RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops?

RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 6:43:02 PM)
quote: His current project is the destruction of Israel. Do you mean the GOVERNMENT of The State of Israel, ( Which some Jews would agree might be necessary, to start anew and actually include ALL the stakeholders equally... We shall see in the fullness of time... ) Do you mean The State of Israel? ( You seemed a little too enthusiastic about tossing nukes in another topic... ) Do you mean The Historical "State of Israel"? The Jewish People? I'm just unclear by the context you used, and there are, as we see, at least 3 different meanings readily applicable.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 6:55:13 PM)
So you agree with everything else I said in the previous post? FirmKY

WyrdRich -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:01:09 PM)
FR How does such a lousy orator get elected President?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:02:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Maybe we should have figured out a way to give the Iraqis 'balls' instead of training... but then they didn't ask us to go over there in the first place. They HAD them. Paul Bremer FIRED them. And thank god he did. I've seen this criticism fairly often, but have never responded to it before, but .... One of the best things, in the long term, that was done in Iraq was the total dismissal of the military leadership and dissolving all the units. FirmKY

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:50:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So you agree with everything else I said in the previous post? FirmKY I do not know whether or not I agree. I have not yet seen your reply to my question asking for clarification of your meaning. It would be pointless to say anything about it otherwise.

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:51:45 PM)
quote: One of the best things, in the long term, that was done in Iraq was the total dismissal of the military leadership and dissolving all the units. Is that way Re-Baathification is underway?

juliaoceania -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:56:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich FR How does such a lousy orator get elected President? He has his Daddy's friends buy it for him[:D] GW could not run a 7-11, much less a country. I often have thought he has the opposite of the Midas touch, everything he touches turns to shit... his life is full of examples.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 7:58:06 PM)
I was watching CNN and a Republican called in and said he was in hiding. If I was a Republican I would hide also. I don't know why anyone voted for him the first time, much less a second time. This country asked for it, now they got it. At this point I pray a lot for our country. If I start talking about my personal opinions of Bush, I would get into trouble. [;)]

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:16:09 PM)
I had to turn off the C-SPAN call in when the very first caller, just HAD to go and tell the HOST of the show, that if we didn't support The President, SHE would be wearing a burkah. Sometimes I just wonder if it's all a flashback. One of the bad ones... Then I remember the only bad trip I ever had was that visit to my aunt in Cleveland when I was 11. And there weren't no drugs involved.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:20:50 PM)
[sm=banghead.gif] LOL you are too funny. I can't stop watching the coverage. I guess that makes me a maso.

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The root cause of the problems in Iraq now is the intercommunal hatred that exists there. I dont really know what any advance military strategy could have done about that Political strategy, maybe, had it been known how intense the hatred is/was. When the troubles were at their height in Northern Ireland many people, non in power tho', called for total withdrawal and let the Irish fight themselves to a standstill if needs be. The current calm there has been achieved by giving away almost everything to one side,the Republicans. However the underlying weakness of the Loyalists, pro Brit , may have something to do with the lack of military response I dont know. So maybe a solution in Iraq is to judge which side may at least be not totally hostile to the West, boost them up, then leave. Trying to achieve balance there seems impossible. I wish someone had called me 5 years ago. I am totally in the wrong field. I could have freaking told them you can't go charging into a freaking Islamic country and bring Democracy unless you want to fight a 100 years war. I mean I was screaming this for years....WTF? Come on now? You did not see this?

Archer -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:32:33 PM)
Watched the speach and about 5 minutes of commentary and then returned to my regular schedueled TV Top Chef end of last weeks (the kidlettes had not seen it) and then the new episode. Got a few things I had hoped he would do (change rules of engadgment, elimination of defacto safe zones for sectarian militias) adjustment of forces to a reasonable ratio to effect security inside Bahgdad itself) and a little less than I had hoped for in the details of the requirements they put on the Iraqi Government [ Moving 3 (Iraqi brigades I think I heard) from the quiet provinces to Bahgdad]. The increase in the overll size of the Army and Marines was a welcome action as well. It stands a chance of working and it's not Staying the Course, it's a real adjustment of stratagy, He was about right on the restrained tone about Iranian involvement in the suppy of bomb eqquipment to the sectarian militias. (don't want to push that too hard at the moment) But good to hear that some of the resources will be going to interdiction of those bombs as they come in from Iran.

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:34:26 PM)
quote: It stands a chance of working and it's not Staying the Course, it's a real adjustment of stratagy, We like the term "Iraqization", ourselves...

