PDA

View Full Version : U.S. commander warns against Iraq cutoff



Pages : [1] 2

MattW
11-15-2006, 11:20 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4337039.html


The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.
The assertion by Gen. John Abizaid seemed to put him at odds with some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.
"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," the general said.This seems to be the standard line for most commanders - we've got enough troops to do what we need. Maybe a small spike.

Are the generals political animals? Do they buy "stay the course"?

Or are soldiers the only true realists in this situation?



In one of the day's most contentious clashes, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., challenged Abizaid on his analysis of the situation and complained that he was advocating no major changes in U.S. policy. McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has called for adding thousands more U.S. combat troops in Iraq to help fight the insurgency and halt sectarian violence in Baghdad.
Luv ya Johnny.

billythrilly7th
11-15-2006, 11:22 PM
Luv ya Johnny.

We all do.
:)

greglondon
11-15-2006, 11:25 PM
and yet military intel was saying months ago that Iraq is more and more becoming an unwinnable war.

William Haskins
11-15-2006, 11:28 PM
obviously the answer is to waterboard proponents of both competing strategies and see who breaks first.

greglondon
11-15-2006, 11:33 PM
saying
"we will lose teh war if you set a timetable for withdrawal"
is not the same as saying
"we can win the war if you do NOT set a timetable"

Just to point out the distinction.

billythrilly7th
11-15-2006, 11:40 PM
I just hope to hear Nancy Pelosi's plan for Iraq that will help the Iraqi people towards stability, peace and prosperity.

I'm open to all ideas from our newly elected leaders.

Joe Unidos
11-15-2006, 11:48 PM
I just hope to hear Nancy Pelosi's plan for Iraq that will help the Iraqi people towards stability, peace and prosperity.

I'm open to all ideas from our newly elected leaders.

Give it time. We've been waiting patiently for five years and we've yet to hear Mr Bush's plan for Iraq that will help the Iraqi people towards stability, peace and prosperity.

billythrilly7th
11-15-2006, 11:53 PM
Give it time. We've been waiting patiently for five years and we've yet to hear Mr Bush's plan for Iraq that will help the Iraqi people towards stability, peace and prosperity.


We have a plan, but it's taking too long for the anti-war crowd so....

Time for fresh ideas. A fresh set of eyeballs on the problem.

I look forward to hearing all solutions from both sides of the aisle.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
11-15-2006, 11:56 PM
What do you think we should do, Joe?

greglondon
11-15-2006, 11:59 PM
We have a plan, but it's taking too long for the anti-war crowd so....

The plan was "6 weeks and we'd be out".
It officially failed on 1 May 2003.
We've been operating on the original military plan ever since.
i.e. 400k troops and maybe Iraq goes civil war anyway.
except, Bush had to go with 140k troops instead.

So, you can stop acting like the dem's should have a magic solution.
What we need is someone in touch with reality to make some decisions.
ANd if the reality is that Iraq has passed the point of being winnable,
we need to admit that, not say

"More WILLPOWER, Cap'n! I kenna hold it together much longer!"

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 12:03 AM
So, you can stop acting like the dem's should have a magic solution.

No magic solution wanted.

Any solution. Even a scrap of an idea from our newly elected leadership would be welcome.

The days of just complaining are over.

You now have a responsiblity to lead. I know it's much harder than just sitting back in a chair all day going "That sucks. You stink. Booo!!"

Time to get off the chair and get in the game.

Good luck. We're all counting on you.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 12:04 AM
The Bush plan seemed to end after "invade. Get Saddam. Demand a democracy sprout up so we can go home." Didn't seem to have a step 4, 5, et al.


You now have a responsiblity to lead. I know it's much harder than just sitting back in a chair all day going "That sucks. You stink. Booo!!"

True, but isn't Bush still in charge? Doesn't he need to come up with, I don't know, something, anything? After invading, what was his strategy? What is it now? It seems to consist of telling people either a) not to complain b) your idea sucks or c) things are going great. Now, it seems he's added d) well, what are you going to do about it. I'm only the president here, I'm powerless.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 12:08 AM
The Bush plan seemed to end after "invade. Get Saddam. Demand a democracy sprout up so we can go home." Didn't seem to have a step 4, 5, et al.

"When they stand up, we'll stand down."
W

It's an excellent plan. Train the security forces and build a military who can take over the security of their own country.

Hold democratic elections to build a government for and by the people.

It's a tremendous plan.

Just going extraordinarily slow and with plenty of mistakes.

:Shrug:

I'd like to hear what the democrats think we should do AT SOME POINT.

Thank you.

Joe Unidos
11-16-2006, 12:09 AM
What do you think we should do, Joe?

Barring the invention of a time machine to go back and prevent this clusterfvck from ever having begun, my first order of business would be to examine, with no preconceived notions, why the deadlines and troop numbers for the training of Iraqi security personnel have repeatedly been missed, under-delivered and delayed.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 12:11 AM
Barring the invention of a time machine to go back and prevent this clusterfvck from ever having begun, my first order of business would be to examine, with no preconceived notions, why the deadlines and troop numbers for the training of Iraqi security personnel have repeatedly been missed, under-delivered and delayed.


Thank you. That wasn't so hard now was it?

I agree 100%.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 12:11 AM
It's an excellent plan. Train the security forces and build a military who can take over the security of their own country.

This isn't a plan. This is an objective. Two different things.

And what difference does it make what Dems say? For a while they've said, "This isn't working, we need to redeploy," or others have said "we need partition." And Bush has responded with "you're a terrorist and you want the terrorists to win." So if you're not going to listen to me, why should I come up with a plan?

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 12:19 AM
So if you're not going to listen to me, why should I come up with a plan?

Because the American people and more importantly the Iraqi people are counting on you.

I hope you guys step up to the plate.

Joe Unidos
11-16-2006, 12:42 AM
Thank you. That wasn't so hard now was it?

Apparently it is, considering that your hero has still not addressed it.

Joe Unidos
11-16-2006, 12:43 AM
Because the American people and more importantly the Iraqi people are counting on you.

I hope you guys step up to the plate.

We get it: you're spinning Mr Bush's colossal screw-up as now the Dem's responsibilty. So clever of you.

*yawn*

greglondon
11-16-2006, 12:48 AM
Originally Posted by billythrilly7th
Because the American people and more importantly the Iraqi people are counting on you.

I hope you guys step up to the plate.



We get it: you're spinning Mr Bush's colossal screw-up as now the Dem's responsibilty. So clever of you.

*yawn*


shorter Billy: I wash my hands of it. The blood is on your hands now.

I think Pontius Pilate said something along those lines.

hm....

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 12:52 AM
I like to think of it more as tag team wrestling.

I'm tagging out....

Good luck Joe, Greg, Nancy and the Democrats!

We're counting on you and so are the voters heading to the polls in '08.

Don't let them down.


We get it: you're spinning Mr Bush's colossal screw-up as now the Dem's responsibilty. So clever of you.

*yawn*


It's your responsibility because it was the #1 issue in this election and that's why you guys got voted in. Please don't tell me you have nothing on this? Please tell me the poll saying 57% of the American people believing you have nothing is wrong.

Don't shirk your new found responsibilty, Joe.

I know. It was easier to just sit back and complain about Bush. But now you've graduated high school and it's time to take on some responsiblity.

I think you can do it, if you try.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:02 AM
"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

Matthew 27:24

Pontius Pilate on crucifying Jesus.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Joe Unidos
11-16-2006, 01:04 AM
I like to think of it more as tag team wrestling.

It's your responsibility because it was the #1 issue in this election and that's why you guys got voted in. Please don't tell me you have nothing on this? Please tell me the poll saying 57% of the American people believing you have nothing is wrong.

Don't shirk your new found responsibilty, Joe.

I know. It was easier to just sit back and complain about Bush. But now you've graduated high school and it's time to take on some responsiblity.

I think you can do it, if you try.

I'm not going to explain the separation of the different branches of government to you, I'll just say that the Dems will offer all they help they can until 2008 comes and they can finally get to the real work of fixing one of the largest missteps in the history of the United States from the Oval Office.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:04 AM
"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

Matthew 27:24

Pontius Pilate on crucifying Jesus.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Yes.

Good luck. We're all rooting for you for what it's worth.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:06 AM
I'm not going to explain the separation of the different branches of government to you, I'll just say that the Dems will offer all they help they can until 2008 comes and they can finally get to the real work of fixing one of the largest missteps in the history of the United States from the Oval Office.


I just want help.

Thank you. That's all I'm asking for. The American people put you on to help fix this problem of Iraq. I look forward to hearing the plans from the democratic leadership. That's all.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:07 AM
We're all rooting for you for what it's worth.

And yet Bush is still Commander in Chief

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:11 AM
And yet Bush is still Commander in Chief


Try and work with him, greg.

He has to listen to you at least a little bit. Maybe if you come up with some good plans he'll even implement a few of them.

Maybe like an Iraqi afterschool intermural program or something or a cupcake sale for infrastructure rebuilding.

Anything.

Please tell me the American people didn't put you in power so you can just sit there and go "Yeah, it's not our mess and we got nothing."

Please tell me that. I don't think that will go over well in the polls come '08.

I'm just looking out for you.

:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:15 AM
I know it's hard my democratic friends to break the cycle of complaining and finger pointing and move on to the cycle of problem solving. The former is so much easier and so much less stressful.

But I call on you to rise above the cycle and take steps into a new day when a democrat can be indentified by his proud voice in the night saying "I have a solution!!"

Good luck.

blacbird
11-16-2006, 01:20 AM
Regards Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq who continue to maintain they have enough troops: That's Rumsfeld's line, always has been (after all, to say otherwise would be to admit error), and it's verrrrrry well-established that he's a guy you don't disagree with if you want to keep working for him. So we wind up with a Defense Secretary surrounded by yes-generals like Peter Pace. The striking thing to me is the number of highly respected high-rank officers, some retired, others about to be, who have publicly disagreed with this assessment (Shinseki, Zinni come to mind immediately, and -- oh, yeah -- that Colin Powell guy who got run out of the Secretary of State's job for it). Even in the darkest days of Vietnam, I don't recall big-time military officers saying such things.

Problem now is, it's probably too late for a big influx of U.S. troops to help much. Should have been done right after the invasion, and that's not hindsight. There were plenty of knowledgeable military types advocating that at the time (notably Powell), and they were ignored.

caw

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 01:21 AM
The former is so much easier and so much less stressful.

Which is why it's nice to see the GOP sliding back into it so easily.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:23 AM
Billy, spin this anyway you want, but ordering the invasion and occupation of Iraq and then washing your hands of the responsibility is like Pontius Pilate ordering the crucifixtion of Jesus and then washing his hands saying "You did this".

You can repeat all that faux sincerity you want. If you won't accept responsibility for your actions, there is no other way to look at it.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:23 AM
Which is why it's nice to see the GOP sliding back into it so easily.

I've been waiting six years, my friend.

Cut me some slack.

I feel like a million bucks. It's such a refreshing change.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:25 AM
Billy, spin this anyway you want, but ordering the invasion and occupation of Iraq and then washing your hands of the responsibility is like Pontius Pilate ordering the crucifixtion of Jesus and then washing his hands saying "You did this".


You've said that three times already and I already responded.


Quote:

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".

Matthew 27:24

Pontius Pilate on crucifying Jesus.

Yeah, that about sums it up.


Yes.

Good luck. We're all rooting for you for what it's worth.

There's nothing more I can say about it.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:26 AM
I know it's hard my democratic friends to break the cycle of complaining and finger pointing and move on to the cycle of problem solving. The former is so much easier and so much less stressful.

I know it's hard for my neocon friends to break the cycle of ignoring real world evidence, launching ill-advised wars, and then wash their hands of any responsibility and blame Democrats for the war, rather than actually demonstrating the remotest shred of pesonal responsibility. The former is so much easier and so much less stressful.

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".
Matthew 27:24

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:30 AM
I know it's hard for my neocon friends to break the cycle of ignoring real world evidence, launching ill-advised wars, and then wash their hands of any responsibility and blame Democrats for the war, rather than actually demonstrating the remotest shred of pesonal responsibility. The former is so much easier and so much less stressful.

"I am innocent of this man's blood; it is in your hands now".
Matthew 27:24

For the third time, yes! I agree.

Good luck. You have to right the ship. We are one country, not two parties.

So, make us proud.

Be the coach that goes...

"Jeeez, the last guy screwed this up. That's it! I'm taking over so we can hopefully salvage this season. I will not except losing anymore. This is the plan. We're going back to a 6/2 stack monster defense. ...etc..."

Be leaders. Be bold. People love those guys.

"Alright!! Get out of my way! I do have a plan!! And here's what we're gonna do!!!"


The country and the world needs you.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:31 AM
You've said that three times already and I already responded.

"We're all rooting for you."

There's nothing more I can say about it.

Billy, "we are all rooting for you" is more of the not being responsible. As if you no longer have any responsibility in the outcome. As if the end of a moronic war is solely the responsibility of the Democrats and not the President who launched it and is still in power. Bush is still in power, and the neocon administration is still running the Executive branch. Yet you have given them a free pass for the next two years, because you keep saying "we are rooting for you". You've absolved yourself of Bush and everyone at the whitehouse? Otherwise, they must bear responsibility for their actions to date and in the future.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:33 AM
Billy, "we are all rooting for you" is more of the not being responsible. As if you no longer have any responsibility in the outcome. As if the end of a moronic war is solely the responsibility of the Democrats and not the President who launched it and is still in power. Bush is still in power, and the neocon administration is still running the Executive branch. Yet you have given them a free pass for the next two years, because you keep saying "we are rooting for you". You've absolved yourself of Bush and everyone at the whitehouse? Otherwise, they must bear responsibility for their actions to date and in the future.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=924562&postcount=27

I'm not looking for a free pass. I'm looking for fresh new ideas from the newly elected democratic leadership. Thats why you were elected!!! And what I said in the linked post above...

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 01:37 AM
Of course, it's not as if the Bush administration is moving in the direction of bipartisanship anyway, or even to listen to people who would be considered on his own side. In addition to the Iraq Study Group, the Administration has set up its own group to study what's going on.


The two reviews are not competitive, administration officials said, although the White House wants to complete the process before mid-December, about the time the Iraq Study Group's final report is expected.
The White House's decision changes the dynamics of what happens next to U.S. policy deliberations. The administration will have its own working document as well as recommendations from an independent bipartisan commission to consider as it struggles to prevent further deterioration in Iraq.

