The Bush administration is cutting and running from terrorists. Where? In Afghanistan, where the actual terrorists operate. Remind me again why I think the administration is filled to the brim with excrement?
» Breaking News
Bally Total Fitness Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
Rita G [Breaking Beauty]
Claim: Jamie Lynn Spears Had Underage Liposuction
Caren Ramirez Arrested With Michael Luther Schumacher, Kelly Layne Lau In Kidnap/Abuse Case
Jessica Simpson Addicted To Self-Help Books
Gimme a friggin’ break!
A US Army battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq.
Even the largest Battalion has less than 1,000 men
Well, that makes all the difference!
No break for you Frank, just cut and run, or in your case tear slowly and hobble.
No action by bush is too low or too idiotic for frank to rationalize.
buma: I don’t need to rationalize sending 1000 troops (max) out of Afghanistan, where they will not be missed, to Iraq, where they might be indispensible.
However, since I don’t make the automatic assumption that the President of the United States — whoever he might be — is an idiot, nor do I believe that he arbitrarily plucked a battalion out of Afghanistan for “shits and giggles”, I did a little checking.
I discovered two stories which gave no indication that they were contrived to support the move (which I doubt was singlehandedly made by him, anyway — who do you think he is? LBJ?):
1) Forces Strike Insurgents Near Afghan-Pakistani Border
Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11, 2007 – Troops from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and Afghan National Army soldiers engaged and killed a significant number of insurgents last night in Afghanistan’s Bermel district, in Paktika province {the “eastern district” mentioned in the article - fd}, NATO officials reported.
Initial post-battle assessments indicate as many as 150 insurgents were killed, officials said…
2) U.S. Soldiers Build Base in Bermel District {the “Eastern District” mentioned in the article - fd}
The Afghan National Army and Police, along with the 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry Regiment, are using the base as a staging ground for operations throughout the remote district.
These two stories would seem to indicate that the situation is under control, and that the officers’ complaints are of the “we can’t afford to give up anyone or anything” variety, that, as Dugger will affirm, occur anytime you try to take anyone or anything away from any military organization.
So, you see, for all of Oliver’s and Kos’ hyperbole, there is “nothing to see here - move along.”
Wow, linking to the Army’s press releases. What next? Whitehouse.gov says everything is going swimmingly!
Frank, if you read the article, you might have caught the part where those troops were negaged in important work. Furthermore, you point at articles that show troops are engaged and fighting in Afghanistan, kind of at loggerheads with the “they ain’t needed” theme you had
Also, not everyone made an assumption that Bush was an idiot, Frank, it’s kind of an inevitable conclusion supported by a mountain of evidence.
The situtation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, and a battalion, however small, is a far greater percentage of US troops in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq.
Yet General DiSalle of the 101st fighting keyboarders has determined that in Afghanistan they “won’t be missed”, and that the military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan are just bellyachin’
Why? Because one skirmish was won, one base was built, and the the political hacks in Washington must know what they’re doing better than the commanders in the field do.
Thanks, Frank, for demonstrating once again the one-celled mentality of the 29-percenters.
George Bush will go down in history as the first president to fuck up two invasions.
From the article Oliver linked:
Suicide bomb attacks [in Afghanistan] increased from 18 in 2005 to 116 in 2006. Direct-fire attacks also more than tripled, from three per day in 2005 to more than 10 per day in 2006.
With NATO unable or unwilling to stem the rising violence, the Taliban are pressing their advantage.
Rather than withdrawing to regroup over the winter, intelligence officials and combat commanders said, the Taliban forces — clad in new cold-weather boots and fleece jackets — are fighting through the bitter cold months.
midderpidge: I certainly did read the part where the reporter said they were engaged in important work.
What I went looking for was the “important work” they were engaged in. In view of the fact that NATO force combined with Afghan forces made short shrift of 150 insurgents, and the Army was building a base with the Afghans (did you read those articles?), I surmised that the 1000 troops could be spared for duty in Iraq.
As I also said, whereas they may not be needed in Afghanistan, they might be indispensible in Iraq. None of the three articles specify what the duties of the battalion were, or will be.
Based on the mountain of evidence that I have surveyed, I came to the conclusion that no President of the United States is an idiot. If you feel that way, you can remain uncomfortable for the next two years until the next Republican moves into the White House.
Let me make a fairly safe prediction: By about FEB 2009, you’ll think he’s an idiot, too.
sorry about the italics.
Wilbur, do you know what you’re talking about? Just because the Boston Globe (which has opposed the President, and the war for some time) says it’s so, doesn’t mean it’s exactly the way they describe it. I looked all over the place for some corroboration for that story. All I found was repetitions of the story by other papers and bloggers.
So then I went looking around for what was happening in the area.
Let me ask you a question: Where did I say that “the political hacks in Washington must know what they’re doing better than the commanders in the field do”?
In fact, I said the opposite ["I discovered two stories which gave no indication that they were contrived to support the move (which I doubt was singlehandedly made by him, anyway"]
I’ve got another question: Do you think that there could be disagreement among military commanders, or do you think that if you’ve heard from a few military commanders, that that equals unanimity?
