T1B

Why, send in more troops for an undetermined length of time, that's how.

Surprised you didn't know that.

That will be all.

Wrong. The answer is 'start a war with an even smaller country'

That works too.

Just about any stupid answer works for this administration. Really.

Nishlord wrote:Wrong. The answer is 'start a war with an even smaller country'

I understand Iceland has been acting defiant.

awwww...Sheeesh.....

the price of Slurpees are going UP.

The Assassin wrote:

Nishlord wrote:Wrong. The answer is 'start a war with an even smaller country'

I understand Iceland has been acting defiant.

Liechtenstein just better keep its fucking mouth shut right about now.

If you're against more troops then I guess you'd either like to ......

stay the course, or ....

pull out immediately.



Which is it ... ?

Punt

The ONLY nation supporting America's ghastly aggression against the nation of Iraq is ISRAEL
Let's get that straight right now, as several hundred more American soldiers get ready to die in the coming months.
http://z21.zupload.com/download.php?fil ... path=19232

GW Bush is a moronic war criminal of the first order. Are you still in doubt? Why?

Mister Bushice wrote:Why, send in more troops for an undetermined length of time, that's how.

Surprised you didn't know that.

That will be all.

I seem to remember back in 2003, when I was telling anybody who would listen that this war was a stupid fucking idea, that you were telling me that I should shut up and support the troops. You remember that?

Whether or not it is a stupid fucking idea remains to be seen.
We may not accurately be able to draw a conclusion for MANY years, decades, or generations to come.
A WHOLE lot is yet do go down in the middle east, and this current fighting in Iraq is just one piece of a big puzzle -- duh.


If you're gloating over some perceived 'I told ya so victory' your view is narrow, and your thinking is woefully shallow.

In short, you are one dumb fuck.

poptart wrote:Whether or not it is a stupid fucking idea remains to be seen.
We may not accurately be able to draw a conclusion for MANY years, decades, or generations to come.
A WHOLE lot is yet do go down in the middle east, and this current fighting in Iraq is just one piece of a big puzzle -- duh.


If you're gloating over some perceived 'I told ya so victory' your view is narrow, and your thinking is woefully shallow.

In short, you are one dumb fuck.

You see Bri? We don't need accurate foreign policy analysis when we have 'Tarts Bible Prophecy Redux.

Obviously, the ISG skipped over Leviticus and rather went with the unsavoury and unscientific "reality-based facts".

If I blame the Jews in my next post will you kiss my starfish .... ?

poptart wrote:If I blame the Jews...

Why would you?

I don't.

you send in more troops, insist that the Iraqis take more responsibilty, watch this "new plan" fail miserably, then you can blame the Iraqis for the failure......

it's all laid out in the latest edition of "War for Dummies"........

mvscal wrote:What failure?

so you're calling Iraq a success........

that's what I like best about you bud, you can see a silver lining in a fucking tornado cloud.....

mvscal wrote:
I'd call it a work in progress.

Success or failure is determined after it's over.

of course that's how you'd (meaning locksteps in general) would view it.....otherwise there's no way to justify continuing to hemmoraging money at record setting pace......

I didn't hear anything in the new plan about massive air raids on the so-called "insurgents".

Sounds a lot like the old plan to me.

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
I'd call it a work in progress.

Success or failure is determined after it's over.

of course that's how you'd (meaning locksteps in general)

C'mon man, seriously. Enough with the "lockstep" and bullshit "kool-aid" references. The fact is the success of failure of this IS more dynamic than a bunch of politicians trying to get sound bites in before they announce their re-election bids or bids for office. Considering so much of this bullshit is bullshit that WE'VE inherited (not without profit) as a direct result of WW's I and II, perhaps you view WWI and WWII a failure then.

But seriously man, how about a big push and a "God I hope we're doing the right thing and the men in the trenches get what they need to get the job done". Rather than a "Oh woe, we're going to fail, the sky has fallen, I'm tired of the news stories, I'm scared, oh no, we're failing, badly. It sucks, oh woe".

Please ?

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Why, send in more troops for an undetermined length of time, that's how.

Surprised you didn't know that.

That will be all.

I seem to remember back in 2003, when I was telling anybody who would listen that this war was a stupid fucking idea, that you were telling me that I should shut up and support the troops. You remember that?

No. I'd like to see a link to me saying that, though. I always disagreed with the war, but I accepted Saddams ouster, felt bad for the troops having to fight this meaningless war, but I don't think I ever said to you to shut the fuck up and support the troops. A lot of people did, though.

So, one week you're shrieking that the administration didn't send enough troops and the next week you're shrieking that they're sending too many.

Don't shove words in my mouth. I wasn't saying anything of the sort last week. A few years ago I was. You might remember that time, because that was when you were saying that more boots on the ground wouldn't make any difference....