Hmm. A two-track plan. I wonder which one they'll follow.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 01:37 AM
I'm looking for fresh new ideas from the newly elected democratic leadership.

That only flies if you believe the current strategy isn't working. I haven't heard that from you, dclary, or rob. All I've heard is something to the effect of "we could win if the american public weren't babies and could stand a little blood. If they just had the willpower."

If that's your plan, then you're not honestly looking for new ideas.

If you think "stay the course" will not work, then you'd be open to new ideas.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:38 AM
But I would like to apologize...it's only been a week and Nancy Pelosi has to worry about her drapes and Charlie Rangel has to worry about kicking Cheney out of his office and they have to get the new leadership positions in place with, god willing, non-corrupt people.

I'm going to stand down and give you guys a little more time to formulate some fresh ideas and bring them to the American public.

I look forward to hearing them in the near future.

Thank you, Joe for your one idea. Like I said, I agree with it.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 01:43 AM
That only flies if you believe the current strategy isn't working.

No. It's not working at the rate I'd like to see. We do not have the results I'd like to see. We need some fresh ideas. I've already said what I want done. A LOT more troops(I'd send in 100,000 more) and a hammer on the militias and Mehdi Army type garbage. Disarm them all with bloody force if necessary.

What do you got?

greglondon
11-16-2006, 02:00 AM
No. It's not working at the rate I'd like to see. We do not have the results I'd like to see. We need some fresh ideas. I've already said what I want done. A LOT more troops(I'd send in 100,000 more)

Sure, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. We don't have 100k troops to send. You're "plan" is little more than fantasy. And you and the neocons are responsible for that.


What do you got?

A very harsh reality, predicted by three different military thinktanks.
You want to look at it for what it is?
Or do you want to wish 100k phantom troops into existence?

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:02 AM
You want to look at it for what it is?

So, your plan is....:flag:

Thank you for being honest.

In the absence of ideas, that's all I can ask for.

Bartholomew
11-16-2006, 02:07 AM
So, your plan is....:flag:

Thank you for being honest.

In the absence of ideas, that's all I can ask for.

Billy, you're pussyfooting.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 02:09 AM
So, your plan is....:flag: .

Nice.

And if the reality on the ground right now is that we can't win no matter what?

Your plan appears to be put on blinders and churn as many american soldiers through the meat grinder in senseless deaths simply to avoid admitting you're in a war you can't win.

Wishful thinking is not a plan, Billy. A couple hundred thousand more troops might win the war, but unless you go hire the clone army, you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 02:13 AM
Billy, you're pussyfooting.

Oh, of course he is. He's been pussyfooting all day. The poitn of the dance is to avoid eye contact with reality, to hold out for the fantasy that we'll somehow create an army of 100k troops out of thin air to win the war. Anything to avoid the possibility that we may have gone beyond the tipping point and into civil war that is too big for us to control.

I don't know if we've hit that point yet.
But the neocons sure as he11 won't be able to admit it if we ever do.
Neocon wars appear to be won by willpower alone.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:19 AM
Nice.

And if the reality on the ground right now is that we can't win no matter what?

Your plan appears to be put on blinders and churn as many american soldiers through the meat grinder in senseless deaths simply to avoid admitting you're in a war you can't win.

Wishful thinking is not a plan, Billy. A couple hundred thousand more troops might win the war, but unless you go hire the clone army, you've got nothing but wishful thinking.

At least I tried to come up with something as wishful as it may be, because I'm the man in the arena.

"It's not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

That's okay, Greg. Keep pointing out and criticizing the plans and mistakes of others and still living in the past about how it could have all been avoided. I understand that waving the white flag is not something you're proud of so you'd prefer not to just come out and say it.

I get it. So keep pounding on the men in the arena. Old habits are hard to break.

I just wish cut and runners would come out and say..."You know what, you screwed this thing up so bad and this thing is so unwinnable that's it's just time to get the hell out. I have no ideas because there's nothing to fix this problem."

I don't know why people aren't bold enough to say what they feel and not worry about what others think.

Maybe it's the school system?

:Shrug:

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:21 AM
Anything to avoid the possibility that we may have gone beyond the tipping point and into civil war that is too big for us to control.

Hey!!! Eureka!!

He admitted it.

"It's been lost. There's no hope. Let's leave."

Hey I respect that. At least you're finally taking a stand.

That's my boy!
:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:26 AM
I'll go pussyfooting with McCain and Cornyn any day of the week...


Cornyn Joins McCain, Calls for Sending More U.S. Troops to Iraq

This morning on Fox News, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was asked what he thought of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) idea to raise the number of troops in Iraq. (McCain has said he’d like to have “another 20,000 troops in Iraq.”) “I think Senator McCain is on to something,” Cornyn said, adding that an “overwhelming” show of force “could restore some basic semblance of order” to Iraq.

100,000,...20,000...whatever we got. Send them in. Bus some in from Korea and Germany.

Yes. It's time for overwhelming force. That's why I want 200,000!! A million!! But if we only have 20,000 then so be it. But let's try to get as many as possible please.

Thank you.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 02:29 AM
because I'm the man in the arena.

An imaginary arena, maybe, with unicorns and leprecauns,
and 100,000 imaginary american troops just sitting on the sidelines
for lack of american willpower.

Oh the inhumanity, would that we were to have the strength to commit
these phantom troops into the arena and create a phantom victory.

And those "critics" who point out the real world, who point out my phantom army does not exist. Who point out the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and who stare at the possibility of civil war rather than to look away and think happy thoughts.

CURSE THOSE CRITICS!

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:33 AM
CURSE THOSE CRITICS!

Damn skippy!

Well said, sir.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:42 AM
From Wikipedia..


The United States Army is the largest branch of the United States armed forces and has primary responsibility for land-based military operations. As of 2004, it consisted of 494,295 soldiers on active duty, 342,918 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 204,134 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR)

Where the hell are they all? Over 1,000,000 men under command.

Yes, I'm calling for 100,000 additional troops. I'm seeing McCain's 20,000 and raising him 80,000.


The Marine Corps, with 180,000 active duty and 40,000 reserve Marines as of 2005, is the smallest of the United States' armed forces in the Department of Defense (the United States Coast Guard, about one fifth the size of the Marine Corps, is under the Department of Homeland Security). The Corps is nonetheless larger than the entire armed forces of many significant military powers; for example, it is larger than the Israeli Defense Forces.[4][5]

Plenty of soldiers.

If I was Commander and Chief I'd do a little shuffling. I'd do a little realignment. Do a little extending of services. Do a little more reserve call ups and get it done.

I'd make it happen, baby.

'Cause I'm a man who gets things done. I'm the man in the arena and while the critic says "We can't go to the moon," I'll sit back and say "We will. Jus watch."

:)

MattW
11-16-2006, 02:51 AM
The shuffling and realignment and service extension is how they got most of the troops in Iraq qithout sacrificing any capability in any other theaters.

Seeing how the Huns aren't about the break out into Belgium, I'd say there's opportunity for more.

Edit - here's a link from 2005 on force disposition....http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:54 AM
Overseas
As of 1999, the United States occupied 702 military bases in 132 different countries.[6] Some of the largest contingents are:

Germany
69,395
Japan (United States Forces Japan)
35,307
South Korea (United States Forces Korea)
32,744
Italy
12,258
United Kingdom
11,093

Okay...I'm grabbing 30,000 from Germany.
I'm grabbing 15,000 from Japan.
I'm grabbing 15,000 from South Korea
I'm grabbing 5,000 from Italy.
I'm grabbing 5,000 from England(Don't worry, English Dave.)

70,000 and I just need to find 30,000 more....


Within the United States
Including U.S. territories and ships afloat within territorial waters
A total of 1,112,684 personnel are on active duty within the United States including:
Continental U.S.
900,088
Hawaii
33,343
Alaska
17,714
Afloat
109,119
Guam
3,784
Puerto Rico
1,552

Take 30,000 from wherever.

No one is going to attack Hawaii and Alaska.

Done.

100,000.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:55 AM
The shuffling and realignment and service extension is how they got most of the troops in Iraq qithout sacrificing any capability in any other theaters.

Seeing how the Huns aren't about the break out into Belgium, I'd say there's opportunity for more.

Exactly...read my last post.

I'm not worried about Germany or Hawaii being attacked quite frankly.

Let's grab some help.

Thank you.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 02:56 AM
Where the hell are they all? Over 1,000,000 men under command.

Yes, Billy, where are they? I'll leave that as an exercise in reality.


I'd make it happen, baby. 'Cause I'm a man who gets things done. I'm the man in the arena and while the critic says "We can't go to the moon," I'll sit back and say "We will. Jus watch."

Yep, Billy, if you just run fast enough, you'll catch that rainbow, and the pot of gold at the end of it.

Funny how those pesky rainbows keep moving when you move, though.

And you haven't been proven wrong yet, right? You're still chasing that rainbow, and as long as you're chasing it, you can win. And you've got the willpower, baby, because you get things done. You haven't caught one yet, but you will, baby. just watch.

Just out of curiosity, Billy, how would you know that you're chasing a rainbow, chasing something that is impossible? Oh, never mind, don't answer that.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 02:59 AM
Yep, Billy, if you just run fast enough, you'll catch that rainbow, and the pot of gold at the end of it.

Funny how those pesky rainbows keep moving when you move, though.

And you haven't been proven wrong yet, right? You're still chasing that rainbow, and as long as you're chasing it, you can win. And you've got the willpower, baby, because you get things done. You haven't caught one yet, but you will, baby. just watch.

Just out of curiosity, Billy, how would you know that you're chasing a rainbow, chasing something that is impossible? Oh, never mind, don't answer that.

One man's rainbow is another man's clear thinking non-debatable reality based in fact.

I just upped our troop levels 100,000 no problemo.

While you're still :flag: and refusing to make even the smallest effort at an alternate plan.

"That's okay, we don't expect much out of you, Greg."
Robert Deniro
Meet The Parents
:)

MattW
11-16-2006, 03:00 AM
Exactly...read my last post.

I'm not worried about Germany or Hawaii being attacked quite frankly.

Let's grab some help.

Thank you.http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf

Fact sheet on deployments as of 2005.

The numbers don't account for those forces already tapped for Iraq - iy shows them in their home base location.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 03:02 AM
because I'm the man in the arena.

The arena of....the AW TIO board.

MacAllister
11-16-2006, 03:04 AM
Uh huh. See.

That clinches it. Gaffer is my favorite, from here on out.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:04 AM
Okay...I'm grabbing 30,000 from Germany.
I'm grabbing 15,000 from Japan.
I'm grabbing 15,000 from South Korea
I'm grabbing 5,000 from Italy.
I'm grabbing 5,000 from England(Don't worry, English Dave.)


Hm, so you've got naval personel from Japan transferred to
the Iraqi desert. That'll help. And the guys in England who
man our airbases over there, do aircraft maintenance, stuff
like that, we'll transfer them to Iraq too. Because the problem
in Iraq is our airbases there don't have adequate maintenance.

Gee, I didn't realize it would be so easy to secure victory in Iraq.
Why didn't Bush implement this plan three years ago?
It's a pipe dream?
Leprachauns?
Unicorns?
Oh.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:05 AM
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf

Fact sheet on deployments as of 2005.

The numbers don't account for those forces already tapped for Iraq - iy shows them in their home base location.

Thank you.


Geographic Distribution of U.S. Military Personnel (AD) a Total Number on Active Duty 1,426,836 United States and Territories (see Note) 1,139,034 Europe (see Note) 114,860 East Asia and Pacific (see Note) 89,846 Africa, Near East, and South Asia (see Note) 4,956 Western Hemisphere (excluding USA) 1,825 Rest of the World (see Note) 76,315


1.4 million active duty.

Oh, I'm finding AT LEAST another 100,000.

Troop levels aren't strained. Out of the box thinking is strained.

There are tons of troops. We just have to stop worrying that Russia is going to attack Germany or China attack Hawaii for a little while.

I'm quite sure they won't.

Greg keeps talking about the 400,000 we should have gone into Iraq with.

I agree. And I've said it many times. Not enough troops. Well, let's up it to 400,000 now. Crush the insurgency and get the hell out of there.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:05 AM
One man's rainbow is another man's clear thinking non-debatable reality based in fact.

I just upped our troop levels 100,000 no problemo.


RIght. see above. pipe dream.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:06 AM
The arena of....the AW TIO board.

Damn right!

But many boards.

I'm Neo of the "NeoCons."

I'm in the system.

I'm the One.
:)

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:07 AM
Oh, I'm finding AT LEAST another 100,000.

Troop levels aren't strained. Out of the box thinking is strained.

Bush is apparently strained too, for not thinking of this three years ago.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:07 AM
Uh huh. See.

That clinches it. Gaffer is my favorite, from here on out.

Common ground!

He's one of my favorites too.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:08 AM
Bush is apparently strained too, for not thinking of this three years ago.

I agree. That's what I said.

Many more troops were needed.

Time to fix that mistake.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:10 AM
[/I]It's a pipe dream? Leprachauns?Unicorns?
Oh.

Well, lets get more troops in there and maybe we'll get lucky. Sometimes we can get a happy accident.

'Cause this....

:flag:

...doesn't inspire confidence.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:14 AM
RIght. see above. pipe dream.

Orville Wright: Hey, Greg!! You coming to KittyHawk on Friday?
Greg London: It'll never fly. Unicorns, rainbows, and leprachans.
Orville Wright: What?
Greg London: Forget it.
Billy Thrilly: I'll be there, Orville. Because Billy Thrilly believes in the American spirit. I believe in our ingenuity to solve problems and work hard and rise above what the ordinary man thinks can be done to touch the stars.
Orville: What?
Billy Thrilly: Forget it.... The thing better fly.
Orville Wright: It'll fly.
Billy: :)

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:17 AM
Well, that's get more troops in there and maybe we'll get lucky. Sometimes we can get a happy accident.

'Cause this....

:flag:

...doesn't inspire confidence.

Right, lets launch a war that's got a high probability of getting a lot
of americans killed because, well, maybe we'll get lucky.

Wait, wasn't that what got us there in the first place?

Yeah, that's it, lets follow that really inspiring lemming right off
the cliff.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:20 AM
Because Billy Thrilly believes in the American spirit

Since when did "American Spirit" get personified into the moronic misadventures of an idiot named Bush?

blacbird
11-16-2006, 03:24 AM
Well, lets get more troops in there and maybe we'll get lucky. Sometimes we can get a happy accident.