One more question: Isn’t it possible that the Globe knew exactly which commanders to go to to get exactly the answers they wanted, and then stopped asking?
Isn’t it amazing how you reserve all your skepticism for those opinions you disagree with. It must be painful for you to acknowledge that an opinion is an opinion, and not a fact.
Isn’t it possible that the Globe knew exactly which commanders to go to to get exactly the answers they wanted, and then stopped asking?
Isn’t it possible that the president knew exactly which commanders/CIA/NSA to go to to get exactly the answers they wanted, and then stopped asking?
Frank, it’s pretty pathetic when all you’ve got is “but, but, those damn liberal reporters might be making it all up!”
Find me some evidence that those 1000 troops aren’t needed and I’ll listen. No, the fact that one skirmish produced good results and one base got built is not evidence of that.
The continuing problems in Afghanistan and the recrudescence of the Taliban (with the re-appearance of Mullah Omar and fresh Taliban converts from our friends in Pakistan) are well documented in numerous sources. If you can’t find them then… that explains a lot.
Even if the situation is a whole lot better there than reports indicate, the fact that any resources have to be diverted from Afghanistan to cover Bush’s ass-fiasco in Iraq is a damning, damning indictment of this administration, and a disgrace to patriotic Americans everywhere.
Oh, the evidence I found isn’t good enough, but an uncorroborated story with a few quotes is?
OK, fine.
Believe them.
I don’t care what you believe.
If you can’t admit to the possibility that I might be right, then I really don’t see the point in knocking myself out for you.
What do you expect me to do? Go hunting all over the Internet and then submitting evidence for your approval?
Fuhgeddaboudit!
fd10801 | Jan 11, 2007 10:05:29 PM
“If you can’t admit to the possibility that I might be right, then I really don’t see the point in knocking myself out for you.
What do you expect me to do? Go hunting all over the Internet and then submitting evidence for your approval?”
Fuck, Frank, you’re hilarious!
But at least we got the #3 guy in al Qaeda over Somalia.
Just kidding!
Shorter Frankie: “Damn those liberal elitest with their ‘citation’ and ‘evidence’ and ‘valid arguements’.”
You are right Frank, any way you slice it Afghanistan is America’s forgotten war. And in six months when Iraq is stable because of those 20,000 additional troops that Bush sent in you can gloat all you want.
But of course this will happen.
Idiot. Is Bush the least qualified individual ever to make it to president?
Oh, the evidence I found isn’t good enough, but an uncorroborated story with a few quotes is?
You don’t understand, Frank. The evidence you found is in reference to two discrete situations. Even if the stories are completely accurate (which I’ve never doubted), it is not evidence against the assertion that we still face a boatload of troubles in Afghanistan.
The article Oliver posted is just one of many articles from several sources that attest to that trouble, and that quote sources in our own military and that of our NATO allies. Just pointing to that one article and saying ‘ew, Boston liberals!’ is not going to cut it.
Shorter frank:
Our government tells me Our Leader is right again, my lying eyes be damned.
The “trouble in Afghanistan” was never the point. Warfare is not a “bucket brigade,” where you need all available hands at all times.
First of all, the transfer is being treated as symptomatic of Bush’s mismanagement of the war. That’s irrelevant.
Second, the transfer is being treated as symptomatic of indifference to the “trouble in Afghanistan”, which may be irrelevant.
Why a story about a minor troop movement (and I’m willing to bet that hardly anyone who has read that article knew the approximate size of a Battalion) is hidden away in a story about troop needs should lead you to be suspicious, anyway.
It’s obviously designed to exacerbate the story of the military’s need: Not only do they need troops, but they are about to lose troops — oh my goodness!
There are very important details missing: What kind of a Unit is it, and why are the required in Iraq?
I can’t help feeling that there is a reason why those details are missing. You should be wondering about that, too, but no.
It’s too easy to pretend that I have somehow been spoonfed a lie — when perhaps it is you.
and, buma, please tell at which point my government told me “Our Leader” was right again.
Do you people have a file of oh - so - clever - but - totally - irrelevant remarks to copy and paste from? That one has become a well worn cliché.
Frank, do you sleep?
Well, Frank, since you started the subject, why don’t you tell us what you think the 20,000 new troops in Iraq will accomplish. What do you expect will happen, and what result will come about because of this bold strategy initiative. Will it pacify Baghdad? Will the death squads stop? Will people be allowed to keep their heads on their bodies?
To me it looks like a fresh coat of paint on the same old pile of steamy shit that is intended to try and pacify an angry American public more than it is designed to solve Bush’s Blunders in Iraq. Which is pretty much the entire Bush strategy since day 1 of the invasion. But hey, I could be wrong. Experience should tell you not to bet on it though.
Since I started what subject?
This isn’t my blog…
Tell us, Frank, what is going to happen with this great troop buildup . I’ve hinted or invited you to tell us what you expect this escalation will accomplish, but you keep avoiding it like some kind of prevaricating politician.