The time to send in more troops is long past. This should have been done in the early stages of the insurgency. Now the insurgents are embedded in the population, well armed, and experienced. NOW is a stupid fucking time to escalate. Shades of Vietnam. jr.

Sounds a lot like the old plan to me.

First lucid thing Cuda has ever posted here.

Mister Bushice wrote:
No. I'd like to see a link to me saying that, though. I always disagreed with the war, but I accepted Saddams ouster, felt bad for the troops having to fight this meaningless war, but I don't think I ever said to you to shut the fuck up and support the troops. A lot of people did, though.

BSmack saying something to the effect that you were "cueing the Lee Greenwood CD's"...

...yeah, I remember those days.

Mister Bushice wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Why, send in more troops for an undetermined length of time, that's how.

Surprised you didn't know that.

That will be all.

I seem to remember back in 2003, when I was telling anybody who would listen that this war was a stupid fucking idea, that you were telling me that I should shut up and support the troops. You remember that?

No. I'd like to see a link to me saying that, though. I always disagreed with the war, but I accepted Saddams ouster, felt bad for the troops having to fight this meaningless war, but I don't think I ever said to you to shut the fuck up and support the troops. A lot of people did, though.

I wish I had a link to the old smackboard archives. But alas, they have been vaporized. Even the wayback machine doesn't have anything from those days. But I do remember you getting in my face regarding my strident opposition to the war. Something about this not being the "time or place" for such talk. I guess now would be a better time?

BSmack wrote: I wish I had a link to the old smackboard archives. But alas, they have been vaporized. Even the wayback machine doesn't have anything from those days. But I do remember you getting in my face regarding my strident opposition to the war. Something about this not being the "time or place" for such talk. I guess now would be a better time?

Why can't he change his opinoon and mind ? Hmmm. Seems you allow the politicans whom you support to do so back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.


And really, B, you weren't "right". You're no different than anyone here, you're a dork posting on a message board with the luxury of posting inconsequential projections, assumptions, opinions, and thoughts.

Really, I was never a war monger on this. I was not ever one of those "turn the place into glass" types.

I think time may have vaporized some of your memories, too.

Of course it's been nearly 4 years since it started. No surprise memories are hazy.

But certainly at least the last 3 and a half of those years I've been strongly against the whole mess. Prior to that I was willing to accept the situation and was hoping it would end quickly.

Mister Bushice wrote: But certainly at least the last 3 and a half of those years I've been strongly against the whole mess.

You're against this whole mess simply because it's a mess.

Would you give a shit how many innocent civilians were killed if the operation were a "success"?

You'd be throwing confetti and kissing returning Marines with the rest of them.

Mister Bushice wrote:Really, I was never a war monger on this.

Who the fuck is ?

How about the nation was attacked, the leaders made decisions, some people trusted they were making the right decisions and we don't really know for sure yet if they were the right decisions, but people are still getting killed.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. I don't think these people are salivating at the notion of being at war.

Tom In VA wrote: I don't think these people are salivating at the notion of being at war.

^^^^^^^^^

Whoever this new guy is, I'd wish he'd give Tom his password back.

Martyred wrote:

Tom In VA wrote: I don't think these people are salivating at the notion of being at war.

^^^^^^^^^

Whoever this new guy is, I'd wish he'd give Tom his password back.

My "position" on the matter hasn't changed, maybe I'm just able to articulate it better, I don't know.

Were I grunt, perhaps I would be salivating, I don't know. I've no interest in the guilt associated with living off another man's sacrifice. Have that far too much as it is.

The way you save Iraq is by making it clear that we're willing to use overwhelming force against Iran if they don't quit interfering, and that the Iranian regime is responsible for the actions of its various proxies. Since we're clearly not willing to do that, I'm not terribly optimistic. Still, withdrawal is no solution at all.

I assume a few things: I assume that AQ and the Iranians will both keep fighting us unless we're willing to follow a policy of not interfering with their ambitions. Second, I also believe that some x amount of resources will be used by them in that effort, whether we're in Iraq or not. Third, I believe that those resources are limited (far more so than ours), and allocation of those resources to Iraq really does hinder their allocation elsewhere. If I'm correct in those assumptions, then withdrawal will lead sooner rather than later to an escalation in the Israeli-Palestine conflict by Iran through its proxies and a renewed AQ effort to destabilize the Saudis. It would also free up resources for another attack within the US.

I do not believe these people can be reasoned with. They can only be defeated. The Democratic policymakers are likely to get a chance to do this their way over the next few years. We'll see if events prove me wrong.

How is it that the same administration which has been making rash decisions on totally fake "intelligence" is somehow to be trusted in insisting that Iran is "attacking us"?

Any evidence whatsoever that Iran is "promoting terrorism"?