Well, now, that's a plan, if ever I heard one.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:26 AM
Greg, I'm just an optimist who believes that it ain't over till its over.

I'm just glad you weren't there when Apollo 13 got in trouble.

"I told them not to use that wiring. The inspectors said so. Now the oxygen tanks blew up. We're screwed."

Ed Harris: Let's work on figuring out how to get these men home.

"Why? It's over. I told you before not to use that wiring and now you want me to come up with a plan to get them home? No can do."

Ed Harris: You're our flight engineer. Let's get them home.

"It's a pipe dream. They're all dead. Don't chase a rainbow."

Ed Harris: So...that's it?

"That's it? It was it back in 1968 when I told them about the wiring for the oxygen tanks. The incompetent engineers didn't care. They didn't listen damn it. And now these guys are dead."

Ed Harris: We're gonna get them home. I think it'll be our finest hour.

"Chase the rainbow, balding leprachaun. Oh welll...I've done all I can to help. I did what I could back in '68 over Macho grande."

Ed Harris: It will be finest hour.

The End.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:26 AM
Well, now, that's a plan, if ever I heard one.

caw

come on, blacbird. I saw that plan work on the "A Team" many times.
It could work.
I love it when a plan comes together.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:27 AM
Well, now, that's a plan, if ever I heard one.

caw

Oh, iIt's sarcasm in response to Greg's overwhelming pessimism and :flag: attitude.

Sue me.
:)

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:35 AM
Oh, iIt's sarcasm in response to Greg

So we're back to no plan at all.

Oh, right. I forgot the clone army. From planet Kamino.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:37 AM
Anyway...we're going in circles. I thank Joe Unidos for offering at least an idea to get the ball rolling on maybe coming out on top in the Iraq debacle.

In closing on Iraq, your honor....

Billy: :guns: :leprachan chasing Rainbow emoticon:

Greg: :flag: :doubting Thomas EdHarris and ORvilleWright angry emoticon:

:Shrug:

We're all wired differently.

No furthur questions.

Cut To:

Jury Foreman: We the jury in the case of Democrats on Iraq find that many of them, not all, Gaffer, and thanks for coming today, are GUILTY of having no plan to win a, admittedly very tough battle due to the screwups, but still ultimately winnable war. We sentence them to election losses in '08.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:40 AM
So we're back to no plan at all.

That from you?!!! After this entire thread?

:ROFL: :roll:

My plan is serious and I've put the troops together and we're ready. There was one response about the "happy accident" that wasn't. That was sarcastic.

You're ARE a funny dude...


So we're back to no plan at all.

:ROFL:

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:40 AM
The jury found you guilty. Way to lead.

Good luck in '08!
;)

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:44 AM
We the jury in the case of Democrats on Iraq find that many of them, are GUILTY of having no plan to win a, admittedly very tough battle due to the screwups, but still ultimately winnable war..

So, you wash your hands of it?

Okey Dokey.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:47 AM
The jury found you guilty.

Out of your hands, huh, Billy?
Nothing you can do about it.
You've washed your hands of all responsibility.
Yeah, figures.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 03:53 AM
It's weird posting with you, Greg.

You just say the same thing over and over regardless of what posts came previously, or what posts counter what you say, including me coming up with a plan that you don't like and I'm a leprachan and saying that Bush needs to work with you etc...and essentially saying we can still win this, here's how I think, what do you thinkk...

And then you just go back to the Pontius Pilate thing...It's weird, but I guess I'll get used to it. I hope. Although it gives me pause on answering or responding to any of your posts. Gaffer and I get to a place eventually. This....?? (maybe it's just a Goof. Blackheart is that you!!?)

"So you're washing your hands?"
"No, I have a plan. And I think we can still win."
"Bad plan."
"Okay, what do you have?"
"Nothing. So you're washing your hands?"

:Shrug:

So, ....I guess yes....

Despite everything I've said to the contrary, I'm washing my hands of the whole thing. I'm Pontius Pilate.

It's all up to you.

Don't let us down.
:)

greglondon
11-16-2006, 03:59 AM
You just say the same thing over and over regardless of what posts came previously

Sorry, Billy. I should be more inventive. You invented an entire
phantom army in this thread, and I've done nothing. Bad me.


essentially saying we can still win this, here's how I think, what do you thinkk...

Problem is you keep asking the same question.
What do I think about your "plan"?
I think it's pure fantasy.
I know I say that everytime, but you keep asking the same question.
You've got a non-existent army that you're going to put into Iraq
for some unspecified period of time, perhaps several more years.
And maybe, we'll get lucky and pull a victory out of it after all.

And what do I think of that? I think it's total fantasy.
Ask me again and I'll tell you the same.


It's all up to you.

I know. You drove us off the end of a bridge.
And now it's up to us to get us out of the river.
Not your fault.
No sir.
You could drive this car out of the river if you wanted to,
but the democrats got elected to the driver seat.
Oh wait, Bush is still driving.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 04:08 AM
I've done nothing. Bad me.

That's all I've been saying, sir. Thank you.


Problem is you keep asking the same question.
What do I think about your "plan"?

I don't think I've asked one time "What do you think about my plan?"

But I don't have time to scan the thread, I'm a busy man.

If I did, I rescind. I don't care what you think about my plan. I'm proud I, like John McCain, are calling for more troops, have a plan and aren't quite ready to...

:flag:

...just yet.


What can I say, I respect the kid who raises his hand in class and gets the answer wrong over the kid who never raises his hand in class and knows neither victory or defeat.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 04:17 AM
It's wild. It's gotta be a goof.

Billy: Here's my plan.
Greg: Awful.
Billy: What do you got?
Greg: Nothing, but yours is awful.
Billy: Please come up with something.
Greg: Don't be Pontius Pilate and wash your hands.
Billy: I'm not. Here's my plan. I stated a plan.
Greg: Awful plan. I'll tell you that everytime.
Billy: What do you have then?
Greg: Nothing, but yours is awful. Don't go Pontius on me.
Billy: So, no plan?
Greg: Why? Yours was horrible.
Billy: Okay, so what do you have? What should we do?
Greg: Don't be Pontius Pilate, Billy. Come on. You have a horrible plan. I'll tell you that everytime.

It's like Abbot and Costello.

It's gotta be a goof.

Is this some AW "Let's punk Billy" thing.

Ashton?

Okay, everyone come out...Mac, Gaffer, Hero For Sale, Bravo...you got me!!!

Hahahaha!!

Good one, guys.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 04:24 AM
BILLY
Pontius Pilate.

BILLY AND GREG
(in unison)
Third base!

:ROFL:

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 04:36 AM
LOL! These are your stellar moments, Billy. No one can paraphrase a conversation like you. No one. You are the master paraphraser of all time.

lol..thank you, sir.


These posts remind me of a movie I finally remembered over dinner: They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Like you and Greg. . . . locked in some marathon dance, but never giving up, not ever. Oh, there was a Star Trek episode like that, too, where the anti-matter guy and the matter guy were stuck fighting forever in limbo somewhere.

lol...well, the Jig is up. It's gotta be a practical joke.

Or a terminator poster from the future designed in perfect synchronicity to keep going in circles, ignore posts of mine, yet be just lucent enough so I don't say "This is a goof!! I'm outta here."

But, I beat the program!!! Just glitchy enough for me to catch on.

Next time he reboots and kicks out the phrase that started the conversation, I'm out!!

I will not be toyed with, future people.

I will be President and there's nothing you can do to stop me.

Thank you.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 04:40 AM
Billy, maybe if you take that air compresser and those cabbages over there,
and convert the combine into some sort of cabbage cannon,
maybe then you could defeat the bad guys, not suffer a single loss,
and live happily ever after in A-Team land.

By all means, knock yourself out.
No really. I meant that.

Oh well. The rest of us trapped in the real world will have to
deal with the messes created by optimists who think they can
jump the bridge and then wash their hands of it.

Seems to be a neocon trait.
Better get used to it.

And read up on A-Team plots.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 04:42 AM
anti-matter guy and the matter guy were stuck fighting forever in limbo somewhere.

Since Billy's in anti-reality, he gets to be anti-matter guy.

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 04:46 AM
Billy, maybe if you take that air compresser and those cabbages over there,
and convert the combine into some sort of cabbage cannon,
maybe then you could defeat the bad guys, not suffer a single loss,
and live happily ever after in A-Team land.

By all means, knock yourself out.
No really. I meant that.

Oh well. The rest of us trapped in the real world will have to
deal with the messes created by optimists who think they can
jump the bridge and then wash their hands of it.

Seems to be a neocon trait.
Better get used to it.

And read up on A-Team plots.

Whatever it is you're talking about, it sounds good. Cabbage and A-Teams and compressors and leprachans, etc. I'm in for all of it. I'm down.

But I won't be terminated.

Sorry, Charlie.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 05:00 AM
All right. I want rights to this thread. This is hysterical. We're gonna make a fortune, boys. This is better than anything Abbot and Costello ever came up with. No, it's even better than that. This thread is like, better than that cop movie: you know: Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy. No, better! Owen Wilson and um , what's his name, the guy who played in Meet the Parents.

lol....Honestly, it should be forwarded to...

http://www.psych.org/

...for evaluation, archiving and for use during medical school training.

Bravo
11-16-2006, 05:11 AM
you cant dream of threads like this.

wow.

:roll:

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 05:14 AM
you cant dream of threads like this.

wow.

:roll:

:roll:

I don't know whether to be embarassed or proud. I think I'm a little of both.

dclary
11-16-2006, 05:38 AM
:roll:



BILLY
Pontius Pilate.

BILLY AND GREG
(in unison)
Third base!

:ROFL:

dclary
11-16-2006, 05:40 AM
If Bush-Kerry 2004 debates had gone like this, it would have been the best presidential election debate in the history of the galaxy

billythrilly7th
11-16-2006, 05:58 AM
lol...

I guess any debate that has appearances by Ashton Kutcher, a Terminator, the A-Team, Orville Wright, Robert Deniro, Ed Harris, Abbott & Costello, The Huns and Pontius Pilate has to be of some historical value.

:)

Kentuk
11-16-2006, 06:25 AM
This mess of a war seems to be coming down to either cutting the loses or double up and make a big push. While I have doubts about the political situation, I know it is possible to successfully combat an insurgency. I don't trust most Republicans but have to go with John McCain on this one. We need to realize that Bush didn't just involve us in an unnecessary war but botched the execution.

Unique
11-16-2006, 06:31 AM
Nope. I don't like either one of those choices.

Staying the course sucks; cut & run sucks worse.
Nope, nope, nope. Drink some more Kool Aid, there's got to be another option. Who ever heard of a test with just two choices.

Nope. Those don't work for me.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 08:03 AM
either cutting the loses or double up and make a big push.

The question that needs an honest answer is whether doubling up (or Nx) would even make a difference at this point. And what the US can actually swing for troop transfers. And get answers not influenced by the Koolaid crowd who think any battle can be won if you just "will" yourself to victory.

What's the max troop contribution we could make?
How long could we make it?
And would that significantly improve the odds of victory?

Right now, I think the odds of pulling a victory out of the hat is pretty slim based on what we have there now.

even if we can find 100k troops, could that actually improve the odds sufficiently to justify that much more of a ramp up, without it being an endless "don't talk about exit schedules"? Because we can't keep overdraw our troops from every other committment on the planet for an unlimited and undefined time period.

Military intelligence reports have been looking very grim lately as far as keeping control of various sections of teh country. Will 20k troops make that big of a difference? 40k?

These are questions that need answering by someone other than the billy, dclary, rob crowd, because if the military analysis is that current troop levels has only a 30% chance of success, we need to know to make any sort of an informed decision. I don't want to hear "If we just have the willpower, we'll win" propaganda. I want the unadulterated numbers.

If increasing troop levels by 100k only increases the chance of success to 35%, and that still requires an open-ended, never-say-never schedule, then we need to know that.

I refuse to drink the koolaid and swallow the line that no cost is too high, no risk too great, no presidential decision is to be questioned.

Right now, my feeling is at current levels we've got a 30% chance of pulling this out of the devil's mouth, and that's only after another year at least, probably two. And that isn't without cost to us, both in our own direct casualties and money, but in indirect costs like the number of iraqi civilians who die under our watch and the number of insurgents who rise up the ranks to become Bin Laden replacements. And if we fail, staying an extra two years could be an order of magnitude worse than it is now.

And if we add 50k troops, I have no idea how much that improves our odds of winning, or whether it shortens the likely timeframe for that or not. If doubling our commitment raises the chance of sucess by 5% but keeps the schedule out to 2 years, then we need to know that.

I'm done with president "I'm the decider". Enough of the "trust me"
crap. I gave bush the benefit of the doubt on 9-11, but he's long since pooched that free pass away.

Despite what Billy likes to think, I'm not for cutting and running. But I'm not for "We must never withdraw" either. Both are mindless following. You want the American people to have the will for this war, you better gawdam well give them the straight intell so they can get behind the decisions because they make sense, not because they've drunk the koolaid.

enough of the ministry of truth hogwash. Enough of the "love it or leave it" mentality that has no room for discourse, dissent, or decision making at the public level. Enough of the complete and utter cr@p like this:flag:response to demanding more information, for insisting on straight intel to make an informed decision, for failing to follow president lemming off another gawdam cliff.

Anyone have any straight intel, lemme know. Post a URL. Whatever. Anyone wanna bust my @ss for thinking on my own, rather than towing some party line, go scr&w yourself.

No more hope. No more wishful thinking. No more fantasy war games. No more magical solutions. No more koolaid. The emporer has been walking around naked for the last 6 years, and I"m tired of looking at his scrawny white @ss.

Give me some real data, some hard facts, or get stuffed.

dclary
11-16-2006, 10:59 AM
Nope. I don't like either one of those choices.

Staying the course sucks; cut & run sucks worse.
Nope, nope, nope. Drink some more Kool Aid, there's got to be another option. Who ever heard of a test with just two choices.

Nope. Those don't work for me.

This is our Kobayashi Maru.

Unique
11-16-2006, 03:18 PM
I don't speak Japanese so you'll have to give me a translation.

In any situation as complex as this one, either/or is beyond the realm of belief. I've been watching you guys talk for a week.

There are good points coming from both sides. Think outside the box - it's obvious no one else is.

