Increasing troop strength?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:54 pm

This ship has sailed. The time where a larger troop presence would be productive has passed years ago. The US Military cannot be used to police Iraq.

Iraq's problems are not military...they're political.

This is more lame-brained bullshit.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 3:22 pm

Alternatives ? You've offered many a good take on this issue, I'd be interested to hear YOUR plans for the future.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:12 pm

Tom In VA wrote:I'd be interested to hear YOUR plans for the future.

Same old mantra. Plenty offered but none remembered. Only thing remembered is the GOP talking point that nothing is offered.

Someone change this to "army of two or more".

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:32 pm

mvscal wrote:Here we are.

"We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources. We can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will......I believe that we're going to win. I believe that. And by the way, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't have our troops there."

call it what you want but essentially what it boils down to is......

stay the course.......

fuckin great......

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:43 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:I'd be interested to hear YOUR plans for the future.
Same old mantra. Plenty offered but none remembered. Only thing remembered is the GOP talking point that nothing is offered.

Someone change this to "army of two or more".

Spare me your delusional arrogance for once. What's the alternative NOW.

ElvisMonster · Post by **ElvisMonster** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:58 pm

Leave tomorrow. Tell 'em if shit is fucked up in five years, we'll kick their teeth in again. And every five years after that until they get it right.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:01 pm

ElvisMonster wrote:Leave tomorrow. Tell 'em if shit is fucked up in five years, we'll kick their teeth in again. And every five years after that until they get it right.

Not bad at all.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:01 pm

Tom In VA wrote:delusional

Coming from the guy who can't think for himself? Amusing.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:09 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:delusional
Coming from the guy who can't think for himself? Amusing.

Awwww aren't you cute. You actually think you're thoughts on this matter are original.

Maybe you can find how I'm "LOCK STEP". Or not. Don't waste your time, you won't find it.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:12 pm

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:stay the course.......

fuckin great......
That's how you win, you fucking pussy.

so we're....winning?

thanks for clearing that up.......

good god I sure would hate to see what a clusterfuck that shithole would be if we were losing......

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:19 pm

According to Bush yesterday, we're not winning and we're not losing.

Unfortunately a tie is like kissing your sister.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:25 pm

Mikey wrote:According to Bush yesterday, we're not winning and we're not losing.

so we're not that dissimilar from the majority of blackjack or slot players in Las Vegas......

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:29 pm

Mikey wrote:According to Bush yesterday, we're not winning and we're not losing.

Unfortunately a tie is like kissing your sister.

I think you're right Mikey. Bush did in fact say we're not winning. As for a tie being like kissing your sister, I don't have a sister and if I tried to kiss my brother I don't think that would be "like a tie", I think that would be "like a faggot".

But you are in fact correct.

In fact, everyone is correct, about Iraq. Especially Bace. I never read anywhere else, except here, that we shouldn't be in Iraq. And the reasons he's so profoundly mentioned in the past, were sheer displays of brilliance. I stand corrected.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:49 pm

Tom In VA wrote: What's the alternative NOW.

Sadly Tom, there is no alternative at the present......

Bumblya's "planning" has pretty much guaranteed that we're going to be hemorrhaging money in Iraq for a long, long time to come.......

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:51 pm

Tom In VA wrote:In fact, everyone is correct, about Iraq. Especially Bace. I never read anywhere else, except here, that we shouldn't be in Iraq. And the reasons he's so profoundly mentioned in the past, were sheer displays of brilliance. I stand corrected.

Have some kleenex.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:01 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:In fact, everyone is correct, about Iraq. Especially Bace. I never read anywhere else, except here, that we shouldn't be in Iraq. And the reasons he's so profoundly mentioned in the past, were sheer displays of brilliance. I stand corrected.
Have some kleenex.

Aptly put Bace, aptly put. Succinct, to the point, and quite frankly, right on the money. It's truly a blessing to be able to continue to read this stuff.

Bush, with reams of documentation, legal experts, strategists, tacticians, experts in their respective fields at his fingertips but at a cost, could have easily avoided all of this had he just given you a call.

It's a crime. It really is.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:42 pm

Increase troop strength? Good idea!

Why limit the opportunity to only 160,000 or so the chance to win the IED Lottery?

You can't win if you dont buy a ticket...

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:00 am

The sense of forboding, the wit, the wry sarcasm. Marty, you've crafted a wonderful Internet message board post.

I don't know if it's Christmas time for you or since you're an anarchist, I suppose it's a "Merry WhateverTheFuckYouWantItToBe"

But I do hope you enjoy the luxuries of PC gaming, console gaming, message board posting, and in the true spirit of anarchy the "dowhateverthefuckyoufeellike"ing, this winters solstice.

Enjoy.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:25 am

Ever wonder why Santa Clause resembles Marx so much?

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:31 am

mvscal wrote:
Felix wrote:Sadly Tom, there is no alternative at the present......
Then shut the fuck up, dipshit.

stick it up your ass meltie......