As for "our leaders" making decisions, who elected this fuckstain (who, btw, is the "author" of the Chimp's insane new plan)?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

I thought that guy was killed by a Dilophosaurus

Tom In VA wrote:And really, B, you weren't "right".

Oh really Tom? You still think we're all going to que up our Lee Greenwood 8 tracks and march on to victory in Iraq?

BSmack wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:And really, B, you weren't "right".

Oh really Tom? You still think we're all going to que up our Lee Greenwood 8 tracks and march on to victory in Iraq?

I was thinking more along the lines of lining up to James Brown off the Rocky IV soundtrack.

I was opposed to the war from the onset. And the next few years solidified my reservations.

But I think 3.5 years is a little long to be crying over spilled milk.

The American effort fucking sucked. And thanks to the American People doing the wise thing at the voting booth, W has been forced to admit as much.

While the time to listen to the field commanders was about 3.5 years ago, at least someone did this time. Those guys know more about the situation than you, me, W, and maybe even mvscal(but I doubt it).

I'm an armchair general. Which is another way of saying I don't know shit, along with the rest of you. But of those that actually do know what they're talking about think the new plan will work, then I'm more than willing to lend an ear and give my support(like that means shit), albeit not without reservation. If those closer to the situation think this new plan with give the Iraqi Government a chance to get a leg up and stand on their own, then I'd say it's the least we, as Americans, can do.

I have no idea if this will offer any improvement or not, but it's a start. Without any effort spent towards improving, improvement will never happen. And regardless which side of the issues you fall on, improvement is everyone's goal, is it not? People just have differing ideas on what might constitute "improvement," but at least some heads got together and started the ball rolling...which is a big step up from what's happened so far.

I was also impressed by W manning-up, and admitting he lied(yeah, buddy...it sure looks like we brought that insurgency to its knees, alright).


All we are saying, is give war a chance.

Dinsdale wrote:But of those that actually do know what they're talking about think the new plan will work.

help me out here.....exactly how does the "new plan" differ from the "old plan" other than throwing 20,000 more troops into the fray......

what I heard during his speech was: send in more troops.....set goals for the Iraqi government....issue another warning that it's better to fight them there than it is here....

so maybe our resident military expert can enlighten me as to exactly what the differences in the "plans" are.......

mvscal wrote:... we are getting ready to drop the hammer on Sadr City ...

Yeah, because the war against the Sunni was so unrewarding, you want to start all over again, this time
with the Shiia.



Is anyone in your country still in possesion of their brains?

Felix wrote:help me out here.....exactly how does the "new plan" differ from the "old plan" other than throwing 20,000 more troops into the fray......

Again, for the record, I've been pretty anti-Iraq-War from the getgo.

But, what's done is done.

Once Baghdad and beyond becomes more secure(if it ever does, but that's what the extra troops are for), it frees up both US and Iraqi forces to move on to the next order of business, which is to provide security for the massive amounts of public works projects that need taking care of. But the first order of business has to be to provide security for Joe Ahmed Blow on the street.

Toss that whole "hearts and minds" bullshit out the window. Like China, like Japan, the way to win those "hearts and minds" is to show them the money...plain and simple. They have plenty of oil resources to provide $$, but until the pipelines and whatnot, and the utilities that support them are functional and safe, there won't be any money.


Same way the USA recovered from the Depression.


And I liked the idea of sharing oil revenues throughout the whole population. This was almost-kind-of-sort-of how Saddam got to be in power in the first place(kinda-sorta-almost).


I'm fairly excited for the people of Iraq. Not that I'm terribly confident in the New Plan, but it's a start. And if Iraqis see hope in a change of direction, then it will have served at least some purpose. Let's help build a country that these long-suffering people can be proud to call home. We bitch about the goings-on in our country all the time...hell, we dedicate internet forums to it. But overall, it's a pretty cool place, and you don't see us shooting it out in the streets over the way it's run(only over who gets to sell crack on which corner).

mvscal wrote: We've fought Sadr's goons before. It didn't work out very well for them.

So why did you guys stop then?

Oh wait...this is the point where you tell me that CENTCOM shit it's pants over bad press in the NYT...

Dinsdale wrote:
I'm fairly excited for the people of Iraq. Not that I'm terribly confident in the New Plan, but it's a start. And if Iraqis see hope in a change of direction, then it will have served at least some purpose.

I didn't know this thread had turned into a drinking game.

Okay...how does it work? Say something incredibly myopic and take a swig? Cool...I'll get my bottle...

mvscal wrote: We stopped because the Iraqi authorities asked us to since the Mookster was "ready to negotiate" after we eviscerated his militia in Najaf and Baghdad.

So you called off the dogs, after "eviscerating" Sadr's miltia...



...because the Iraqi "authorities" asked you to?



Tell me General, when was the last time the U.S. military negotiated with a vanquished foe?

Don't answer that, the answer is "never".

At this point, you're turning into a mockery of yourself.