Isn't there an option other than:

More troops
No troops

Gotta be. Quit chasing each other around the mulberry bush. The country is counting on you.

dclary
11-16-2006, 03:23 PM
Isn't there an option other than:

More troops
No troops



There IS an option other than those two choices. Absolutely NO ONE on the democratic party will even pause to consider it.

Unique
11-16-2006, 03:38 PM
The entire Democratic party takes in a lot of territory.

There are some moderates in there as well as in the Republican party.
You know how the media is: 'famous' gets the air time. The voices you hear are not the only voices speaking.

Both sides would do well to listen to what the people are saying. They need to quit listening to each other pass wind and remember who put them where they are.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 04:09 PM
It appears right now Bush wants to do more of the same, though. I'll post more on what that means when I have more time.

MacAllister
11-16-2006, 04:11 PM
Dear ghod, you people are up early.

Unique
11-16-2006, 04:15 PM
It's important stuff.

- just sayin'

dclary
11-16-2006, 04:22 PM
It appears right now Bush wants to do more of the same, though. I'll post more on what that means when I have more time.

That's the third option.

If "more" is not a good option, and "less" is not a good option, then "same" becomes the best of all possible choices.

Unique
11-16-2006, 04:51 PM
Maybe we could switch players.

Guards and Reserves - home.
Active Duty Regulars - in.
All foreign contractors - out.
Civil Engineering Battalions - in

Who else is there besides us? Do they have active duty civil engineers? (don't underestimate them)(they really are soldiers)

Used correctly, this really could give that 'signal' they want to send to Iraq. We'll help you rebuild your **** ONCE. After that, you're on your own.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 06:50 PM
If "more" is not a good option, and "less" is not a good option, then "same" becomes the best of all possible choices.

More=bad
less=bad

therefore
same must equal good for any and all definitions of "same"?

No matter how bad "same" actually is, you're saying it must be better than more or less?

Oh, right, I keep forgetting: Victory through willpower.
Military intel of late isn't saying that the current situation is good.
In fact a lot of it is saying things are getting worse.

Therefore, you missed one basic piece of information:
Same = unsustainable.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 08:09 PM
Same doesn't automatically win by default, clary. In fact, same may be the worst of the three choices. And we're really down to the "least bad" of the three choices, and an inert strategy isn't it.

So what to do? The new Bush plan apparently calls for...

--20,000 more troops for Baghdad
--more inter-nation and regional cooperation in rebuilding Iraq
--reviving the reconciliation process between Shia and Sunni
--increased resources for training and equipment for Iraqi troops

None of these really seem to measure up unless they're backed by some kind of aggressive diplomatic action that calls for, well, the interference of the James Baker types that the Bush people have more or less always disdained. If the second point is going to involve a massive effort by the likes of Fill-in-the-blank of your statesman-choice here (Bill Richardson, Clinton, James Baker, Scowcroft, George HW Bush), then maybe we get somewhere in terms of regional cooperation. Which of course is the easiest part of this equation.

20000 troops is probably not enough to do what we really want; we need 100000 or more, or otherwise try to put together some kind of cease-fire between major factions in the country to try to quell the violence enough so that we can withdraw all but those who are invited to stay to equip and build the Iraqi forces up. I have doubts about this, too -- maybe it takes a reckoning of just what the various factions want (i.e., to have X plot of land and kill those guys, to have the other Y plot of land and kill the other guys, or to have no land and just kill Americans), and then we respond accordingly (maintain a big government framework that allows for loose regional control for the X guys, for the Y guys, and then we kill the Z guys who wanna just kill us). Something like that.

Either way it all comes acros like a half-measure. The fourth point in that plan seems hard to work if we're really spending our money (what $$ we have) on equiping our guys; the advisers have been a lower priority -- but how do we fund one without exposing the regular army dudes to more attacks?

I'm still pessimistic. I don't know where to go from here. It remains an untenable situation -- leaving me still of the view that we try to negotiate some kind of cease-fire (if that's even possible, considering the number of different groups), and back away slowly, and try to maintain our relationships with the other regional players so that Iran, Turkey and the like don't get drawn into this conflict.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 08:59 PM
When you're up to your neck in quicksand,
changing your position might be worse,
but even if you remain still
you will eventually go under.

To assume that "same" must eventually succeed is naive.

greglondon
11-16-2006, 10:46 PM
Brig. Gen. Shakir Hulail Hussein al-Kaabi, was chosen this summer by the Shiite-led government in Baghdad to lead the Iraqi Army’s Fifth Division in Diyala Province. Within weeks, General Shakir went to Colonel Jones with a roster of people he wanted to arrest. On the list were the names of nearly every Sunni Arab sheik and political leader whom American officers had identified as crucial allies

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/world/middleeast/12diyala.html?_r=2

This is working well. Stay the course!

greglondon
11-16-2006, 10:48 PM
From that same article:


civilian homicide rate in Diyala now running at about 10 killings a day, according to United States officials, compared with 4 a day in April,

Yeah, things are getting much better.

Unique
11-16-2006, 10:49 PM
Either way it all comes across like a half-measure. The fourth point in that plan seems hard to work if we're really spending our money (what $$ we have) on equiping our guys; the advisers have been a lower priority -- but how do we fund one without exposing the regular army dudes to more attacks?
.

We've been spending a lot of money.
But it hasn't been equipping our guys.
It's been equipping contractors (Halliburton)
so we can turn around and blow the **** up again.
That's stupid.

100,000 - I could go there. But I really don't think we could go there without the draft. Do you want to go there? Didn't think so.

Didn't mean to cut out all your other stuff, Gaff. But that particular point sticks in my craw. Our 'regular' guys have all the nifty new toys; our Guard and Reserve have leftovers from Vietnam (YES, It's True); yet, the Guard & Reserve are staying when the regulars are being rotated home.
STUPID. Governors - call home your troops. They're yours. This is an undeclared war. Boy Howdy, I would.

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 11:17 PM
Agreed. Which is why we need investigations into contracting abuses.

And Unique, I'm just throwing things out there and seeing if they stick against a wall. I doubt they will. Right now I think we actually have to start focusing not on preventing a civil war in Iraq, but preventing a larger regional war. The current "reverse-Midas touch" thing Bush has going isn't working.

Robert Toy
11-16-2006, 11:46 PM
Agreed. Which is why we need investigations into contracting abuses.
Unfortunately, contracting abuses are a byproduct of all wars.

blacbird
11-16-2006, 11:52 PM
I don't speak Japanese so you'll have to give me a translation.

You need to watch more Star Trek.

For basic info, the Kobayashi Maru was a Starfleet officer training exercise which had no acceptable solution.

caw

blacbird
11-16-2006, 11:56 PM
The question that needs an honest answer is whether doubling up (or Nx) would even make a difference at this point. And what the US can actually swing for troop transfers. And get answers not influenced by the Koolaid crowd who think any battle can be won if you just "will" yourself to victory.

What's the max troop contribution we could make?
How long could we make it?
And would that significantly improve the odds of victory?

. . . etc. (rest of Greg's post). On another thread I gave big kudos to declarey's well-reasoned and expressed post about Iraq. I'll pass on similar ones for Greg's here. Especially the point about whether or not increasing troop numbers at this point would do any good. Not much question that having more would have helped three years ago, but that window closed a long while back and the situation we face there now is very different from what it was in, say, late 2003. I get the sense that, even if we could, sending a bunch more troops over there new is the equivalent of Thrillsy's "plan" of "maybe we'll get lucky."

"Do ya feel lucky, punk? Do ya?"
-- Clint Eastwood.

caw

TheGaffer
11-16-2006, 11:58 PM
I get the sense that, even if we could, sending a bunch more troops over there new is the equivalent of Thrillsy's "plan" of "maybe we'll get lucky."

"They were careless people ... They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

Unique
11-17-2006, 12:00 AM
"They were careless people ... They smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."

I don't know where that quote came from but that's exactly the sick feeling I get when I think about, "**** it, let's go home"

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:02 AM
I get the sense that, even if we could, sending a bunch more troops over there new is the equivalent of Thrillsy's "plan" of "maybe we'll get lucky."

"Do ya feel lucky, punk? Do ya?"
-- Clint Eastwood.

caw

Gotta give it one more shot, blacB!

Gotta give it the ole' college try.

The 'ole hail Mary.

Have Peyton Manning chuck it down the field to Marvin Harrison.

They're the best we got. As is the American Military. It ain't gonna be easy, but it's a better plan then saying well, "it's over."

"Don't give up."
Peter Gabriel

"I didn't hear no bell. One more round."
Rocky Balboa
Rocky V

English Dave
11-17-2006, 12:04 AM
Gotta give it one more shot, blacB!

Gotta give it the ole' college try.

The 'ole hail Mary.

Have Peyton Manning chuck it down the field to Marvin Harrison.

They're the best we got. As is the American Military. It ain't gonna be easy, but it's a better plan then saying well, "it's over."

"Don't give up."
Peter Gabriel

"I didn't hear no bell. One more round."
Rocky Balboa
Rocky V

Songs and movies have a lot to answer for!

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:07 AM
Hang with us, EDave.

Britain and the United States in Iraq.

"One more round."

Where the hell is Longshanks when you need him?

He'd restore order to Iraq.

blacbird
11-17-2006, 12:10 AM
It ain't gonna be easy, but it's a better plan then saying well, "it's over."

That is a debatable question, Thrillsy. A simple tack would be to do what we ultimately did in Vietnam, which was to declare that the mission actually had been accomplished, we won, turn the country over to the Vietnamese, and let them settle things, as ultimately they did. Our mistake was not letting that happen a decade earlier. I can't see any different solution to Iraq, no matter how long we keep 150,000 troops there. I can see about a hundred good reasons for moving those troops out in order to deal with far nastier threats to our security from elsewhere.

caw

robeiae
11-17-2006, 12:13 AM
"You do not know the unfathomable cowardice of humanity...servile in the face of force, pitiless in the face of weakness, implacable before blunders, indulgent before crimes...and patient to the point of martyrdom before all the violence of bold despotism."

greglondon
11-17-2006, 12:14 AM
Gotta give it one more shot, blacB!

Gotta give it the ole' college try.

The 'ole hail Mary.

Have Peyton Manning chuck it down the field to Marvin Harrison.

They're the best we got. As is the American Military. It ain't gonna be easy, but it's a better plan then saying well, "it's over."

"Don't give up."
Peter Gabriel

"I didn't hear no bell. One more round."
Rocky Balboa
Rocky V

I'm so disappointed you didn't reference A-Team.

Everyone thinks they are the hero in their own story.

But some people are crazy enough to think their story
will have a happy ending no matter how reckless they get.

Sun Tzu is a good reference for war.
A-Team is not.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:18 AM
That is a debatable question, Thrillsy. A simple tack would be to do what we ultimately did in Vietnam, which was to declare that the mission actually had been accomplished, we won, turn the country over to the Vietnamese, and let them settle things, as ultimately they did.

Didn't like a million people get slaugtered in the killing fields or something after we left? The Khemer Rouge or something.

I think I heard something about that somewhere.

Anyway, if I didn't think Iraqis were going to slaughter each other I'd say "let's pack it up."

We have a moral duty to stay and give it one last bestest bestest shot with a "play to win attitude."

More troops. Dropping hammers on the militias, finishing up the training of the Iraqi army and security forces and then that's the end of the game.

WE HAVE TO AT LEAST STAY until the Iraqi army has some semblance of ability.

We can't just say "adios."

And since we can't we might as well bring the hammer down in one last effort.

And then after all that, it's still a debacle..."adios."

:Shrug:

Sorry, Iraq. We tried. Good luck.

English Dave
11-17-2006, 12:18 AM
Hang with us, EDave.

Britain and the United States in Iraq.

"One more round."

Where the hell is Longshanks when you need him?

He'd restore order to Iraq.

:)

Coupla things though. Sure, times were good when we could kick Johnny native around. But do you know how a tiny country like the UK controlled half the world less than 60 years ago? More Diplomacy. Less force.

Do you know how that same tiny country has a Commonwealth of nations formed out of 60 plus countries it once ruled who ACTUALLY WANT to belong to that Commonwealth?

Because of changing values. The population of the UK changed their values. Fighting wars in far flung regions in which our only interest was to maintain our control was no longer acceptable. Fighting wars to protect underdogs or prevent genocide was.

We look at Iraq and say WTF? If the UN had said we need to go in and protect the Marsh Arabs or the Kurds or whatever then yep. no sweat.

If someone can explain to me why we invaded Iraq without UN sanction other than Saadam was a dick, then I'd be interested to know.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:20 AM
If someone can explain to me why we invaded Iraq without UN sanction other than Saadam was a dick, then I'd be interested to know.

After 9/11, we got an itchy trigger finger. So sue us.

Sorry, Iraq.

:Shrug:

Unique
11-17-2006, 12:23 AM
That is a debatable question, Thrillsy. A simple tack would be to do what we ultimately did in Vietnam, which was to declare that the mission actually had been accomplished, we won, turn the country over to the Vietnamese, and let them settle things, as ultimately they did.
caw

That's what the terrorists do. People believe it when they say it; maybe we should give it a try. Couldn't hurt.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:29 AM
I still think it's not too late to put Saddam back into power.

Let's get all the boys back in there. Chemical Ali, Nuke'em Nari, and Hasan the Hammer.

Dust Saddam off and let him restore order. Say we're sorry we didn't believe you about the WMD's, have like a ribbon cutting ceremony at one of his palaces, hand him the keys, and jump back on our planes and boats.

Make sure we have a tracking device implanted in Saddam's brain so that if he ever behaves poorly again we know where he is. Or maybe do like a Snake Plisken death pellet.

"You have six months to restore order and make democratic reforms and be like Qadafi or the pellet will explode killing you."


heyyyy, you guy's are impressed. Some out of the box thinking there for ya.

Oh, I'm gonna do some really cool movie type stuff when I get to Washington.

English Dave
11-17-2006, 12:31 AM
After 9/11, we got an itchy trigger finger. So sue us.

Sorry, Iraq.

:Shrug:

Very honest Billy. I appreciate it.

Shame so many people had to die. I hope the third act turns out okay. Who knows, it might turn into a franchise.

Kentuk
11-17-2006, 12:31 AM
What's the max troop contribution we could make?
.

You are asking in regard to current troop strength. I think we have to go further then that and double the strength which would mean an extensive mobilization and perhaps drafting. It also means extensive world wide recruiting and perhaps confessing we have fallen on our asses. Koolaid is right the choices suck.