In 6 months and you’ll be able to gloat if you are right.
midderpidge: I don’t care to get flamed for three days for nothing. Go find a blog where they are discussing it, and post a comment.
Shorter FD: Go Away! I still refuse to answer, but this time I’m trying to make you feel bad about asking me.
Alright then FD, point us to someone else then who can articulate a specific positive about the surge, like a goal we can now accomplish or something. Nothing like “More soldiers means more winners so hurrah!” or anything like that, just an honest sober positive assessment about the surge. Please. It would be nice of you to at least direct us to the answer that you oh so certainly must have instead of perpetually dodging the question in order to better protect your fragile ego from the terrifying flames.
Also, Eat Dick, Frank.
Dodging the answer? Is there some sort of a requirement that I answer your questions? When did that start?
Not to mention the fact that I don’t believe there is one person on this blog who is at all interested in the answer.
Surely you — of the soaring vocabulary — can be more persuasive. Convince me that answering your question would serve as other than flamebait for the oh - so - witty - and - clever participants in this blog.
I have people cursing and swearing at me, insulting me, and calling me ridiculous and pornographic names, and suggesting I perform unnatural acts.
If there were at least one person on these threads who even seemed to be willing to engage in a fair and reasonable debate about anything, I might make an effort to fulfill your request.
But you people couldn’t find a link with a flashlight. You don’t know the difference between a fact and an opinion. And you expect respect, when you can’t even reciprocate with courtesy and consideration.
Here’s the deal — I’m doing my radio show right now, and couldn’t oblige you if I wanted to.
Between now and 5:00 PM EST, convince me that it’s even worth it to have a discussion on this deployment, and I’ll tell you what I think (HINT: I don’t think it’s “a fresh coat of paint on the same old pile of steamy shit”).
Oh, and Rex: I won’t eat what is currently stuck in your ass.
Dodging the answer? Is there some sort of a requirement that I answer your questions? When did that start?
Somewhere around when you decided you wanted to be taken at all seriously.
Taken seriously? By whom?
By someone, for example, who calls me a “colossal arsehole,” and suggests I “fuck a lawnmower”?
Is that who you mean?
I answer enough questions. My only concern is that this is a big issue, and I’m not really anxious to pretend I’m discussing it with ten to twelve maniacs who whose only desire is to “stump the conservative”, and failing that (which, I must say, they often do — again, because they don’t understand the difference between opinion and fact), resort to name calling, sometimes of an absurdly nasty and personal nature.
Shorter FD : I refuse to make a post that would be taken as flamebait by you ignorant cocksucking shitbags, because I’m too dignified for that, so screw all you faggot cuntstains for wanting me to talk sense.
Oh, and you can feel free to eat a different dick than the one you fantasize about being stuck up inside my ass, I wasnt suggesting you eat any specific dick, just that you should go out eat dick in a general sense.
I didn’t suggest you fuck a lawnmower. If you recall, you were complaining that Rex wasn’t insulting you hard enough, so I threw that one out as a suggested alternative.
If any of you — and I mean any of you — out there wants to be taken seriously, you can start by acting like we’re having a conversation face to face. You know, where you’d never act like you do hiding behind a keyboard.
That would be a good beginning.
Maybe next, you could see if you can get to the end of a post without being a wiseass, or a filthy mouthed juvenile delinquent.
Frank, I am concerned that the unclear direction the war in Iraq is taking will undermine US security and international relations in ways that we cannot possibly overstate. Our presence over there has, in all appearence, done nothing to make Iraq, the US, or indeed the world at large any safer a place to raise our children. Why then, without a goal in mind, is it prudent to escalate the military presence in Iraq (ignoring many generals claim that the “surge” will have no net effect) when we still have no goals in mind, in terms of objectives which are achievable or facilitated through our military action?
What he said, Dick-eater.
I’m a wiseass in real life. Cunt shitpiss fuck dickpenis and so on.
Frank, if we were having this conversation face to face, I would still have to say..
Oh and well put, random person who is not Rex.
I didn’t ask you for a discussion Frank. I asked you to tell us your prediction on what effect Bush’s escalation would have. That would be your opinion, I have stated mine. You want to dance all around it defending without telling us whether or not you think this new escalation will be successful. Have some balls.
And on a side note for Military supporters, you should send a thank you to Senator Webb for his Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007. A very clear indication that it is the Democrats that support our soldiers.
midderpidge, simple answer: Will it be successful? How should I know? I have two balls, neither of which is crystal…
Can it be successful? It certainly can
Do I want it to be successful? I certainly do.
Unlike so many others, I have favored this invasion from the very beginning, and not because I believed there were WMDs — I didn’t care.
Not because I believed Iraq played a role in 9/11. If they did, it was a minor one — certainly not worth going to war over.
So do I want us to win this thing? Yes.
Do I want us to kill every terrorist on the planet?
No, just enough until the rest go home, and stop killing folks for Allah.
rex, nimrod, and duros: thanks for confirming my already low opinion of the three of you. you are indeed sterling representatives of what passes for liberal thought nowadays. bravo!
midderpidge: I’d love to know what the vote was on that — and which Democrats voted against it.
