T1B

I remember another war that we used inflated body counts to justify a failed policy.

I remember another war that we used inflated body counts to justify a failed policy.

No you don't. You were, what, 3 years old when Saigon fell? I know you're roughly the same age as I am, so regarding the early 70's, I'll bet you remember more about H.R. Puffenstuff than you do Vietnam.

Variable wrote:I'll bet you remember more about H.R. Puffenstuff...

I thought that's how BMonica still got his political perspective. :?

Variable wrote:

I remember another war that we used inflated body counts to justify a failed policy.

No you don't. You were, what, 3 years old when Saigon fell? I know you're roughly the same age as I am, so regarding the early 70's, I'll bet you remember more about H.R. Puffenstuff than you do Vietnam.

No, I was 9 when Siagon bit the dust. I remember watching it on TV. I also remember watching some of the moon landings and Nixon's resignation. Dare I say, I was a preteen news junkie.

Also, I know Lab Rat will have a coronary, but I wasn't down with Puffenstuff. Scooby Doo and Bugs Bunny were my faves.

But I digress....

The insurgency in Afghanistan is several thousand string and growing. They have better weapons than before, outside funding, and work in small independent cells, not to claim territory but to disrupt and destroy. This group was the one responsible for taking out 20 marines, so they were targeted. That still leaves several thousand others.

Mr Taliban is still around.

However, this is still a major defeat...not that we'll read this in tomorrow's reports of the engagement.

And just where do you get your detailed information about these turds, bushice?

Sincerely,
Bushice

DrDetroit wrote:However, this is still a major defeat...not that we'll read this in tomorrow's reports of the engagement.

Yawn...

sin

Those of us who have not swallowed the Kool Aid.

Fuck off, B. Seriously, your act is tired.

DrDetroit wrote:Fuck off, B. Seriously, your act is tired.

Get a thicker maxi pad.

mvscal,

Is counting enemy dead important to you now? Seems as if last year at this time it wasn't.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:They have better weapons than before,

Like what?

Did Tawana tell you that?

"today's Taliban is fighting a guerrilla war with new weapons, including portable anti-aircraft missiles, and equipment bought with cash sent through
Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, according to Afghan and Western officials."

You really need to read more.

mvscal wrote:

socal wrote:Is counting enemy dead important to you now?

It's always important to keep track of enemy casualties.

Should it be publicized?

socal wrote:Should it be publicized?

Only when you're looking to justify a bad policy.

BSmack wrote:

socal wrote:Should it be publicized?

Only when you're looking to justify a bad policy.

To assess something as bad policy, implies you have a notion of what a "good policy" is. I don't think you do. If you do, I'd like to hear it.

Old Policy = Slap on the wrists
New Policy + Drawing them out and killing them


The facts are, the old policy failed and the results of the new policy can be classified as TBD. But I could stand to read your justification of why it's "bad policy". Especially if you actually threw in an attempt at explaining "good policy".

socal wrote:

mvscal wrote:

socal wrote:Is counting enemy dead important to you now?

It's always important to keep track of enemy casualties.

Should it be publicized?

When it is to push back against a media and a major political party who says that the war has nothing to do with terrorism and that the administration is doing nothing to find and deal with terrorists. Then yes.

You're acting as though the administration releases information in a vacuum.

Tom In VA wrote:To assess something as bad policy, implies you have a notion of what a "good policy" is. I don't think you do. If you do, I'd like to hear it.

Old Policy = Slap on the wrists
New Policy + Drawing them out and killing them

You consider life in prison a "slap on the wrist"?

OK

:roll:

The facts are, the old policy failed and the results of the new policy can be classified as TBD. But I could stand to read your justification of why it's "bad policy". Especially if you actually threw in an attempt at explaining "good policy".

The old policy failed?

I prefer to think that the bastards got lucky.

Did we need to step up efforts to stop terrorist organizations? Sure. That's why invading Iraq was a lousy idea. We should have dropped a big fucking 200,000 troop hammer on Afghanistan when we had the chance and wiped out every last fucking taliban 3 years ago. But we didn't. Instead we made the world safe for Haliburton's bottom line.

I prefer to think that the bastards got lucky.

And this is why you're detached from reality.

Did we need to step up efforts to stop terrorist organizations? Sure.

Interesting that this idea arises after 9/11.

That's why invading Iraq was a lousy idea.

Why are you still separating terror groups from the countries that provide support and sancutary? Iraq was a terror sponsor and supporter. Sure, you'll respond that we then should have gone after Iran. However, we couldn't do that without first getting Saddam out of Iraq. But you'll never accept that as a reasonable strategy yet you'll offer nothing in return.

We should have dropped a big fucking 200,000 troop hammer on Afghanistan when we had the chance and wiped out every last fucking taliban 3 years ago. But we didn't.

Why didn't we? Because we went to Iraq? Wrong.

Why didn't we finish Saddam the first time? Take a guess. It was your hero, well, hero so long as he criticizes Bush, Colin Powell.

Instead we made the world safe for Haliburton's bottom line.

And every time you assert this your argument goes out the window with any sense that you'll engage in a reasonable, honest discussion here.

DrDetroit wrote:Iraq was a terror sponsor and supporter.

Sincerely,
Not the 9/11 Commission report. Plenty of other countries listed... not Iraq.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Iraq was a terror sponsor and supporter.

Sincerely,
Not the 9/11 Commission report. Plenty of other countries listed... not Iraq.

$25,000 to the families of Hezbollah suicide bombers says you're misinterpreting the commission's findings.

Bizzarofelice wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Iraq was a terror sponsor and supporter.

Sincerely,
Not the 9/11 Commission report. Plenty of other countries listed... not Iraq.

Link?

I do believe that the 9/11 Commission indicated that Iraq was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks...despite the several Commission-documented contacts between al-Queda and Iraqi intelligence service personnel prior to 9/11 and contacts between Iraqi intelligence service personnel and individual hijackers (see Malaysia contact).

So, please cite the relevant section of the 9/11 report that you believe exonerates Iraq from supporting and sponsoring terrorism.

BTW - I don't believe that the 9/11 Commission is the final arbiter on this matter. Why do you feel that they are?