Kentuk
11-17-2006, 12:37 AM
Maybe we could switch players.

Guards and Reserves - home.
Active Duty Regulars - in.
All foreign contractors - out.
Civil Engineering Battalions - in

Who else is there besides us? Do they have active duty civil engineers? (don't underestimate them)(they really are soldiers)

Used correctly, this really could give that 'signal' they want to send to Iraq. We'll help you rebuild your **** ONCE. After that, you're on your own.

We could fire a couple of generals too, but it is going to take more troops and alot more money.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:37 AM
Very honest Billy. I appreciate it.

Shame so many people had to die. I hope the third act turns out okay. Who knows, it might turn into a franchise.

You're welcome.

And yes, the entire last five years have been a shameful period in human history. People flying into buildings. Wars being fought. People on earth still killing each other. Damn shame.

I also hope we have a helluva ending.

English Dave
11-17-2006, 12:39 AM
I also hope we have a helluva ending.

I miss John Wayne. Sylvester Stallone was okay but too short.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 12:51 AM
I miss John Wayne. Sylvester Stallone was okay but too short.

Van Damme?

English Dave
11-17-2006, 01:01 AM
Van Damme?
Coke head and worse accent than The Governator.

greglondon
11-17-2006, 01:04 AM
After 9/11, we got an itchy trigger finger. So sue us.

Sorry, Iraq.

:Shrug:

I wonder, if Bin Laden had released a videotape a couple years after 9-11 that said "Sorry US" and him shruggin his shoulders, would that have prevented the US from going after him?

If not, then your apologizes are not only pointless and hollow, but downright insulting and arrogant.

Billy's war plan for the next two years is to simply shrug and say "sorry".

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:05 AM
I agree, Edave.

I'm just sad that Jeff Speakman or as I like to call him "The Perfect Weapon" never fulfilled his potential.

blacbird
11-17-2006, 01:05 AM
Didn't like a million people get slaugtered in the killing fields or something after we left? The Khemer Rouge or something. I think I heard something about that somewhere.

You have a problem with that "I think I heard something" statement, Thrills. Go read a little factual material.

The killing fields happened in Cambodia. We never fought Cambodians. Except for one minor unsuccessful border invasion (which happened while I was over there, and never went deeper than about 10 km) and some clandestine special ops stuff, all directed against Vietnamese sneaking down the largely unpopulated jungliferous border, we never fought in Cambodia.

The Cambodians had their own guerilla war, largely disconnected from the Vietnamese one, and that's who the Khmer Rouge were. After the Vietnamese took over Vietnam, the KR took over Cambodia, and went on their killing rampage, ultimately coming into conflict with the Vietnamese, who, in turn, threw out the KR. We, by the way, backed Pol Pot and the KR against the Vietnamese at this time, which was to my thinking about the lowest point of American diplomatic thinking I can remember, even worse than backing Saddam against the Iranians.

caw

greglondon
11-17-2006, 01:06 AM
:Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug: :Shrug:

Some company for Billy.

(Gah, stupid database)

blacbird
11-17-2006, 01:09 AM
Van Damme?

Dolph Lundgren.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:17 AM
You have a problem with that "I think I heard something" statement, Thrills. Go read a little factual material.

The killing fields happened in Cambodia. We never fought Cambodians. Except for one minor unsuccessful border invasion (which happened while I was over there, and never went deeper than about 10 km) and some clandestine special ops stuff, all directed against Vietnamese sneaking down the largely unpopulated jungliferous border, we never fought in Cambodia.

The Cambodians had their own guerilla war, largely disconnected from the Vietnamese one, and that's who the Khmer Rouge were. After the Vietnamese took over Vietnam, the KR took over Cambodia, and went on their killing rampage, ultimately coming into conflict with the Vietnamese, who, in turn, threw out the KR. We, by the way, backed Pol Pot and the KR against the Vietnamese at this time, which was to my thinking about the lowest point of American diplomatic thinking I can remember, even worse than backing Saddam against the Iranians.

caw

Exactly. That's what I said.

It's bad to leave a country and then watch people get slaughtered.

Thank you.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:19 AM
I wonder, if Bin Laden had released a videotape a couple years after 9-11 that said "Sorry US" and him shruggin his shoulders, would that have prevented the US from going after him?

If not, then your apologizes are not only pointless and hollow, but downright insulting and arrogant.

Billy's war plan for the next two years is to simply shrug and say "sorry".

I am nothing if not a person who can accept an apology.

I would welcome an apology from Bin Laden and we can let bygones be bygones.

Thank you.

blacbird
11-17-2006, 01:22 AM
Exactly. That's what I said.

It's bad to leave a country and then watch people get slaughtered.

Thank you.

Anyone who can explain how Thrillsy's response here recognizes the existence of anything I said in the post he's responding to, please let me know.

Thank you.

caw

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:23 AM
Anyone who can explain how Thrillsy's response here recognizes the existence of anything I said in the post he's responding to, please let me know.

Thank you.

caw

:ROFL:

I have a bad cold. I'm more delirious than usual.

:Shrug:

Sorry.

English Dave
11-17-2006, 01:24 AM
I am nothing if not a person who can accept an apology.

I would welcome an apology from Bin Laden and we can let bygones be bygones.

Thank you.

Being an evil bastard I say screw him. I don't like anyone interfering with how I live my life. At the same time, I'm open to someone with a grievance telling me about it using diplomacy. It might take longer but less people get killed.


Terrorists can win a singular issue. It depends how much others care about that singular issue.

Screw with my way of life? Bring it on. You've got yourselves a war.

whistlelock
11-17-2006, 01:30 AM
I say we put him in a glass box and suspend him over Times Square. Ofcourse we'd have to keep an ample supply of rotting pork so people could have something to throw at him.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:31 AM
Being an evil bastard I say screw him.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Sorry, Osama.

I tried for ya, buddy.
:Shrug:

English Dave
11-17-2006, 01:31 AM
I say we put him in a glass box and suspend him over Times Square. Ofcourse we'd have to keep an ample supply of rotting pork so people could have something to throw at him.

:ROFL:

I feel guilty and yet I don't.

greglondon
11-17-2006, 01:52 AM
Anyone who can explain how Thrillsy's response here recognizes the existence of anything I said in the post he's responding to, please let me know.

That's just Billy. Billy said:


Didn't like a million people get slaugtered in the killing fields or something after we left? The Khemer Rouge or something. I think I heard something about that somewhere.


You showed that he was talking complete BS, so then he says



Exactly. That's what I said.


And then he changes the topic. I've pretty much given up on him.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:55 AM
I've pretty much given up on him.

Already?

It usually takes people 3-4 weeks to give up on me.

Damn.

Oh well.
:Shrug:

blacbird
11-17-2006, 01:55 AM
I've pretty much given up on him.

Please don't do that. The amusement value is much too high.

caw

English Dave
11-17-2006, 01:56 AM
And then he changes the topic. I've pretty much given up on him.

You are Jonothan Harkness and he is Count Dracula. How dare you give up!

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 01:56 AM
I'm going to say this for the last time.

We cannot win the war in Iraq, even if we throw a half million troops at it and all the money in every paycheck across this country.

We are dealing with people willing to kill themselves. Does that compute to anyone?

Billy = http://www.eventsounds.com/wav/compute.wav

greglondon
11-17-2006, 01:57 AM
Please don't do that. The amusement value is much too high.

For you, maybe. I feel i'm approaching the point of diminishing returns.

It's like after you've played with an Eliza program for a while, and it gets to the point where you recognize all the patterns of everything it can possibly say? And you know it'll never say anything new?

I'm somewhere in that ball park right now.

(BB King) The thrill is gone.

TheGaffer
11-17-2006, 01:59 AM
It usually takes people 3-4 weeks to give up on me.

This is my problem. I needed about eight months. Then I finally got it.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 02:00 AM
For you, maybe. I feel i'm approaching the point of diminishing returns.

It's like after you've played with an Eliza program for a while, and it gets to the point where you recognize all the patterns of everything it can possibly say? And you know it'll never say anything new?


Please stop stealing my material about YOU and then sticking in Eliza for Terminator.

Write your own stuff please.

Thank you.

Unique
11-17-2006, 04:32 AM
We could fire a couple of generals too, but it is going to take more troops and alot more money.

Then they need to be fired. The generals of the Pacific got fired after Pearl Harbor for a lot less.

Unique
11-17-2006, 04:38 AM
I'm going to say this for the last time.

We cannot win the war in Iraq, even if we throw a half million troops at it and all the money in every paycheck across this country.

We are dealing with people willing to kill themselves. Does that compute to anyone?

All we would wind up doing is killing every last Iraqi civilian because he or she was in a car approaching, or walking down the street looking sinister, or waving out a window. We need people who can sway these people. Every day we are there, we empower the radicals with more suicide recruits. We escalate the violence. We can't win. Islam can win. We need moderate Islamic countries to intervene.

Since you were saying it for the last time, and I thought it bore repeating, I'm quoting you here. Emphasis mine.

robeiae
11-17-2006, 05:03 AM
Who are these moderate Islamic countries that are prepared to do so?

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 05:47 AM
Who are these moderate Islamic countries that are prepared to do so?

I don't know, but here's a map to help out....

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/jewish_occupation.gif

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:09 AM
How did I know the famous map would show up?

It's actually been awhile.

The time was right.
:)

robeiae
11-17-2006, 06:10 AM
I think you're dreaming, no offense. Troops from these nations entering Iraq to replace U.S. troops will be viewed as colaborators, not as Muslims lending a helping hand. Furthermore, there are radical elements in all of these nations. The ones that might be called moderate are also the ones least capable of providing any significant numbers of troops. And as nervous as the governments are in some of these places about their own future, I suspect they would by quite wary of stirring up trouble within their borders by appearing to cooperate with the West.

robeiae
11-17-2006, 06:17 AM
They won't be viewed as our allies if we keep a low profile while we're leaving. And, as I said, troops if we can get 'em. Even token. But it's going to be expensive, Rob. We're gonna arm them for free. They'll do it. And the radical elements? Not significant enough for them to turn down big buck military technology. Seriously, think about it.You'll be arming radicals, right along with the rest of their military. You know that, right?

Unique
11-17-2006, 06:20 AM
Troops?
Who introduced that into the equation?
What do the diplomats look like from those countries?

Particularly Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:20 AM
I remember when you used to post that about fifteen times a night. HAHAHA!

We don't talk to much about Israel and Palestine anymore. And we can't post images and the link does have as much affect and/or effect.
:(

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:30 AM
Help me out on this, Billy.

American General: We now have a half million troops in Iraq. We'll kill all you suicide bombers and win the war!

Suicide bombers: We don't care if we die and there's two million of us.

American General: Oh.

I know. That's why my prediction of radiation will come true unless moderate Muslims and Mohammad Ghandi rise up and get control of the radical elements. If they don't, it's going to go really bad in the Middle East eventually.

I don't know if that's what you're talking about.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:34 AM
Lord almighty, I'm watching a clip from the documentary "Obsession" about radical Islam.

These people are nuts. My god. My god. Their fanatacism is almost like watching a scene from a movie. They're all lined up and blank eyed and brainwashed chanting about hate, and destruction etc...

Oh god, this is going to end really badly for the middle east.

At this point, I see no alternate ending unless moderate Muslims do something to stop it.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:36 AM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we can't win it, Billy. The Muslims have to hash it out. in the mean time, we need to be developing alternate fuel sources and essentially eliminate our dependence on ME oil. It's just common sense. Rudy's all for it.

I agree that ultimately it's up to the moderate Muslims to defeat the fanatics. But if they dont. AND THEY AREN'T, it's going to take really big bombs.

And I can't say it enough....corn, corn, corn, corn.

The day we don't need a drop of oil from the ME is a day I'll open some Dom Perignon instead of my normal Andre Extra Dry.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:38 AM
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer.htm

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:42 AM
Better start buying some acreage in Nebraska. You're not that far and if you homestead, it's like 60 bucks an acre.

Seriously, the entire state could be one gigantic CORN ROW. 'Nothin else going on.

How much money is each ear of corn worth to the ethanol community?

robeiae
11-17-2006, 06:43 AM
Yup. I do. But, it makes no difference anymore. They'll hammer it out without us. Without a western presence to hate, I doubt the radicals prevail, Rob. We need to get out, focus on Afghanistan which is mushrooming out of control, and worry about alternative fuel sources.Good for us, I guess, in an isolationist kind of way. However, I'd guess we'd be back there, bailing Europe out from WWIII, within decades. Why do today, what you can put off until tomorrow?

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:44 AM
I have dial-up. Downloading takes forever but I get the picture. Yeah, pretty depressing.

Enough to make you drink an entire bottle of Andre Extra-Dry in one sitting.

Yep.

Although for me it doesn't take much.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:45 AM
Right now? I don't know, but I bet it's alot.

Maybe I can grow some in my apartment?

Hmmmm...I gotta look into this.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 06:53 AM
Good for us, I guess, in an isolationist kind of way. However, I'd guess we'd be back there, bailing Europe out from WWIII, within decades. Why do today, what you can put off until tomorrow?

lol...

Hey, as soon as moderate Muslim nations or moderate Muslims step up to the plate and say "Hey, we're gonna take care of this. I promise you"....I'll say let's see what you got.

I ain't seen it.

So, we'll keep fighting.

And the vicious cycle will continue until there is an ultimate winner and an ultimate loser.

And it won't be us. That's for sure.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 07:05 AM
We can't win it, Billy. Let them figure it out.

Of course we can win it.

We have much much much bigger bombs and so so so so many more of them.

I just hope that the moderates that you are talking about rise up and do what you're looking for.

So far, I aint seen nothing from them, so we'll keep heading down the path we're on and at the end of the path we'll be fine.

The Middle East won't.

Hopefully we'll never arrive at the end of the path though. I still have a little bit of hope.

Unique
11-17-2006, 07:46 AM
We aren't the only ones talking. (http://tinyurl.com/yerg4a)

Interesting that some of the points we've discussed are also being discussed by others.

blacbird
11-17-2006, 10:58 AM
Of course we can win it.

We have much much much bigger bombs and so so so so many more of them.



Please, Jesus. Talk to Thrillsy.

Thank you. Amen.

caw

MattW
11-17-2006, 04:07 PM
We aren't the only ones talking. (http://tinyurl.com/yerg4a)

Interesting that some of the points we've discussed are also being discussed by others.And, just as most would expect, the Iraqi (a Kurd even!) thinks that Syria or Iran have no business in Iraq.