I’m fairly certain some Republicans voted for it, too.
For your information, I get an increase in my check every two years. Coincidence? I think not.
They send me a little note in DEC.
no one has voted yet — it was just introduced.
Besides, VA Bills are no big deal — like Mom and apple pie.
Whatever, Frank. You just want to bitch about people who say taking troops out of Afghanistan and putting them into Iraq is a mistake without having any opinion on whether it will be successful or worth it. Got it.
Maybe we can risk taking troops out of Afghanistan without losing too much. I don’t know. It seems with the Taliban reemerging and the largest cash crop there is opium, we could stand to pay a little more attention to Afghanistan before it degrades into another Iraq.
You’re comparing apples and oranges.
If you want a direct answer to a direct question, the answer to the question, “Will a movement of one battalion out of Afghanistan make a substantial difference in the war in Afghanistan?”, the answer is, “I suspect some very important people think not, and I have no reason to disagree with them. The article was not convincing.”
If the question is, “Do I think the insertion of 21,000 troops in Iraq will result in speeding the end of the war?”, my understanding is that it will.
But there are variables:
The government of Iraq could prove to be less cooperative than we want or need them to be.
Iran and / or Syria could do something completely crazy — like send troops over the border of Iraq.
The Democrats could do something crazy, and cut off funding to the operation.
Is that a clear enough answer for you.
It’s a straighter answer than I’ve gotten from any of you in a long time, don’t you think?
And no snark, insults, or obscenities.
If the question is, “Do I think the insertion of 21,000 troops in Iraq will result in speeding the end of the war?”, my understanding is that it will.
I say this without snark, obscenity, or insult: What do you base that on? What objectives can we now accomplish with this 20k troop increase that we could not before?
I would also point out that most of your “crazy” variables are basically turning out to be true,the Iraqi government has been uncooperative, Iran does look like it’ll attack (mostly in retaliation to our invasion of their embassy) and the democrats are using funding to block the measure to increase troop levels. Does this mean we’ve lost now?
So, you don’t actually believe it will achieve anything. Variables. They are components of the situation in Iraq. How variable are they? I would think the US has a good idea of the level of cooperation they can expect from the Iraqi government. The relationship to Iran is the same way. What is the variable? Now if the Democrats cut funding that may surprise me and possibly spark a constitutional crisis but I don’t think it will alter the situation once the troops are on the ground.
thanks for confirming my already low opinion of the three of you.
You’re welcome.
I have read articles that indicate that the strategy and tactic are going to change. There is even a new commander coming.
The 20,000 plus troops will not simply be placed on top of the preexisting troop like some gigantic Lego
midderpidge, what is thing you have about deliberately misstating my meaning?
If the government of Iraq proves to be as cooperative as we want and need them to be, and if Iran and / or Syria do not do something completely crazy — like send troops over the border of Iraq and if the Democrats do not do something crazy, and cut off funding to the operation, then the operation should bring the war to a sooner than later end.
Is that a clear enough answer for you?
Rex who is not rex: That is an appropriate name for you in this instance. The “embassy” is not an embassy. But the Left will cling to this belief like velcro until the end of time.
Anything that supports the enemy’s agenda they buy like kids buy cotton candy at a carnival — even it does absolutely no good, they can’t resist it.
If all Iraqis lay down their arms, pick up bibles and embrace each other as brothers in Christ, yes, Bush’s plan will work. If it doesn’t work, we can always blame it on Iran or North korea or Democrats or El Nino or a broken bicycle chain or the dog ate Bush’s homework.
Now Gate’s says if the violence is significantly curbed we might be able to bring home troops this year. No shit genius. Now, what are the chances of that happening?
I might take this opportunity to take you to task over how you are insisting that anyone who uses insults is beneath contempt and unworthy of participating in our elevated discourse, and moments later smear the Democrats (and presumably the majority of Americans who voted them into power) as supporting the enemy in all things, asking if you are unaware of the cognitive dissonance going on, but since youre liable to interpret such an observation as an outright attack on you personally, I probably shouldnt, lest I damage the friendship we have cobbled together.
I ask again though, although you point out that the influx in troop level will be accompanied with an according change in strategy, I still do not hear mention of to what end these men and their strategy will be applied. What can they accomplish now in this new paradigm that they could not before?
Unity of Effort
The Petraeus command is the overdue beginning of the counterinsurgency.
BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, January 12, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
When Gen. David Petraeus takes command of U.S. forces in Iraq, it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine…
What would change, heretofore a nonsubject, were the strategic concept and the level of resources.
* * *
It is not the least bit obvious that this counterinsurgency plan will fail, and only the most churlishly neurotic Bush hater would want it to. The stakes for the region and the war on terror have been described many times. There is another reason: How this ends will have an important effect on the morale of our officer corps, the people who must summon the gumption to protect us. They deserve a final chance to succeed. This is the chance…
On the evidence of their statements the past 24 hours, barely a Democrat exists with has a clue of what Gen. Petraeus is about to do or why.
