ago that angle worked. But the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. So nowadays it's the media that's been proven right; the pro-war faction have the burden of proof on them. >they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they >have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in . . . I agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GQ_jumper 4 #90 February 2, 2007 QuoteLeaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. Drawing down is on the right track but it can' be done if the insurgents are in full stride, a short stint of increased troop numbers for a very short-term operation that would target all known terrorist cells and roll up all the big players that are threatening the Iraqis ability to control their own destiny. And with a quick solid blow that would at least slow down the movement start scaling back so the Iraqis can take over easier and leave elements to augment the Iraqis where needed and continue to provide logistical suport and training as needed. In the end after this is all said and done there are still going to be SF teams in Iraq for years helping the Iraqi military to continually develop itself. QuoteIf it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - The Sunni are slowly starting to come around, when the new government was first being formed they were so used to being in sole power that they acted much the same as a kid who takes their toys and goes home because everyone doesn't want to play THEIR game. In doing this they shot themselves in the foot, because they refused to take part in the political proccess so they ended up completely out of power rather than having a voice. they have recently begun to realize that their dynasty is no more and if they want to save themselves they are going to have to learn to "play well with others". We are seeing it more and more in certain areas, and in others where their is more violence they are sort of falling in line with the insrgents who are basically doing their dirty work for them. A firmer stance against the outside countries supporting this would probably go a long ways, and we could easily do it without another war. QuoteBut the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. A lot of the increased violence is due to troops being pulled in from the cities between Baghdad and the borders thus allowing more freedom of movement from outside countries, another mistake from those at the top. QuoteI agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. The reason this is taking so long is partly our fault, we have to force the Iraqis to the front while we guide them and provide support a few steps behind. As soldiers though we have it drilled into our heads that we need to lead from the front, get in the fight, and charge the enemy head on, it's hard to turn that off and step back when there is fighting to be done. We spent so many years not getting an opportunity to do our jobs in combat and now that we finally have that opportunity we are having to force ourselves to not take it, it's a hard thing to do. The Iraqis are every bit capable they just need a little nudge to get em movingHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Botellines 0 #86 February 1, 2007 Maybe a definition of "victory" is in order here, don´t you think? As far as i am concerned the U.S is Victorious in that Irak doesn´t have WMD. So if it is only the ego what needs to be satisfied you con pack now and go home. You can wonder wether there was WMD in Irak to begin with if you feel like when you are on U.S soil. But my opinion is that the reps are torn beetwen the PNAC definition of Victory, whatever that is since it wasn´t shared with the people, and any definition that justifies all this big mess. It usually works the other way around, first you analize the problem and then decide a course of action, not take a course of action and then look for a problem that justifies that action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #87 February 2, 2007 >both sides need to check their egos at the door Agreed 100% >to get out of Iraq in a successful manner "Successful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. In terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. "Checking your ego at the door" also means not making "saving face" or "getting out while looking like victors" your priorities. It means doing what's best for the Iraqis - and they have a pretty good idea what they want. We should listen to them over the shrill cries from either party here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #88 February 2, 2007 QuoteSuccessful?" In terms of what? Making sure there are no WMD's? Killing Hussein? Regime change? All those things have been done. By those criteria, getting out right now would result in a success. True, the initial mission was a success, but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial mission was completed would be immoral. In terms of the PNAC goals of creating a western-style democracy in Iraq, the "first domino" that will result in a cascade of western-style democracies over there? Never going to happen, because even the government we've installed doesn't want that to happen. QuoteIn terms of making the Iraqis happy? 