MzMia -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 8:35:37 PM)
By the way, newsflash--those people will fight until there are about 100 people left. That is what they DO over there, fight. At what point did we think we could plop ourselves in fucking Iraq, set up a Democracy, and leave? WTF, now I need to calm down. Those people will need us for at least another 50 years if not longer. We opened up a can of whoop ass we cant close now.

caitlyn -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 9:16:13 PM)
We aren't there to set up a Democracy. We're there because oil it important, and it's a really good place to have an army. While we're at it ... it's a good chance for evil people to let their friends line their pockets with taxpayer money. Want to know when our involvement will end ... how about when oil is no longer important. Read Procopius. [;)]

UtopianRanger -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 10:17:19 PM)
quote: Want to know when our involvement will end ... how about when oil is no longer important. Read Procopius. Dontcha think it would be better if she reads Caligula first? [8\|] - R

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 10:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I dont recall anybody using the words "illiterate," "wanna-be dictator," or "easily angered" to describe Clinton, Carter, Wilson, Jackson, etc. These men were all highly educated, did not wish to rule the world, and were more interested in creating consensus than conflict. Clinton's behavior showed that "intelligent" and "educated" do not necessarily mean "moral", "honest" or "principled". Wilson ... have to go and refresh on that one. Unfettered idealism comes to mind. Jackson?!! Damn! Encourged the "spoils system"? Any idea about how he let the White House get trashed on a regular basis? Educated? You sure? "Easily angered"? Hell yes! He fought a lot of duels, and even killed a man in one, once. I never said Clinton had principles. I said he was educated and intelligent. There is a difference. www.dictionary.com A lot of people fought duels during that time period. What is your point? Was he controlled by his temper? Or are you trying to use the intellectual fallacy that the societal value systems currently in vogue in the United States apply in all time periods throughout history? Jackson was an excellent rhetorician with extensive education (by the standards of the day) meaning that he was well read and skilled in read, writing, debate, etc. One of the things he stated is that Corporation's should be outlawed because they lacked an inner moral sensibility. Wilson was college educated, and developed the United Nations as an attempt to try to prevent the sort of intertangling alliances which drew most of the world into a devastating war (World War 1) because there was no forum by which sovereign nations could air grievances and redress wrongs. After World War 2, when it was started up again the powers that won World War 2 demanded veto power. Since that time, the United Nations has been basically useless to do anything. I cannot really think of any President since World War 2 who did not have the preservation of the Isreali occupation and control of a former Muslim country as a foremost priority. Seems a bit intellectually dishonest to think that Carter started the whole debacle. Although, it does not shock me that you think so. Sinergy edited to remove an extraneous they had.

Sinergy -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 11:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer It stands a chance of working and it's not Staying the Course, it's a real adjustment of stratagy, [sarcasm] Yes, LBJ's troop escalation in Vietnam worked so well. I totally agree that we should do the same thing in Iraq. [/sarcasm] Psychotic behavior is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Personally, I saw this movie in the late 60s and early 70s and I know how it ends. Sinergy edited because I did not end my sarcasm correctly

farglebargle -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 11:17:02 PM)
quote: I cannot really think of any President since World War 2 who did not have the preservation of the Isreali occupation and control of a former Muslim country as a foremost priority. I need to ask for the same clarification. Do you mean the Government of The State of Israel's occupation? I think we need to focus on destroying all religious nationalism, and it's time for all religious governments to go the way of ... well... archaic, obsolete things... It's late, I'm tired, pick your own humorous nouns... Look at it this way, if the Islamic Repubic of XYZ is bad, so is the Hebrew Republic or whatever, then blanket bans on granting residency or citizenship status to Palestinians from the occupied territories who are married to Israeli citizens are bad too. You know, like... One man, One Vote... But with women, too, of course... And those who don't want to commit, too...

Solinear -> RE: Why have we waited so long to send more troops? (1/10/2007 11:24:41 PM)
There is one fallacy that keep hitting me: Troops will fix anything. Troops fix nothing. If we want the Iraqis to stop killing each-other we need to make sure that they're busy doing other things... like... I don't know... JOBS?! They're not qualified? You're telling me that we couldn't have trained these people to do a damn thing in the what... 3+ years since we invaded? They're not stupid, they just don't have the same system of values that we have. You can see that they do value a work ethic and the ability to do their jobs and feed their families though, since you see it in so many muslim families over here and everywhere else in the world. You can damn well bet that Hassan Hassanbi's family isn't going to be trying to blow up the power plant when he's working there. You can also bet that the people who aren't part of his family aren't going to bomb it when they rely on it for electricity and clean water. Of course, if they're busy doing jobs, they won't be doing anything but making their lives better. You want to make sure that the next generation is better off than this one? Get the schools set up and running. The faster you get people busy working and learning, the less time they're going to spend trying to blow each-other (and us) up. If you check through the muslim regions, the more jobs there are in a country, the less they want to riot and overthrow their government and put in some Islamic pseudo-dictatorship. The cause of this problem is that we can't trust anyone else to do anything competently and refuse to teach them to. Halliburton - they must be the only company that can competently put Iraq back together, only... wait... they haven't gotten a damn thing done yet, nor have half of the rest of the contracting companies that are sucking craploads of money out of our government. Somehow the people at the top are still getting paid though and paid pretty damned well. This isn't about American jobs over there, it's about big corporations getting craploads of money for doing everything to the lowest level of competency that they can get away with, while getting paid obscene sums of money. I have very little faith in my government and it will stay that way for a long time. As many people here know, trust is earned and trust lost is twice as hard to earn back.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875