There is much, much more.
DoD Announces Force Adjustments
This provides details of the troops to be deployed. Maybe I missed it, but there is no mention of a Battalion coming from Afghanistan. (Too unimportant too mention?)
More U.S. Troops To Iraq By End Of Month
There are currently about 132,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Much of the increase would come from speeding up the timetable for sending some forces already scheduled to go to the country, and keeping others there who were about to leave.
The extra forces would be sent to Baghdad, which has been consumed by sectarian violence, and the western Anbar Province, a base of the mostly Sunni insurgency and foreign al Qaeda fighters, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and others said following a White House session with Bush.
There is more detail on the nature of the redeployment.
These articles, collectively, leave out only a few details of the actual strategy changes and tactical changes, and say a lot about the nature and experience of the troops to be employed.
I think the most important thing to realize is that this is not simply a case of “X is not working so well, so let’s make it X + 120,000″
As for your contention, Rex who is not Rex, that I have smeared the Democrats “as supporting the enemy in all things,” I must point out two things: 1) I insulted no one personally; and 2)I did not say they supported the enemy; I said that any information that supports the enemy’s agenda “they cling to like velcro.”
By that, I simply meant that they stubbornly cling to a version of events that puts the President and the administration in a bad light. This very often inadvertently puts holding such views in parallel with, not necessarily in support of, the enemy.
They are small things with a cumulative effect of giving aid and succor to the enemy: “Bush has launched this war for his own personal aggrandizement”, “No War for Oil”, “America Just Likes Killing Brown People.”
Try it yourself:
Think of 5 good reasons why this war should end immediately, and see which one of these would make the enemy happy, too.
I myself can’t think of any way to depart Iraq short of victory, that would be helpful to our world image, our position in world affairs, and,of course, our continuing to fight successfully the global war against relentless — and merciless — extreme Islamic terrorists.
Rex who is not Rex:
I don’t like to pile on, but here’s a headline from the Seattle Times:
Murtha will press for closure of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib
Why?
And again:
Dems mobilize to restrict flow of war funding
Public opposition to more troops sparks new moves in Congress
I myself can’t think of any way to depart Iraq short of victory,
But I still don’t know what constitutes a victory. We’ve all heard it said that we will be there until the job is done, but how will we know when the job is done? People in that region will always hate us, for whatever reason. continuing to occupy another country will continue and exacerbate that hatred and animosity.
So how will we know when we’re finished?
Oh, that’s right, when there is a different occupant at the White House.
Why? Well a possible reason is consolidation of troops, which given that we’re changing our paradigm in approaching the Iraq war may be beneficial toward expediting whatever efforts remain to be accomplished, maybe putting those troops in places where theyre better put to work. Another possible reason is that, and I dont think you can deny this, but the names Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have been tarnished to say the least, and those facilities may not be able to operate at their best when under such public scrutiny. Debatable opinions to be sure, but they are at least two possible reasons why.
Think of 5 good reasons why this war should end immediately, and see which one of these would make the enemy happy, too.
Ooh, a challenge. Hmm… well Pulling out of Iraq will:
1 - Allow us to redeploy our National Guard back stateside to help, you know, guard the nation.
2 - Allow us to redeploy our military to targets such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. where there is, arguably, a greater threat to america directly than Iraq poses, being as it is and would be in this hypothetical, self-destructing in a civil war.
3 - Give the American People more confidence in their military and its command now that it has a better focus.
4 - Give us more international support in our military and domestic endeavors now that we have a focus that more of them can get behind as well.
5 - …um… hm… well okay a fifth is tricky now… Oh, okay, it would drive Ann Coulter just that much closer to self-immolation.
Not the greatest list, but then I’m no military expert, but I cant see anyone of those giving aid and succor to the enemy. Except maybe the Ann Coulter one, given how they treat women.
Ive read the links youve provided, and while they do say that indeed this isnt just adding more people but also a reconsideration of how and where to arrange troops, I still dont see the thing Ive been asking for since the beginning. What exactly is it that we think we’re going to accomplish with this now? What, in terms of objectives our military can successfully achieve, can happen? Such as it is, it seems to me that the best we can do is try to keep things safe and peaceful (I’ll let our existing track record at that speak for itself) while, in spite of all evidence to the contrary so far, the Iraqi people get behind their government, and the govern gets to defending its people properly. Once we get a sizeable contingent of the Iraqi military and Police properly trained and willing (I’m talking here about Sunni troops not walking out of their graduation ceremony when told they’d be defending Shiites, frinstance) but thats not something they seem particularly eager to get into, and not something we can really help along either. Will this military surge be paired with some sort of diplomatic push or other parallel attempt to get the Iraqi’s shit together? If not, then for what, again in terms of achievable objectives, are we sending more troops there?
I can only answer Rex’s question in the negative: We will not be putting Iraq together again by force.
The one bright spot of the new plan in that regard is that the PM of Iraq is committed to quelling all violence, regardless of which sect it is. That is a big step forward.