Unique
11-17-2006, 04:50 PM
Can you blame them?
Why on earth would the Iraqi people want more
outsiders in their country?

That's why I said - try diplomacy first; not troops

Bartholomew
11-17-2006, 04:58 PM
Please, Jesus. Talk to Thrillsy.

Thank you. Amen.

caw

And while you're at it, Jesus, Lord of Lords, best friend, chum, amigo, pal, comrade, friend, please (with sugar on top) [ insert wit here. ]

robeiae
11-17-2006, 05:31 PM
We can't win it, Billy. Let them figure it out.And when they figure it out, decide that the U.S. really has no stomach for foreign wars, engage Israel in full, a city of millions on one side or the other gets vaporized, and Europe realizes they might be next, will we be able to win it then?

I'm not predicting this will happen, and if it somehow does, it won't be for many decades (I think). Still...

SC Harrison
11-17-2006, 05:48 PM
...decide that the U.S. really has no stomach for foreign wars...

This is the best argument yet to avoid "boots on the ground" situations whenever possible. Everybody's got boots, but not everybody has cruise missiles and other long-distance calling cards.

Once you're on the ground you become vulnerable, which pretty soon causes people to realize you can be defeated. Then it becomes a matter of attrition, which reminds me of...I'm not going to say it. :)

robeiae
11-17-2006, 05:58 PM
This is the best argument yet to avoid "boots on the ground" situations whenever possible. Everybody's got boots, but not everybody has cruise missiles and other long-distance calling cards.

Once you're on the ground you become vulnerable, which pretty soon causes people to realize you can be defeated. Then it becomes a matter of attrition, which reminds me of...I'm not going to say it. :)That's okay, SC...you can say it. :)

But you have to admit, there was far less concern then for collateral damage, as opposed to Iraq. When was the last time we pulled out of an entire region or city in Iraq and carpet-bombed the works, civilians and infrastructure be damned? And it's that attitude, of trying to minimize collateral damage, that feeds the belief that we can be had.

I'm 100% behind the idea of using all of our resources. That's why I've always thought Shock and Awe was a poorly conceived plan.

TheGaffer
11-17-2006, 06:18 PM
And when they figure it out, decide that the U.S. really has no stomach for foreign wars, engage Israel in full, a city of millions on one side or the other gets vaporized, and Europe realizes they might be next, will we be able to win it then?

I'm not predicting this will happen, and if it somehow does, it won't be for many decades (I think). Still...

But what kind of strategy is that? Stay there just in case the above scenario happens?

robeiae
11-17-2006, 06:29 PM
But what kind of strategy is that? Stay there just in case the above scenario happens?It's not strategy, at all. I'm only questioning the idea of going "isolationist" and letting the chips in the ME fall where they may.

My postion is to treat the Iraq War like a real war, under the rubric of understanding that all war is total war. Does that count as a strategy? :)

SC Harrison
11-17-2006, 06:41 PM
But you have to admit, there was far less concern then for collateral damage, as opposed to Iraq. When was the last time we pulled out of an entire region or city in Iraq and carpet-bombed the works, civilians and infrastructure be damned? And it's that attitude, of trying to minimize collateral damage, that feeds the belief that we can be had.



But that's just the other side of the coin. Heavy-handed pacification efforts then (and now) did/will merely make us just as bad as the insurgents, in the eyes of the domestic populace.

*sigh* Engineering insurgencies is much easier than defending against them.

greglondon
11-17-2006, 07:35 PM
And I can't say it enough....corn, corn, corn, corn.

The day we don't need a drop of oil from the ME is a day I'll open some Dom Perignon instead of my normal Andre Extra Dry.

Corn isn't very efficient. The amount of fuel it takes to plant, harvest, and covert to ethonal isn't much less than the amount of ethonal you produce.

There are other crops that have a higher in-to-out ratio. I think the best one was something called "switchgrass" or something like that. Corn has a large political lobby, and you'll probably have to give some incentives to have farmers convert to it to pay for new equipment and all that.

oswann
11-17-2006, 08:59 PM
The Red Chinese did not take over Asia, as predicted. Communism did not sweep across the globe.


Yet.


Os.

oswann
11-17-2006, 09:13 PM
Os, give me a break. All right, you're being funny.

Red China is barely red anymore. She now boasts fifteen billionaires and if anything, she's leaninng toward democracy. Re. the Soviet Union? I can't even remember what the Berlin Wall looked like.

It's more the taking over the globe part than the redness of the Chinese, if they manage to pull it off without revolution.


Os.

robeiae
11-17-2006, 09:40 PM
This is the exact same thinking that got us into - and prolonged - the Vietnam War, Rob. It's fear-mongering. The Red Chinese did not take over Asia, as predicted. Communism did not sweep across the globe.
Red China is barely red anymore. She now boasts fifteen billionaires and if anything, she's leaninng toward democracy. Re. the Soviet Union? I can't even remember what the Berlin Wall looked like.
It's not the "exact same thinking" from my perspective, not in the least. And Os's "yet" is entirely correct.

And with regard to Red China and the Soviets, what is the relationship of the Vietnam War to the current state of affairs? Sure, we can easily talk about the errors of that War, of the errors of even engaging in that War, from the point of view of the United States, but what did it mean to the Soviets and the Chinese? To the rest of Southeast Asia? Suppose the Vietnam War never happened. Are you quite sure the events that followed would have still transpired as they did? Maybe the Wall would have come down faster...maybe it would never have come down, at all.

And China is hardly leaning towards democray. It's economic success is limited to the very few. Wait 'til it hits an economic brick wall, then we'll see where it leans.

Russia? Yeah, it's a bastion of freedom now...

robeiae
11-17-2006, 09:44 PM
This is a war of ideology that can only be defeated within its own dimension: the religion of Islam. We can support moderate Islam but ultimately, it's Islam that will have to sort it out.
Poppycock. What evidence is there that suggests such a thing will occur? What ideology has ever sorted itself out wholly from within and extinguished itself in the process?

greglondon
11-17-2006, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by Bird of Prey
This is a war of ideology that can only be defeated within its own dimension: the religion of Islam. We can support moderate Islam but ultimately, it's Islam that will have to sort it out.



Poppycock. What evidence is there that suggests such a thing will occur?

will occur? He didn't say it will occur. He said that it's the only way to solve the problem.


What ideology has ever sorted itself out wholly from within and extinguished itself in the process?

poppycock. red herring. fiddle faddle. irrelevant. The process doesn't have to be "wholly from within". But it is koolaid-speak to think the solution can be forced wholly from without, that the american army can somehow go into a country, and by shear force alone lock down any violent response to our presence without triggering more violent responses.

There seems to be a neocon meme that we've sent the US military into Iraq and have told the Iraqi's "This will hurt me more than it will hurt you". Like we're some sort of reluctant parent that must spank a bad child. And like we'll simply respond to any tempertantrums to being spanked by grounding everyone to their room or something. As if the solution will come wholly from the outside.

We need to start treating the Iraqi civilians as equals, start relating to Iraqi civilians deaths to be as bad as American civilians deaths, and figure out a way to bring the Iraqis into the solution, rather than thinking we'll just bomb he11 out of anything that disagrees with us until there is a peace.

TheGaffer
11-17-2006, 10:12 PM
It's not strategy, at all. I'm only questioning the idea of going "isolationist" and letting the chips in the ME fall where they may.

Fair enough. I don't like that idea either -- I like the current situation even less.

robeiae
11-17-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Bird of Prey
This is a war of ideology that can only be defeated within its own dimension: the religion of Islam. We can support moderate Islam but ultimately, it's Islam that will have to sort it out.
.
.
.
The process doesn't have to be "wholly from within".That's not what BoP is saying, however.
But it is koolaid-speak to think the solution can be forced wholly from without, that the american army can somehow go into a country, and by shear force alone lock down any violent response to our presence without triggering more violent responses.I agree, actually. But it doesn't follow that "things will just work themselves out" on their own, which was what BoP was saying.

greglondon
11-17-2006, 11:29 PM
But it doesn't follow that "things will just work themselves out" on their own, which was what BoP was saying.

No, you're turning it into a strawman. he said:

it's Islam that will have to sort it out.

Saying we have to have moderate Islam's invovled to sort this out into any sort of long term solution is different than saying "things will just work out on their own".

Sheryl Nantus
11-17-2006, 11:39 PM
Os, give me a break. All right, you're being funny.

Red China is barely red anymore. She now boasts fifteen billionaires and if anything, she's leaninng toward democracy. Re. the Soviet Union? I can't even remember what the Berlin Wall looked like.

fifteen billionaires in China?

dang... where have the good old days gone...

:D

dclary
11-17-2006, 11:39 PM
All I know about pulling out early is that it isn't nearly as fun as staying in until the climax.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 11:43 PM
I look forward to one day hearing greg london's solution to combating fanatical jihadists, winning the war on terror and preventing another 9/11 from occurring from a cab forward position as if he were elected today and took over as our President.

1000 words or less.

No use of "6 weeks or months"
No use of "WMDs"
No use of "rainbows"

Those are not "cab forward" words and will bring an automatic failure.

Good luck.

America and the free world is and/or are counting on you.

dclary
11-17-2006, 11:48 PM
I'm sure if we just come to the table and discuss our issues like civilized people, we can come to a mutual agreement.

billythrilly7th
11-17-2006, 11:57 PM
I'm sure if we just come to the table and discuss our issues like civilized people, we can come to a mutual agreement.

Yes.

Well said.

Greg, cancel your essay.

"We got it!!"
Ghostbusters
("it" replacing "one" is dramatic license taken by ThrillyCorp)

Someone get Bin Laden on the phone. I'll start by taking him to see Borat. We'll laugh and we'll bond and then we'll talk.
:)

greglondon
11-18-2006, 12:17 AM
I look forward to one day hearing greg london's solution to combating fanatical jihadists, winning the war on terror and preventing another 9/11 from occurring from a cab forward position as if he were elected today and took over as our President.

1000 words or less.

No use of "6 weeks or months"
No use of "WMDs"
No use of "rainbows"

Those are not "cab forward" words and will bring an automatic failure.

Good luck.

America and the free world is and/or are counting on you.

start counting:

> preventing another 9/11 from occurring

Prevention: good intelligence and police work. See Britain's August 10, 2006, arrest of 25 suspects in transatlantic aircraft plot. We had intelligence that Al Queda was our number one threat when Clinton left office. Clinton tried to pass the torch to Bush, but Bush couldn't be bothered with it. CIA folks tried to tell Bush and Condi Rice that Bin Laden was a massive and immediate threat months before 9-11, but they were dismissed by the administration.

Until 9-11, and then Bush made intelligence his top priority: any intelligence that would show that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. The "war on terror" and all of Bush's tough talk is a nice cover up to the fact that he completely and utterly blew it leading up to 9-11.

Also, hardened cockpits. Far more than the current levels, if you ask me. And real security at airports. No pony shows that don't do anything but give those in charge something they can say they're doing. Oh, and can we please get our nuclear waste into long term underground storage? We're practically leaving dynamite out on the ground.

> combating fanatical jihadists

If they're in the US, police work to prevent and SWAT to react.

If they're grouped in a lawless country like Al Queda was in Afghanistan,
send in the military and establish a government that has democratic
support and can enforce the law.

> winning the war on terror

This is a myth of the Neocons. The "War on Terror" is a war on a method of fighting. It's like declaring a "war on L-shaped ambushes". It's the perfect meme to create an endless war that has easily movable goals that can never be attained. It's as stupid as the police declaring a war on bank robbery. You'll never wipe out all bank robbers. That's why you need bank security to prevent robbers and good forensics to deal with them afterwards. (and SWAT incase things get ugly at the bank itself)

Had we stayed in Afghanistan, Al Queda would have been almost completely wiped out and would have stayed that way for a long time. Instead, we diverted to Iraq, created a recruiting poster for Al Queda, and left Afghanistan blowing in the wind.

Invading Iraq was about the worst thing we could have done as far as going after Al Queda, taking out their people and training camps and support, and preventing them from launching another 9-11. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. It's become their best recruiting poster since we've gone in.

don't know what my word count is, but that about sums it up.

Sure as fkc better than "Lets invade Iraq and maybe we'll win and it'll all work out"

greglondon
11-18-2006, 12:19 AM
I'm sure if we just come to the table and discuss our issues like civilized people, we can come to a mutual agreement.

Aren't you the one who thinks we "won" in vietnam?
At the rate your plan's been working out,
we're about ready to "win" in Iraq about the same way.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 12:45 AM
start counting:

> preventing another 9/11 from occurring

Prevention: good intelligence and police work. See Britain's August 10, 2006, arrest of 25 suspects in transatlantic aircraft plot. We had intelligence that Al Queda was our number one threat when Clinton left office. Clinton tried to pass the torch to Bush, but Bush couldn't be bothered with it. CIA folks tried to tell Bush and Condi Rice that Bin Laden was a massive and immediate threat months before 9-11, but they were dismissed by the administration.

Until 9-11, and then Bush made intelligence his top priority: any intelligence that would show that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. The "war on terror" and all of Bush's tough talk is a nice cover up to the fact that he completely and utterly blew it leading up to 9-11.

Also, hardened cockpits. Far more than the current levels, if you ask me. And real security at airports. No pony shows that don't do anything but give those in charge something they can say they're doing. Oh, and can we please get our nuclear waste into long term underground storage? We're practically leaving dynamite out on the ground.

> combating fanatical jihadists

If they're in the US, police work to prevent and SWAT to react.

If they're grouped in a lawless country like Al Queda was in Afghanistan,
send in the military and establish a government that has democratic
support and can enforce the law.

> winning the war on terror

This is a myth of the Neocons. The "War on Terror" is a war on a method of fighting. It's like declaring a "war on L-shaped ambushes". It's the perfect meme to create an endless war that has easily movable goals that can never be attained. It's as stupid as the police declaring a war on bank robbery. You'll never wipe out all bank robbers. That's why you need bank security to prevent robbers and good forensics to deal with them afterwards. (and SWAT incase things get ugly at the bank itself)

Had we stayed in Afghanistan, Al Queda would have been almost completely wiped out and would have stayed that way for a long time. Instead, we diverted to Iraq, created a recruiting poster for Al Queda, and left Afghanistan blowing in the wind.