87% of them want us to agree on a timetable for withdrawal. Most think their day-to-day security would improve if we left; almost half APPROVE of attacks on US forces. Yes the type of democracy we wish to see over there will most likely never happen, but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are going to have to find a way to co-exist, the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is the sectarian violence, but for every militia out there murdering people there is a group willing to take action on the political side to find a peaceful solution. As for the statement that half approve of attacks on us, Bill I know you're one of the people in these forums who doesn't make a statement before you do your homework, and I'm sure you would agree with me that most of the time when a poll like that is put out the polling group specifially targets a group that will most likely have an opinion that fits what they want put into their story, both sides do it, the left and the right. i'm sure there are plenty of Iraqi's out there who love watching us get killed, but I know that the number is far less than half. QuoteIt means doing what's best for the Iraqis Couldn't agree more, and IMO that means those milestones which need to be accomplished on the way out need to focus on turning more and more responsibility over to the Iraqis to secure themselves, something they are more than capable of. they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in and we have a hard time standing at the back of the stack watching the action from the sidelines. And Botellines, I think that last sentence in your post was dead on, but to do that as I said before the left and right need to meet in the middle, and that's just so impossible to do. We're all cocky Americans, we don't know any betterHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #89 February 2, 2007 >but in completing that mission we opened up a whole new can of >worms that had to be dealt with and just leaving because the initial >mission was completed would be immoral. Leaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. >but it is possible to at least help lead them to a style of government > that doesn't have one ethnic breakdown controlling everything and >punishing the minorities much the way the former regime did. We used to support that very regime. If it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - and support a campaign as brutal as any Saddam thought up. We've done it before. I think we should get out before we do it again. > All the groups in Iraq have their own agenda but they are all starting to >come around and realize that whether they like each other or not they are >going to have to find a way to co-exist . . . That is exactly right. But until we leave they can just assume we'll do it. >the media is just doing a good job of hiding this because all they show is >the sectarian violence . . . . I think three years ago that angle worked. But the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. So nowadays it's the media that's been proven right; the pro-war faction have the burden of proof on them. >they just don't take the initiative most of the time because they >have the A-type door kickin Americans leading them in . . . I agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #90 February 2, 2007 QuoteLeaving before we make it any worse would, on the other hand, be the moral thing to do. And it is getting steadily worse. Drawing down is on the right track but it can' be done if the insurgents are in full stride, a short stint of increased troop numbers for a very short-term operation that would target all known terrorist cells and roll up all the big players that are threatening the Iraqis ability to control their own destiny. And with a quick solid blow that would at least slow down the movement start scaling back so the Iraqis can take over easier and leave elements to augment the Iraqis where needed and continue to provide logistical suport and training as needed. In the end after this is all said and done there are still going to be SF teams in Iraq for years helping the Iraqi military to continually develop itself. QuoteIf it becomes to our political advantage, we will support the Shi'a, label the Sunnis "terrorist supporters" - The Sunni are slowly starting to come around, when the new government was first being formed they were so used to being in sole power that they acted much the same as a kid who takes their toys and goes home because everyone doesn't want to play THEIR game. In doing this they shot themselves in the foot, because they refused to take part in the political proccess so they ended up completely out of power rather than having a voice. they have recently begun to realize that their dynasty is no more and if they want to save themselves they are going to have to learn to "play well with others". We are seeing it more and more in certain areas, and in others where their is more violence they are sort of falling in line with the insrgents who are basically doing their dirty work for them. A firmer stance against the outside countries supporting this would probably go a long ways, and we could easily do it without another war. QuoteBut the increasing violence that the media reported on and the pro-war types poo-pooed was shown to be the more accurate view of things. A lot of the increased violence is due to troops being pulled in from the cities between Baghdad and the borders thus allowing more freedom of movement from outside countries, another mistake from those at the top. QuoteI agree. It's time for them to learn how to stand on their own. We've shown them the way; now they have to walk it. The reason this is taking so long is partly our fault, we have to force the Iraqis to the front while we guide them and provide support a few steps behind. As soldiers though we have it drilled into our heads that we need to lead from the front, get in the fight, and charge the enemy head on, it's hard to turn that off and step back when there is fighting to be done. We spent so many years not getting an opportunity to do our jobs in combat and now that we finally have that opportunity we are having to force ourselves to not take it, it's a hard thing to do. The Iraqis are every bit capable they just need a little nudge to get em movingHistory does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