Getting the Iraqi Military in good shape will accomplish three important goals (or, at least there is a strong possibility that it will happen): 1) The Iraqi people should have less of a feeling of being occupied;
2) The Iraqi soldier, and the Iraqi people will feel more confident of accomplishing this mission on their own.
3) With more Iraquis on the streets, and less Americans, the people themselves will cooperate more fukkywith the terrorists
We will not be putting Iraq together again by force.
What have we been doing so far?
…the people themselves will cooperate more fukkywith the terrorists
???
fd10801 | Jan 13, 2007 12:38:33 PM
1) The Iraqi people should have less of a feeling of being occupied;
2) The Iraqi soldier, and the Iraqi people will feel more confident of accomplishing this mission on their own.
3) With more Iraquis on the streets, and less Americans, the people themselves will cooperate more fukkywith the terrorists
Frank, this is conjecture and application of assumptions. As was the supposition we would be greeted as liberators blah, blah, blah.
Why do we continue to assume our assumptions are correct and that everyone in the world wants to - and can - live like us?
I was exhausted — that should be more “fully”
The operative word is “will”. We will not. That’s part of the change of strategy. We’re stepping away from the “hearts and minds.
I notice that your “List of 5″
includes a repetition (1 and 2) and a joke — leaving you with a list of 3.
And while the butthead intellectuals may be displeased with our actions, most Middle Eastern leader types (see Khadaffy) respect the use of force to achieve objectives.
There are two (perhaps three) cycles of hatred at work.
I did a short paper on the consequences of World War I back in the 90’s.
It seems that Middle Easterners were angry at the West because no colonial territories were liberated; Israel was promised a homeland, and I never can remember the third thing (I think it was that they were in no way compensated for their assistance to the British).
Call that “hatred # 1″.
Then there was the screwing those Arabs took who were not Sauds, when control of Arabia was given to the Sauds.
Hatred # 2 is a simple transfer of hatred from “The West” to the United States.
Hatred # 3 is more complex — because it involves Israel.
There are people who hate Israel, and anyone who supports her; and then there are nations like Arabia or Egypt, that stir the pot of Israeli hatred to draw attention away from their autocratic and corrupt governments. I believe that if we can walk out of victorious we will have accomplished three important things (in order of importance) 1) We will have established an American presence in the Middle East for the indefinite future; 2) We will have indicated a resolve to foster and nurture democracy in whichever countries choose to plant a seed; and 3) We will have demonstrated to terrorists world wide that “that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans …[is] unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today, at home and around the world!”
In my “list of hatreds” I forgot the religious fanatics who hate us because we are infidels.
s: You almost had yourself a comment — but keep trying.
1. No more Americans dying for Bush’s Blunder.
2. National guard home where they belong and not being screwed by more deployment.
3. Army rebuilding equipment and readiness.
4. We stop pouring money down the hole.
5. We focus efforts on real anti-terrorist efforts instead of generating terrorist attacks.
6. Buttafucco, Buttafucco, Buttafucco.
7. Better now than in 1 more, 2 more or 20 more years.
8. It’s unwinnable
9. Rebuild AMerica’s standing and image abroad.
10. Be able to focus on and maybe win America’s forgotten war Afghanistan.
What were Frank’s reasons for staying?
Empire
Oil
Kill Arabs?
You were wrong about my reasons — again… Why is that?
Is the reality of the situation upsetting you, so you need to distort the truth and hide behind lies.
The only reason you named that even remotely resembles what I have said many times is “empire,” and you know it.
And, there is certainly nothing wrong with admitting that we resemble an Imperial power, since we ARE the world power.
But let’s look at your reasons:
1. No more Americans dying for Bush’s Blunder.
a. So if we’re combating terror, and soldiers die, we should just stop?
b. If the War was Bush’s blunder, how does that differ from the terrorists’ opinion — remember my point.
2. National guard home where they belong and not being screwed by more deployment.
To do what? Hang around washing trucks?
3. Army rebuilding equipment and readiness.
For what purpose? We won’t be fighting terrorism anymore… You expecting Germany or Japan to make a comeback?
4. We stop pouring money down the hole.
We can save a bundle by sending all our soldiers back home — how’s that?
5. We focus efforts on real anti-terrorist efforts instead of generating terrorist attacks.
Such as?
6. Buttafucco, Buttafucco, Buttafucco.
You mean Pres. Bush should get a teenage girlfriend?
7. Better now than in 1 more, 2 more or 20 more years.
Better what?
8. It’s unwinnable
That would encourage the terrorists, don’t you think? “We can’t beat them” Great.
9. Rebuild America’s standing and image abroad.
I thought everybody hated us — any idea how to make them like us?
10. Be able to focus on and maybe win America’s forgotten war Afghanistan.
We are winning the war in Afghanistan — sorry it’s not as fast as you would like. But if adding more troops in Iraq won’t help, why should adding troops in Afghanistan help there?
You see, it’s not as easy as you pretend it is. This war on terror is turning out to be a bitch on wheels — if you don’t get comfortable with that idea, we’re going to turn America into an armed camp to prevent terrorism here.