Invading Iraq was about the worst thing we could have done as far as going after Al Queda, taking out their people and training camps and support, and preventing them from launching another 9-11. There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the invasion. It's become their best recruiting poster since we've gone in.

don't know what my word count is, but that about sums it up.

Sure as fkc better than "Lets invade Iraq and maybe we'll win and it'll all work out"

So, you have no plan?

That's what I thought.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:01 AM
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer.htm

I'm gonna need something a little better than "hardened cockpits" and "the SWAT team."

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:04 AM
So, you have no plan?

if the only "plan" you will find acceptable must involve a stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, a quagmire that will cost thousands of american lives, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, spark the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and instigate a civil war, then yes I have no plan like that.

If that was your plan, it's working out just swell.

Otherwise, what exactly does the War by Mad King George in Iraq have to do with fighting Al Queda terrorists? There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda until after we invaded.

Nice going, Billy.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:10 AM
if the only "plan" you will find acceptable must involve a stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, a quagmire that will cost thousands of american lives, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, spark the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and instigate a civil war, then yes I have no plan like that.

If that was your plan, it's working out just swell.

Otherwise, what exactly does the War by Mad King George in Iraq have to do with fighting Al Queda terrorists? There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda until after we invaded.


Maybe one day you'll stop living in the past with your 20/20 hindsight and join us in the present with some real world solutions.

I doubt it.

It's so much easier to talk about the mistakes instead of the solutions.

I don't blame ya. It's the easy way out.

Billy: What should we do?
Greg: Never should have gone into Iraq.
Billy: Okay, fair enough. What should we do NOW?
Greg: There wouldn't be anything to do if we didn't go into Iraq.
Billy: Yeah, well, we did. So what do you got?
Greg: SWAT?
Billy: :Shrug:

But, luckily we have people like myself to take up your slack and work on "cab forward" solutions to the problems.

Sit back, relax and keep bathing in the policy decisions of the past.

We'll win it (http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/trailer.htm) for you and your family.

And I look forward to a "thank you" when it's all over.
:)

MacAllister
11-18-2006, 01:13 AM
Hot Rumsfeld Action (http://touching.pointlessbanter.net/?cat=35), courtesy of Jim Macdonald.

Not work safe.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:20 AM
Hot Rumsfeld action (http://touching.pointlessbanter.net/?cat=35), courtesy of Jim Macdonald.

Not work safe.

Oh lordy!

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:23 AM
Maybe one day you'll stop living in the past with your 20/20 hindsight and join us in the present with some real world solutions.


Billy, I've already told Rob this before.
I supported sending troops into Afghanistan.
I opposed sending troops into Iraq.
This isn't hindsight. So you can drop that fantasy.

Second, you asked what I wanted to do about
the War On Terrorism (tm), and I told you.
Iraq had no connection to Al Queda until
after we invaded. We are responsible for
making Iraq an Al Queda recruting poster.

But even still, suicide bombers and nutjobs like
that have to be dealt with by the likes of
police intelligence, the FBI, the CIA, stuff
like that.

All it took to hijack one plane was 6 guys
willing to die. Do you think a war in Iraq
is going to wipe out ever suicidal nutjob
out there? Do you think you'll get every
last one of them? Or do you want to live
in the present and get that the Iraq war
is creating MORE potential bombers, not less.

So, if your war in Iraq doesn't get them all,
how you gonna stop them? Police work,
FBI, CIA, and all the investigation legwork
that goes into it. No where near as exciting
as chanting for a war like you are, but your
war won't get every single last bomber.
And it's recruting more. So, the only prevention
is intel work. Police work.

The only thing your war in Iraq has to do with
terrrorism right now is that you're recruting
more guys that the FBI and CIA will have to
keep track of over the next 10 or 20 years.

Nice going, Billy.

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:25 AM
Aren't you the one who thinks we "won" in vietnam?
At the rate your plan's been working out,
we're about ready to "win" in Iraq about the same way.

We won militarily in Vietnam. We allowed ourselves (for the exact same reasons as today,sadly) to be defeated diplomatically, and that's where the tally mark comes from in the W-L column.

We did, however, achieve the overarching goal of stopping the overt spread of communism in southeast asia, despite the L. I can cling to the hope that even when we tally Iraq an L because of shortsighted men like you, we can still look back twenty years from now and say "and on that day, the spread of militant jihadism was blunted."

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:28 AM
if the only "plan" you will find acceptable must involve a stupid war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, a quagmire that will cost thousands of american lives, cost hundreds of billions of dollars, spark the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and instigate a civil war, then yes I have no plan like that.

If that was your plan, it's working out just swell.

Otherwise, what exactly does the War by Mad King George in Iraq have to do with fighting Al Queda terrorists? There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda until after we invaded.

Nice going, Billy.

No, but there is now. I would much, much rather have Al Qada pouring its resources into killing American soldiers on Middle Eastern soil than killing American civilians in Midwestern towns.

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:28 AM
I can cling to the hope that ... we can still look back twenty years from now and say "and on that day, the spread of militant jihadism was blunted."

So, Iraq has -not- turned into a recruiting poster for Al Queda?

It's a nice fiction. Maybe you should publish it.

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:29 AM
Hot Rumsfeld action (http://touching.pointlessbanter.net/?cat=35), courtesy of Jim Macdonald.

Not work safe.

:|

and I say again.

:|


Mac!

You degenerate, you!

:lol:

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:34 AM
No, but there is now. I would much, much rather have Al Qada pouring its resources into killing American soldiers on Middle Eastern soil than killing American civilians in Midwestern towns.

And all along, I thought you didn't have a sense of humor.

But -that- is funny.

Ya know, we were fighting al queda in their front yard.
It was a little country called Afghanistan.
YOu may have heard of it.
With you, sometimes I wonder.

So you think pulling the troops out of where Al Queda was located,
invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Queda,
and sparking a civil war in that country as a way to get Al Queda
to "pour its resources" into killing Americans in Iraq
was better than fighting Al Queda where they lived,
you think that's a good plan?

You're retrofitting history to explain away an embicilic war
that is making Al Queda stronger, not weaker.
If you wanted to fight Al Queda, you would fight them
where they lived, in Afghanistan.

Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda, and we didn't
invade Iraq as a feigning motion to get Al Queda to attack us.

You are writing pure propaganda now.

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:34 AM
So, Iraq has -not- turned into a recruiting poster for Al Queda?

It's a nice fiction. Maybe you should publish it.

Yeah it is, but you don't get it.

Iraq is a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

9/11 was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

Super Bowl XXXX was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

Carrie Underwood winning American Idol was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.



It doesn't matter what the hell we do. We are successful, we flaunt a lifestyle military jihadism despises, and we support Israel, and for these reasons they will spend every last minute of every day preaching hate, recruiting warriors, and spreading death to our people and our way of life.


What is your plan to stop these people? And where will you stop them? Will you put your military in harm's way, in the heart of their support circle? Or will you withdraw, and bring home your military, and hope that words will stop men whose God tells them eternal glory is found only once we have been wiped off the face of the earth?

TheGaffer
11-18-2006, 01:37 AM
I would much, much rather have Al Qada pouring its resources into killing American soldiers on Middle Eastern soil than killing American civilians in Midwestern towns.

This assumes an either/or choice here.


As for the post you followed that up with, you're right. We can't make our choices and decisions based on what we think is going to be a recruitment poster for Al-Qaeda. Our existence is that recruitment poster. But we can make smart military decisions based on allotting resources without resorting to saying "Well, we have to stay because otherwise it emboldens terrorists." Everything we do, short of full conversion to radical Islam tomorrow, "emboldens terrorists." So we have to think more strategically. I do not believe fighting in Iraq accomplishes this. I do believe, however, that fighting in Iraq gives the radicals more ability to justify their position to the larger populace in a way that 9/11, keeping bases in Saudi Arabia, or Carrie Underwood does not. Our standing with the greater population in that region and around the world has been hurt as a result of these decisions and that is not something that can be dismissed as somethng that does not matter. It does matter, as it affects our ability to leverage our economic/military/moral power in the world.

MacAllister
11-18-2006, 01:38 AM
You realize an individual's chances of being hit by lightning--or winning the lottery, for that matter--are greater than the chances of being killed by terrorism on American soil?

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:38 AM
You realize an individual's chances of being hit by lightning--or winning the lottery, for that matter--are greater than the chances of being killed by terrorism on American soil?

I'm sure the 9/11 victims appreciate the irony of all being in the same spot as that lightning strike.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:43 AM
Billy, I've already told Rob this before.
I supported sending troops into Afghanistan.
I opposed sending troops into Iraq.
This isn't hindsight. So you can drop that fantasy.

Complaining about Iraq instead of coming up with solutions may not be hindsight, but it's worthless. It does nothing to help in the NOW. Just like when you bailed on Ed Harris in Apollo 13 because you told him that back in the day you were against the wiring they were using. Luckily, Gary Sinese came in and saved the day. No thanks to you.

You keep playing your part and the rest of us will be Gary Sinese. Thanks for the help.


Second, you asked what I wanted to do about
the War On Terrorism (tm), and I told you.
Iraq had no connection to Al Queda until
after we invaded. We are responsible for
making Iraq an Al Queda recruting poster.

So, I asked you "WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO ABOUT THE WAR ON TERRORISM?"

and you told me....."Iraq had no connection to Al Queda until
after we invaded. We are responsible for
making Iraq an Al Queda recruting poster"

cool....great "plan?" :Shrug:

I guess it depends on your definition of the word "plan."

Billy: What should we do about the war on terror?
Greg: Iraq became a recruiting poster for Al Queda.
Billy: I'll run that by the generals but they might want something a little more substantial.

Ed Harris: How we getting the boys back, Greg?
Greg: We never should have used that wiring.
Ed Harris: Okay, but how should we get them back.
Greg: If it wasn't for that wiring, they'd be okay right now.
Ed Harris: You know what, Greg. Take the afternoon off. We'll handle it. Thanks.


But even still, suicide bombers and nutjobs like
that have to be dealt with by the likes of
police intelligence, the FBI, the CIA, stuff
like that.

Yeah. Agreed. But I'd like to nip it in the bud though before they have to deal with it. I have vision. A vision of a democratic, free and prosperous middle east where Jihad is no longer a career path.


All it took to hijack one plane was 6 guys
willing to die. Do you think a war in Iraq
is going to wipe out ever suicidal nutjob
out there? Do you think you'll get every
last one of them? Or do you want to live
in the present and get that the Iraq war
is creating MORE potential bombers, not less.

A free, democratic and peaceful mideast is the answer. It's a tough order but we're giving it a helluva shot. Short of that. Yes, we will have to kill so many people it will be very sad.


So, if your war in Iraq doesn't get them all,
how you gonna stop them? Police work,
FBI, CIA, and all the investigation legwork
that goes into it. No where near as exciting
as chanting for a war like you are, but your
war won't get every single last bomber.
And it's recruting more. So, the only prevention
is intel work. Police work.

I told you. My Iraq war is visionary. It's not about getting them all now. It's about giving them a reason in the middle east whereby we don't have to get them all.

I'm willing to give it a shot, so in the end when we do have to get them all, we'll be able to sleep at night.

"We tried. We tried to bring democracy to Iraq and give these people a better lives. They chose a different path of civil war and violence. Oh well."


The only thing your war in Iraq has to do with
terrrorism right now is that you're recruting
more guys that the FBI and CIA will have to
keep track of over the next 10 or 20 years.

Not if we win and pound the terrorists and and destroy their infrastructure and bring hope and prosperity to the middle east to the point of... "Maybe I'll go work at TehranODisney instead of strapping a bomb to myself. I hear they have great dental."


Nice going, Billy.

Thank you.

Sit back and enjoy the freedom and safety we shall secure for you.

TheGaffer
11-18-2006, 01:47 AM
Complaining about Iraq instead of coming up with solutions may not be hindsight, but it's worthless. It does nothing to help in the NOW. Just like when you bailed on Ed Harris in Apollo 13 because you told him that back in the day you were against the wiring they were using. Luckily, Gary Sinese came in and saved the day. No thanks to you.

Billy.

Give this a rest.

You have no plan.

You are sitting on your computer at home. Or at work. Like the rest of us.

You are suggesting we keep doing what we're doing. Or bring in more troops. This is merely an idea. It is not an idea you can put into place because we are all having a theoretical conversation here.

We're trying to hash things out.

And your refrain is "YOU HAVE NO PLAN! YOU HAVE NO PLAN! SO THERE!"

All of which matters little. Ed Harris would have thrown you out ages ago. He would have said, "Dude. You, the one in the back yelling, 'Yeah, listen to him! He's smart! He has a plan! So there! Ha!' I need you to leave. You're not helping, you're merely kissing my behind, and I won't have it. Skepticism is how we arrive at decisions. Please stop."

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:50 AM
This assumes an either/or choice here.

True but the historical evidence appears to support the assumption.

How many attacks against american installations from 1996-2001, and in how many nations?

How many deaths from attacks against american installations from 2001-2006 and in how many nations?

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:51 AM
And all along, I thought you didn't have a sense of humor.

Come on, now. Everyone agrees I'm funny!

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:53 AM
You are writing pure propaganda now.

As propaganda, how is it? I'm sending some to my agent for possible publication in "Sycophants Digest" and I want it to be tip-top!

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:54 AM
We are successful, we flaunt a lifestyle military jihadism despises, and we support Israel, and for these reasons they will spend every last minute of every day preaching hate, recruiting warriors, and spreading death to our people and our way of life.

say "they hate us for our freedom".
That would make me so happy.
Come on, dclary. Say it for me won't you?
"They hate us for our freedom"
Six little words is just a little lie.
But would warm my heart and make me
chuckle for the rest of the day.


What is your plan to stop these people?

"these" people are fictional characters in a world you've subscribed to.
People who hate us simply for our freedom.
and "these" people cannot be stopped because they don't exist.


Will you put your military in harm's way, in the heart of their support circle?

They had a support circle in Afghanistan.
We went in there and wiped out a lot of their support circle.
They didn't have a support circle in Iraq
until after we invaded and occupied and
saw hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians
die under our watch. Then they got a support circle.

Invading Iraq -created- support for Al Queda there
where none had existed before. That isn't helping.



Or will you withdraw, and bring home your military, and hope that words will stop men?

You're bifircating* again.
Either fight them in Iraq OR be a pansy and withdraw.
Next logical fallacy please.