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:37 am

We have already won. Our objective was to shitcan Saddam and give Iraqis the opportunity to form a free, representative democracy.

That's all we can do. The rest is up to Iraqis.

Ok, fine. However, now that they're talking about increasing troop strength, they're going to fuck this up even worse.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:04 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Bush, with reams of documentation, legal experts, strategists, tacticians, experts in their respective fields at his fingertips but at a cost, could have easily avoided all of this had he just given you a call.

Yup. He didn't call and he listened to other folks. Look where that got him. The Decider fucked up, and the military sheep are flailing.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:12 pm

Bush, with reams of documentation, legal experts, strategists, tacticians, experts in their respective fields at his fingertips but at a cost, could have easily avoided all of this had he just given you a call.

Hell...he could have listened to the folks in his administration and the folks with chests full of medals who were advising him on Iraq...but instead, he listened to a couple of guys who weren't listening to anybody.

Those guys were idiots...and now we have a big mess on our hands. For the thousandth time, deposing Saddam and bringing "freedom" to Iraq are noble goals. Their approaches to those goals were deplorably simple-minded.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:27 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Bush, with reams of documentation, legal experts, strategists, tacticians, experts in their respective fields at his fingertips but at a cost, could have easily avoided all of this had he just given you a call.
Yup. He didn't call and he listened to other folks. Look where that got him.

Some people have to learn the hard way Bace. One thing for sure, I know I'm glad you're on our side, whether they call or not is really ~~their...~~ check that ... OUR loss, on that note, I'm on a letter writing campaign.

PSUFAN you don't mind if I reveal the double secret location of T1B to the officials in a letter writing campaign do you ? The gold mine of think tankery this place is, I feel it's our patriotic duty to let them in to read and post.

I'm on it.

After the winter's waste of time and money that is. Bah Humbug. Good talk and thanks for clearing things up guys.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:23 pm

Tom In VA wrote:Some people have to learn the hard way Bace.

And some people don't learn.

No matter what happened someone was going to be whining. Folks are sickened by the obnoxious loss of American lives and resources. If we didn't invade Iraq, others would be sickened by the complete cowardice in the face of terrorism and an unwillingness to assert ourselves as Democracy's champion leading to an eventual demise of our nation's position of power.

As things worked out, I whined for two years and have gloated since.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:12 am

mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Hell...he could have listened to the folks in his administration and the folks with chests full of medals who were advising him on Iraq...
Like Tommy Franks...you know the general who was actually in command of the mission?

Wrong.

More like General Shinseki....who advised Bush to use a much larger force than what they did use.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:15 am

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:Hell...he could have listened to the folks in his administration and the folks with chests full of medals who were advising him on Iraq...
Like Tommy Franks...you know the general who was actually in command of the mission?
Wrong.

More like General Shinseki....who advised Bush to use a much larger force than what they did use.

Wow man, gutsy call.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:58 am

Even with the Rumsfeld decreed "one-hand-tied-behind-our-back" approach, the so-called insurgency was pretty much on the ropes by the time we smoked Zarqawi.
Then Iran put their plan in motion: Increased infiltration of the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq- train up, re-arm & resupply the Iraqi "insurgents" (mostly al Sadr's militia, although there were other groups, both shia and sunni), and ship shitloads of arms to Hezbollah for their planned summer offensive against Israel. It didn't help that Chimpy and his brain trust decided the best response was to take the summer off and wait until after the mid-term elections to decide what to do.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:40 am

Cuda wrote: Then Iran put their plan in motion: Increased infiltration of the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq- train up, re-arm & resupply the Iraqi "insurgents" (mostly al Sadr's militia, ...

Iran backs the Badr Brigades, not Sadr's militias, you Down-Syndromed orangutan.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:45 pm

Iran is backing them all, dumbfuck- The violence they generate keeps us occupied so we can't go after their nuke facilities.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Cuda wrote:Iran is backing them all, dumbfuck- The violence they generate keeps us occupied so we can't go after their nuke facilities.

where do you come up with this shit......

tin-foil hat much......

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:03 am

There is absolutely nothing to prove or even suggest that a much larger force would have prevented the insurgency.

The point I am making is that they badly bungled the aftermath of the invasion. They did a lot of work for the cameras...they trucked in Kurds to whoop it up on the streets, they staged the Saddam statue deal. They didn't seem even interested in what was to happen afterward.

OCmike · Post by **OCmike** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:17 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
They didn't seem even interested in what was to happen afterward.

I don't think it was that, as much as it was that they were supremely confident that they were "right" in everything that they did, to the point that anyone who questioned what Bush or Bremer did was met with defiant arrongance.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Wed Jan 03, 2007 4:47 am

Cuda wrote:Iran is backing them all, dumbfuck- The violence they generate keeps us occupied so we can't go after their nuke facilities.

I call bullshit, prick.

NO ONE can be so fucking retarded.

T1B

Increasing troop strength?

Increasing troop strength?

Re: Increasing troop strength?

Re: Increasing troop strength?