I don’t want that, you don’t want that, and nobody wants that…
fd10801 | Jan 13, 2007 11:34:23 PM
We are winning the war in Afghanistan — sorry it’s not as fast as you would like.”
“You see, it’s not as easy as you pretend it is. This war on terror is turning out to be a bitch on wheels …”
You’re fucking tiresome, DiSalle. There was a time you wouldn’t admit an iota of what you’ve expressed above and would spew insults and expletives at anyone who suggested it was reality.
s: There was a time when you wouldn’t type a comment.
You still haven’t.
Now,that’s tiresome!
Given how regularly your arguments get well and truly slaughtered, you are hardly in a position to be judging anyone elses input.
s: If you call annoying me input, you’re responsible for plenty of input.
But not much else.
Your rebuttal is weak. Counter
1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place and our soldiers are dying because of Bush’s decision to invade and Bush’s fuckups in strategy. Iraq was not a front in the war on terrorism.
2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard. They’ve been there long enough. Changing the policy to lengthen that time is just bad.
3. Our military is falling apart. Many units aren’t in a state of readiness and many units don’t have equipment because its in Iraq.
4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?
5. Protecting the homeland. Catching terrorists. Funding efforts. Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts. Having our army ready to respond to real threat. Having our first responders home
6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman.
7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.
8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.
9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.
10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?
I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.
Blah, blah, blah yaaaaaaawn, Frank. It’s a lost opportunity that you don’t work in The Decider’s administration (when the Republicans had control and The Decider could make any random decision and force it on the American people). You move your argument goalposts more creatively and much faster than they do.
My rebuttal is weak? Well, exquueeeeeze me! Maybe your argument has its own problems (Buttafucco?)
I’m not getting into a fisking contest with you.
But, one more time.
Let’s look at your statements:
1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place …
I disagree.
2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard.
Why? Because they won’t be doing anything when they get home?
What were they doing before Iraq? Washing trucks. Who said I had a low opinion of the NG?
3. Our military is falling apart.
You have no information to that effect. You’re just parroting the uninformed. Read a little DefenseTECH, or DefenseLINK,of GlobalSecurity.org
4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?
This makes no sense. Who said it was wasted, specifically by Bush?
5. Protecting the homeland. (By bringing our troops home. Sort of like taking policemen out of Patrol cars to male arresting crooks more efficient)
Catching terrorists. I’d rather kill them somewhere else than capture them here, hoping we can catch them before they blow themselves, and 3,000 other people, up.
Funding efforts.
Huh?
Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts.
So you’re saying that when we stop killing terrorists we’ll regain the trust of the International community?
You really mean Germany, France and Russia, don’t you?
We had, and have, plenty of help. We don’t need them, and they didn’t (and probably still don’t or won’t) want to help us anytime soon.
Having our army ready to respond to real threat.
Having our first responders home.
We don’t need our first responders home, if we’re not getting attacked here (doesn’t this conflict with the first thing on your list — we need to fight terrorism at home.)
6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman. Yes, he mindlessly hates Bush and opposes the War, too.
7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.
What if it was going to cost us 1,000 lives somewhere else, and $100 Billion somewhere else? Then what would you say?
8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.
I see, the terrorists are not sneaking over the sieve - like borders of Iran and Syria. They are all pissed - off Iraqis, who after they are killed, are replaced by their pissed - off relatives. The facts contradict you.
9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.
So? We either get that cooperation, or we don’t. Do you seriously believe there are no diplomatic efforts, with high level State Department officials traveling
all over the world (Condoleezza Rice seems never to unpack), and sn endless stream of foreign visitors to the White House?
Again, you’re thinking of Germany, Russia and France. In technical, diplomatic terms: Fuck. Them.
10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?
What’s happening in Iraq is more like winning than losing — you just see a half full glass as bone dry
I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.
You can say it one more time or a hundred times — you are wrong. I never said oil entered into it, and I never said killing Arabs entered into it, especially since Iraqis aren’t even Arabs.
I said I would accept “Empire” in the fashion I qualified it above.
You can continue to misrepresent me, if you choose . But then, I will not respond at all. So keep your typing to a minimum; you may be wasting your time.
My rebuttal is weak? Well, exquueeeeeze me! Maybe your argument has its own problems (Buttafucco?)
I’m not getting into a fisking contest with you.
But, one more time.
Let’s look at your statements:
1. We have no business being in Iraq in the first place …
I disagree.
2. You seem to have a low opinion of the National Guard.
Why? Because they won’t be doing anything when they get home?
What were they doing before Iraq? Washing trucks. Who said I had a low opinion of the NG?
3. Our military is falling apart.
You have no information to that effect. You’re just parroting the uninformed. Read a little DefenseTECH, or DefenseLINK,of GlobalSecurity.org
4. Bush wasted nearly all the reconstruction money and now thinks he should get more?
This makes no sense. Who said it was wasted, specifically by Bush?