*Sorry billy. Bifurcating means to take a complicated
issue that has many possible choices and falsely present
it as if it only had two or some limited number of choices.
When someone commits bifurcation, they usually make sure
that all the choices are extremely stupid except for the one
they want you to pick.

The extremely stupid choices presented might also be
"strawman" versions of legitimate choices that the person's
opponent suggested, but the person doing the bifurcating
may be too chicken sh!t to present it straight up,
or maybe they just can't be bothered with the big words.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:54 AM
You're retrofitting history to explain away an embicilic war that is making Al Queda stronger, not weaker.

Al Queda as we knew it has been decimated.

Their leadership.

Their money.

Torn to shreads.

The big dogs are sitting in Gitmo wondering where it all went wrong.

We have surveilliance of these idiots and phone taps and laptops and info and intelligence from interrogations.

It's all good, baby. They may have a few shots left in their gun. Maybe even a huge one. But their time is running out. They're running on empty. They're wounded dogs, but a wounded dog is dangerous, that's why we gotta keep taking the fight to them or to quote Colonel Trautman.

"Kill. Period."

They have barely connected to AL Quada leadership pockets here and there and we'll have to deal with them.

Let's win in Iraq. Find Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri. Negotiate an Israel Palestine peace plan, bring democracy and prosperity to the middle east and then we can all go on Space Mountain Tehran together. I'm buying.

"Al Queda ain't alrighty"
Billy Thrilly 7th

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:56 AM
Come on, now. Everyone agrees I'm funny!

Of course.

Of all the things he's said, and he's said some things, that one made me go....

"WHAT!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??"

dclary
11-18-2006, 01:58 AM
say "they hate us for our freedom".
That would make me so happy.
Come on, dclary. Say it for me won't you?
"They hate us for our freedom"
Six little words is just a little lie.
But would warm my heart and make me
chuckle for the rest of the day.

Just for you, Greg:

Militant Jihadism hates us because our women are free to wear thongs
Militant Jihadism hates us because we're free to blow our life's savings in Vegas
Militant Jihadism hates us because we're free to choose our own religion
Militant Jihadism hates us because we're free to criticize our political and religious leadership

Militant Jihadism hates us for our freedom, baby. Smile all you want at hearing it. Won't change the fact that it's true.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 01:58 AM
*Sorry billy. Bifurcating means to take a complicated
issue that has many possible choices and falsely present it as if it only had two or some limited number of choices.


Thank you.

There aren't infinite choices, so I think there's nothing wrong with presenting limited number of choices.

I think bifurcating is an excellent path and I encourage people to use it.

greglondon
11-18-2006, 01:59 AM
I told you. My Iraq war is visionary. .

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I believe the word you mean to use is "imaginary".


It's not about getting them all now. It's about giving them a reason in the middle east whereby we don't have to get them all.

Right. Because we were in Afghanistan, kicking Al Queda's butt. Chasing them around the mountains, giving them a perfect target to attack. But that wasn't good enough, so we had to go invade Iraq so they'd go over there instead.

Nice going, Billy.

dclary
11-18-2006, 02:04 AM
"these" people are fictional characters in a world you've subscribed to.
People who hate us simply for our freedom.
and "these" people cannot be stopped because they don't exist.


The World Trade Center was destroyed by fictional characters?

Wow.

THAT'S some good writing.




Invading Iraq -created- support for Al Queda there
where none had existed before. That isn't helping.


LOL. Brother, you need to go check your DU playbook again. You just threw an interception. While (agreed) there was no evidence that Iraq had any connection with the 9/11 attack... they were MASSIVE supporters of Al Qaeda and Militant Jihadism. Don't EVEN pretend there was no support for them at all before we invaded.




You're bifircating* again.
Either fight them in Iraq OR be a pansy and withdraw.
Next logical fallacy please.


For the sake of not quivering on the cusp of chaos-theory inactivity, it is much easier to break down a series of choices into their base elements. I don't mind being called a bifurcator. It has its purposes and is not entirely without merit. People who are incapable of understanding binary math fear bifurcation, because they're afraid of being on the wrong side of the bit. If they can say there's a muddy middle, it's easier to say "oh, I was mostly on the right side of the equation" if later their position turns out to have been wrong.

greglondon
11-18-2006, 02:05 AM
Militant Jihadism hates us for our freedom, baby.

ooh, I'm a happy gregster. Look at me, I'm clapping my feet.
Arf. Arf. Arf.
That's my dog impression.

Thank you dclary. You made my day.
It's been a while since I've savored the pure unadulterated Koolaid
that says they hate us not because of anything we've done wrong
but because of how successful we are.

Iraq isn't a recruiting poster. no. that isn't why they sign up at all.
They hate us because of our freedom. not because hundreds
of thousands of civlians have been killed under our watch.
Not because we got caught with photos of Iraqis piled up
in naked pyramids, or some fkng @sshole had to get his picture
taken by a dead body with a thumbs up sign, proud of the
fact that someone had died in a military prison from his beatings.
Or the fact that we've shipped people off to third world countries
to have them tortured for years, without trial, without any due process
to determine if they're even innocent or guilty.

No sir. that isn't why they hate us.

They hate us because we're successful.

Right.

Is that cherry flavored koolaid or grape?


Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

dclary
11-18-2006, 02:08 AM
ooh, I'm a happy gregster. Look at me, I'm clapping my feet.
Arf. Arf. Arf.
That's my dog impression.

Thank you dclary. You made my day.
It's been a while since I've savored the pure unadulterated Koolaid
that says they hate us not because of anything we've done wrong
but because of how successful we are.

Iraq isn't a recruiting poster. no. that isn't why they sign up at all.
They hate us because of our freedom. not because hundreds
of thousands of civlians have been killed under our watch.
Not because we got caught with photos of Iraqis piled up
in naked pyramids, or some fkng @sshole had to get his picture
taken by a dead body with a thumbs up sign, proud of the
fact that someone had died in a military prison from his beatings.
Or the fact that we've shipped people off to third world countries
to have them tortured for years, without trial, without any due process
to determine if they're even innocent or guilty.

No sir. that isn't why they hate us.

They hate us because we're successful.

Right.

Is that cherry flavored koolaid or grape?


Anyway, thanks for the laugh.

Not too keen on the critical reading, are we?

I said iraq was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda. So somewhere in your addled skull-cavity you must have heard one of your imaginary voices say "clary said it wasn't a recruiting poster! he said it wasn't! he's the crazy one! get 'im greg! Coot! Coot! Coot!"

And I think it's been mentioned before, but what exactly is your problem with Kool-aid?

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:09 AM
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
I believe the word you mean to use is "imaginary".

Yep. Just like Reagan and the nuclear buildup to confront the Soviet Union and communism.

"Reagan is going to blow up the world!!"

"He's evil!!"

All the same humps back in the 80's marching and protesting with their STOP NUKES signs are out there now marching and protesting with their STOP BUSH signs.

Yet....

Cut To:

http://www.berlin-wall.com/images/full/us-n-r.jpg

Just look at that....brings a tear to my eye.

Don't worry, Greg.

I'm comfortable being a visionary who is on the right side of history when it all plays out.

Try it some time. It's a great place to be.


Right. Because we were in Afghanistan, kicking Al Queda's butt. Chasing them around the mountains, giving them a perfect target to attack. But that wasn't good enough, so we had to go invade Iraq so they'd go over there instead.

Nice going, Billy.

Thank you. It was time we gave the Afhgans a little peace, quiet and prosperity after years of Taliban rule and the never ending rifle fire from the Al Queda camps.

So, we lured them to Iraq and your average Afgan thanks us.

I don't care where we fight them. Afghanistan/Iraq/Timbuktwo.

As long as they're busy over there, there less busy over here.

"I love it when a plan comes together!"

There ya go, Greg. That one was for you, sir.
:)

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:10 AM
And I think it's been mentioned before, but what exactly is your problem with Kool-aid?

Maybe when he was a kid he couldn't get the can open?

:Shrug:

greglondon
11-18-2006, 02:12 AM
While (agreed) there was no evidence that Iraq had any connection with the 9/11 attack... they were MASSIVE supporters of Al Qaeda and Militant Jihadism. Don't EVEN pretend there was no support for them at all before we invaded.

That's nice, but Iraq didn't actually -do- anything with Al Queda
before we invaded. So you're saying we went into Iraq because
Iraq was "rooting" for Al Queda. Not actually on the playing field
in action against us, but saying nasty stuff like "down with usa".

Is that it?
You're saying we invaded Iraq not because of anything they did.

Sheryl Nantus
11-18-2006, 02:13 AM
The World Trade Center was destroyed by fictional characters?

Wow.

THAT'S some good writing.

:roll:

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:21 AM
Iraq isn't a recruiting poster. no. that isn't why they sign up at all. They hate us because of our freedom. not because hundreds
of thousands of civlians have been killed under our watch.
Not because we got caught with photos of Iraqis piled up
in naked pyramids, or some fkng @sshole had to get his picture
taken by a dead body with a thumbs up sign, proud of the
fact that someone had died in a military prison from his beatings.
Or the fact that we've shipped people off to third world countries
to have them tortured for years, without trial, without any due process
to determine if they're even innocent or guilty.

I wonder why they hated us on 9/11 before everything you mentioned ever happened.

I wonder why they hated us allll these years before Iraq. Check it out...its a great list....Terror Timeline...

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/timeline.htm


But you know what, I don't care why they hate us.

I don't care if it's for our freedom or our support of Israel or our support of dictators or for when we then don't support the dictator and attack him or for this or for that or for this or for that.

Because what it comes down to is we're a great country. We care about people and freedom and prospertity. We're not going to back away from our friend Israel while they live in the hornet's nest...

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/jewish_occupation.gif

...and the terrorists are going to have to get over it or they are going to die and drag down hundreds of thousands if not milions of people with them.

I don't care what their reasons are when they fly planes into buildings.

I cared what Ghandi's reasons were and his cause.

I cared what MLK's reasons were and his cause.

I cared what Nelson Madela's reasons were and his cause.

It's too bad the Muslim world doesn't have one of them.

Because that's the only way they're going to save themselves.

Because we're not listening to people who chant "Death To America" and strab bombs to themselves and blow up babies in marketplaces.

Our ears are closed.

They closed them and they'll have to live with the consequences.

:Shrug:

greglondon
11-18-2006, 02:23 AM
Yeah it is, but you don't get it.

Iraq is a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

9/11 was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

Super Bowl XXXX was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.

Carrie Underwood winning American Idol was a recruiting poster for al-qaeda.



It doesn't matter what the hell we do.

That.

That right there is the heart of neocon propaganda.

"It doesn't matter what we do" is the flip side of
"they hate us for our freedom".

And it is a nice way to absolve us of any responsibility for our actions.

We can blunder into Iraq and it doesn't matter what we do, they hate us for our freedom. We can torture prisoners, and it doesn't matter, they hate us for our freedom. We can trigger a civil war and watch hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civlians die on our watch, and it doesn't matter because they hate us for our freedom.

It does matter what we do. We are responsible for the quagmire in Iraq, for launching a war on phoney intel and cooked books. We are responsible for our actions and we are responsible for how our mistakes play out in teh world and turn a quagmire into an al queda recruting poster. It does matter what we do. because if we hadn't gone into Iraq, al queda wouldn't have gotten the massive spike in recruits that they've gotten.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:26 AM
It does matter what we do. because if we hadn't gone into Iraq, al queda wouldn't have gotten the massive spike in recruits that they've gotten.

Well...live and learn.

That's always been my motto.

Thank you.

greglondon
11-18-2006, 02:28 AM
:crazy:

Time for a break.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:31 AM
:crazy:

Time for a break.

Ref: Time out Blue time

Everyone to your neutral corners.

dclary
11-18-2006, 02:32 AM
YES!

We beat him, Billy!

We're like Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze and Emilio Estavez and Ralph Macchio and C. Thomas Howell and Matt Dillon and the rest of the outsiders after beating the opposing rumblers back!

Sweetness!

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:38 AM
YES!

We beat him, Billy!

We're like Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze and Emilio Estavez and Ralph Macchio and C. Thomas Howell and Matt Dillon and the rest of the outsiders after beating the opposing rumblers back!

Sweetness!

:ROFL:

Yeah, now take me to the hospital so we can go visit Johnny.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:40 AM
YES!

We beat him, Billy!


And don't worry, Greg. We know we didn't beat you.

You beat yourself.
:ROFL:

Just kidding.

Seriously. Breaks are needed and are not signs of defeat. Maybe just a sign of a weak bladder. Or having a life.

We're all Americans and sincere debate is not a competition.

And to the lurkers, as always....no wagering.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:42 AM
YES!

We beat him, Billy!

We're like Tom Cruise and Patrick Swayze and Emilio Estavez and Ralph Macchio and C. Thomas Howell and Matt Dillon and the rest of the outsiders after beating the opposing rumblers back!

Sweetness!

P.S. DId you see our picture in the "Are you part of the gang thread?"

You're Matt Dillon by the way.

billythrilly7th
11-18-2006, 02:57 AM
You are suggesting we keep doing what we're doing. Or bring in more troops. This is merely an idea. It is not an idea you can put into place because we are all having a theoretical conversation here.

We're trying to hash things out.

And your refrain is "YOU HAVE NO PLAN! YOU HAVE NO PLAN! SO THERE!"


Okay...I have ideas. :Shrug:

And yes, sadly, I can't order them to be implemented yet.

Yes. We're trying to hash things out.

From now on I will say "You have no ideas! You have no ideas! So there."

I don't see how this helps the situation, replacing the world "plan" with "idea" but if it makes you happy...

Nah, I'm sticking with the "plan" thing!!

What is wrong with you, Billy, listening to Gaffer?

I'm nuts for even responding to this post. The U2 Forum probably lost out on a great Thrilly post, Gaffer. Sleep well.

Wasting my time. Sufferin suckatash.

TheGaffer
11-18-2006, 03:19 AM
All the same humps back in the 80's marching and protesting with their STOP NUKES signs are out there now marching and protesting with their STOP BUSH signs.

Except Reagan didn't invade the Soviet Union. And when a more limited military engagement (Lebanon) presented two options -- engage fully in a situation that doesn't warrant our presence or pull out and save the fight for more important issues -- he chose the former. Which was smart.

You simply cannot say that because someone protested against one thing and then against another that the opposite was ultimately the right thing to do in both cases. "They were wrong once so they'll be wrong again."

People protested against Vietnam, too. They weren't incorrect there.