5. Protecting the homeland. (By bringing our troops home. Sort of like taking policemen out of Patrol cars to male arresting crooks more efficient)
Catching terrorists. I’d rather kill them somewhere else than capture them here, hoping we can catch them before they blow themselves, and 3,000 other people, up.
Funding efforts.
Huh?
Regaining the trust of the international community with whom we have to pool resources and efforts.
So you’re saying that when we stop killing terrorists we’ll regain the trust of the International community?
You really mean Germany, France and Russia, don’t you?
We had, and have, plenty of help. We don’t need them, and they didn’t (and probably still don’t or won’t) want to help us anytime soon.
Having our army ready to respond to real threat.
Having our first responders home.
We don’t need our first responders home, if we’re not getting attacked here (doesn’t this conflict with the first thing on your list — we need to fight terrorism at home.)
6. Buttafucco. These lists remind me of Letterman. Yes, he mindlessly hates Bush and opposes the War, too.
7. Better to leave now than 1,000 lives and $100 Billion later.
What if it was going to cost us 1,000 lives somewhere else, and $100 Billion somewhere else? Then what would you say?
8. We can beat the terrorists Frank. Iraq is not where you beat them. Iraq is a self sustaining self generating terrorist playground with us there.
I see, the terrorists are not sneaking over the sieve - like borders of Iran and Syria. They are all pissed - off Iraqis, who after they are killed, are replaced by their pissed - off relatives. The facts contradict you.
9. Like it or not, we are dependent on the cooperation of other countries in many areas.
So? We either get that cooperation, or we don’t. Do you seriously believe there are no diplomatic efforts, with high level State Department officials traveling
all over the world (Condoleezza Rice seems never to unpack), and sn endless stream of foreign visitors to the White House?
Again, you’re thinking of Germany, Russia and France. In technical, diplomatic terms: Fuck. Them.
10. Just like we are winning Iraq, huh?
What’s happening in Iraq is more like winning than losing — you just see a half full glass as bone dry
I still boil down your reasons to Empire, Kill Arabs, and oil.
You can say it one more time or a hundred times — you are wrong. I never said oil entered into it, and I never said killing Arabs entered into it, especially since Iraqis aren’t even Arabs.
I said I would accept “Empire” in the fashion I qualified it above.
You can continue to misrepresent me, if you choose . But then, I will not respond at all. So keep your typing to a minimum; you may be wasting your time.
Excuse me Frank, kill Muslims, and empire. I thought you said something about oil in one of your posts.
You still seem to have no respect for the National guard. Wash cars? The pentagon has lifted the 2 year active duty limit.
Bush wasted the reconstruction money. No accounting, little results.
How are we winning in Iraq? We have created a recruiting, financing, and supply center for terrorists. We have made a buffer state for Iran.
Google US military readiness and read all the articles, studies and quotes you want.
For the last time — good move , keeping the typing to a minimum, I’m tired of your lies.
I didn’t say kill Muslims, either. I said radical Islamic terrorists. If you’re opposed to that, come right out and say so.
“We shouldn’t kill terrorists.” Say that, if that is what you mean.
You still seem to have no respect for the National guard. Wash cars?
I said trucks.
Ever see a National Guard outfit in action? There’s one a few miles from me. You know what they do on weekends (their “active duty” obligation)?
They wash trucks. I’m not making it up. What is your problem?
Do you want to say you think they’re tired? Then say that. Do you want to say they can’t wait to come out, whether or not the job is finished? It’s a lie, but go ahead. Just don’t put words in my mouth.
As for the reconstruction money, first the liberals say, “They’re not fighting terrorists, they’re painting schoolhouses.”
Now, they’re not even doing that!
Jeeebus, lefties! Spit it out! Tell the truth!
C’mon, you can do it!
“We don’t care about the Iraqis”
“We continue to say that we want to fight terrorism, but we can’t think of any anti-terrorist activities we want to engage in. We can’t even identify the Islamic terrorists as Islamic.”
And my favorite:”We support the troops, but we don’t support any of their efforts or goals. In fact, we don’t even want them to finish doing what they think is right.”
C’mon, admit it…
Confession is good for the soul.
Frank, you don’t seem to picky on who is a terrorist and who is a muslim.
Still no respect for the National Guard. Wash trucks huh?
Think they signed up for years of active duty?
As for reconstruction money, show us something we got for all that money we flushed in Iraq. Some now bulletridden painted schools. Spotty utilities. Bulging pockets for American contractors. The way the money was flushed showed alack or care or respect for the Iraqis so don’t start. Foreign contractors, foreign labor in a country with massive unemployment. Get real Frank.
Face facts, Bush gambled on an easy in and out invasion where the ease of victory would cover the political liabilites. If it had been successful he would have won big. Instead every strategy has been designed to delay the consequences. This surge is just to buy more time.
Frank, you don’t seem to picky on who is a terrorist and who is a muslim.
Liar
Still no respect for the National Guard. Wash trucks huh?
Liar
(I will no longer pretend you are mistaken)
Incidentally, if you are among those who suggest that we follow the recommendations of the ISG, you might want to read this: