For Those That Support a Troop Surge:
- Thread starter LadyT
- Start date
maineman
Banned
20K LESS troops would be a step in the correct direction, IMHO.
Bush claims this NEW plan CAN work. I say, How the fuck does HE know? He has been dead wrong about Iraq from day one and all of his ass licking, koolaid drinking, blue jean admiring, flip flopping apologists on here like the asshole from Dixieland have been just as wrong - which is totally to be expected - parrots rarely come up with new words to say on their own.
Bush claims this NEW plan CAN work. I say, How the fuck does HE know? He has been dead wrong about Iraq from day one and all of his ass licking, koolaid drinking, blue jean admiring, flip flopping apologists on here like the asshole from Dixieland have been just as wrong - which is totally to be expected - parrots rarely come up with new words to say on their own.
bob
a member named bob
well... that probably wont happen anytime soon, so if were going to increasse our troop level in iraq, why 20,000... is that enough, should it be more. basicly do you think he is commiting enough troops to do what he is tring to do ?
maineman
Banned
I am saying that what he is trying to do is inherently undoable. He can put a squad at every corner of every neighborhood in Baghdad, and the minute we leave, sectarian violence will recommence. Sunnis and shiites in Iraq are bound and determined to "get it on" and until they get tired of shedding one another's blood... until they decide to sit down together and forge some sort of lasting peace arrangement or partition of Iraq, there will be no lasting peace. The sooner we get out of their way and let them go through this bloody process, the better it will be. They are going to have a civil war... it is what both sides are spoiling for... we need to let them have it and every American life lost between today and the day we figure that out is one lost needlessly.
Unfortunately, I agree with Darla & Ornot. I actually expect the democrats to pull a McCain on this issue to be honest. They will pay lipservice and give diatribes on how its the wrong decision, but in the in the end, I have a feeling they will fall in line with Sir Chimp.
And MM brings up a good point: how does he know? Its not like he's been right about ANYTHING concerning Iraq to date. He's not mentioned one strategic difference in sending over more troops. One can reasonably summize that it will just be more of the same. Enough is enough. Simply throwing money and lives at the problem will not end this civil war. The Sunni's and the Shiites are the only ones that control that.
And MM brings up a good point: how does he know? Its not like he's been right about ANYTHING concerning Iraq to date. He's not mentioned one strategic difference in sending over more troops. One can reasonably summize that it will just be more of the same. Enough is enough. Simply throwing money and lives at the problem will not end this civil war. The Sunni's and the Shiites are the only ones that control that.
Unfortunately, you're absolutely right. We're facing a no-win situation.
Time to cut OUR losses and focus on securing the US.
Blackflag
Junior Member
you'd think that Dixie would get tired of having his own stupidity crammed back down his throat with such incredible regularity.
But Cypress.... I know you would agree that for those of us doing the cramming, it IS frightfully entertaining!
I wonder if he gets private messages from other neocons and republicans asking him to shut up because of the bad name he gives their cause?
LOL...well I never get tired of seeing it.
bob
a member named bob
ya... true.. but what would be their next biggest weppon ?
if we end our need for oil, what will replace its and will it be just as vonerable?
uscitizen
Villified User
Who remembers the first oil embargo ? At that time hell was raised about reducing our dependency on imported oil. We imported about 30% at that time, we now import what 60% ? A fine job our government has done selling out to the oil companies. Attempts were made to reduce our dependency on foreign oil and kept being shot down by a certain party everytime they raised their tree hugging head.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Maine, obviously your hypocrisy is so rampant, you just can't recall what you said from one day to the next....
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2155
Dixie: "We are training Iraqi's as fast as we can, but it's like trying to run up the down escalator. We are simply unable to do it fast enough, at the current pace. A temporary influx of, say, another 75-80,000 troops, mainly specialists for training, would greatly enhance the training process. This significantly raises our troop levels to around 200,000, which is not out of the realm of possibility, and it isn't a level we can sustain for a long period, but it's doable."
Your response: oddly enough, I do not think that your proposal is without merit. I do wish that the administration had considered these sorts of consequences when they rushed into this war in the first place.
So, less than two months ago, you are on record as stating this approach had merit, that increasing the troop level would be doable, and suggesting that the administration should have thought of this sooner. Now that your suggestion is being implemented, you are denying you ever made such a claim, and insisting it's the wrong move. Typical flip-flopping Lib!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So, the question here is, why do you still support their tree hugging asses?
maineman
Banned
I saw some merit - which is different than giving my wholehearted support - to an approach that had our troops disengaging from neighborhood patrols and combat missions and focusing on the rapid intense training of Iraqis. I still think that, given the shithole this stupid administration - and it's koolaid soaked chickenhawk pompom waving supporters like you - have gotten us into, a total focus on training Iraqis is not without merit and a whole lot better than losing our young men and women fighting boths sides from the middle of a civil war. Bush announced no such thing last night. Using our forces to train Iraqis has some glimmer of hope for success. Pumping 20K more troops into baghdad and the anbar province is a recipe for disaster. Are you really so fucking numb you cannot see the difference???
Holy shit Dixie... you are quoted as saying in one post this war has nothing to do with oil and then in another post you lie and say that you have never said that this war had nothing to do with oil and you have the balls to call ME a hypocrite? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I saw some merit - which is different than giving my wholehearted support -
It's also different than giving your wholehearted disapproval, which is what you actually did. You were FOR more troops before you were AGAINST it.
to an approach that had our troops disengaging from neighborhood patrols and combat missions and focusing on the rapid intense training of Iraqis.
I've got news for you, unless you are aware of something I don't know, this is precisely the approach that has been taken in Iraq for the past 18 months. Neighborhood patrols and 'combat missions' are handled exclusively by Iraqi's at this time, we are only there in a 'support' role. Our main focus, for the past three years, has been to fully train Iraqi's as rapidly as possible. I don't see that objective changing with an influx of new troops.
I still think that, given the %#$@ this $#&@# administration - and it's $%#@-#%@&$-&$#@ pompom waving supporters like you - have gotten us into, a total focus on training Iraqis is not without merit and a whole lot better than losing our young men and women fighting boths sides from the middle of a civil war.
And I still think, we are not fighting both sides of a civil war, and we haven't lost any young men or women to the legitimate Unity Government of Iraq, who is our ally, and who's soldiers we are training. You said it yourself, this "civil war" is between two Muslim sects, they are killing each other, not American troops. The numbers just don't lie, you can bluster up all the fake outrage you like, about the casualty figures for this war, in comparison to any other war of its length, it pales remarkably, both in terms of combat and civilian casualties. You can misconstrue statements I've made, to form some "prediction" on Iraq, but I bet you will not find a case, where someone predicted, several years out, the fatalities of war so closely to what you claim mine were. We are not in some bloodbath quagmire meat grinder, like Vietnam. You can try to categorize it as such, all you like, it's just not the case this time. We are losing soldiers daily, we are in a hostile environment, there are still elements in Iraq who want to kill us. As long as there are ANY American forces in Iraq, they will unfortunately be targets of someone. Those are facts of reality we must accept and deal with, and there is little we can ever do, to change that.
Completely abandoning Iraq, is not going to happen. I've already gone into great detail on why, your own leadership understands why, and the only people on the planet, seemingly stupid enough to not understand, are the idiots who post here daily and Keith Olberman. Short of leaving completely, there is no other logical way to end the killing of Americans in Iraq. I hate to be that cold about it, but that is just a fact of reality we must understand here. I realize, you liberals get a lot of traction pulling at the heartstrings of America, with the feigned compassion for the dead soldiers, but that isn't going to work here, logic mandates that there will be dead soldiers in Iraq. The question is, do we want more for a short period, or less for a long period?
In other words, we know that America and it's forces, are going to be in Iraq until peace is secured, our oil interests alone, insure that. We know as long as we are there, we will have Americans who will die there. Again, a fact of life. We can take measures to improve the conditions in Iraq, where our troops would be safer, and fewer Americans would die in Iraq, we can sit on our hands and do nothing, and expect the status quot. Those are our only options, and it's best that we focus on the one that makes it more secure for Americans in Iraq, in the long term, regardless of what our liberal heartstrings may tell us at the moment.
It's also different than giving your wholehearted disapproval, which is what you actually did. You were FOR more troops before you were AGAINST it.
to an approach that had our troops disengaging from neighborhood patrols and combat missions and focusing on the rapid intense training of Iraqis.
I've got news for you, unless you are aware of something I don't know, this is precisely the approach that has been taken in Iraq for the past 18 months. Neighborhood patrols and 'combat missions' are handled exclusively by Iraqi's at this time, we are only there in a 'support' role. Our main focus, for the past three years, has been to fully train Iraqi's as rapidly as possible. I don't see that objective changing with an influx of new troops.
I still think that, given the %#$@ this $#&@# administration - and it's $%#@-#%@&$-&$#@ pompom waving supporters like you - have gotten us into, a total focus on training Iraqis is not without merit and a whole lot better than losing our young men and women fighting boths sides from the middle of a civil war.
And I still think, we are not fighting both sides of a civil war, and we haven't lost any young men or women to the legitimate Unity Government of Iraq, who is our ally, and who's soldiers we are training. You said it yourself, this "civil war" is between two Muslim sects, they are killing each other, not American troops. The numbers just don't lie, you can bluster up all the fake outrage you like, about the casualty figures for this war, in comparison to any other war of its length, it pales remarkably, both in terms of combat and civilian casualties. You can misconstrue statements I've made, to form some "prediction" on Iraq, but I bet you will not find a case, where someone predicted, several years out, the fatalities of war so closely to what you claim mine were. We are not in some bloodbath quagmire meat grinder, like Vietnam. You can try to categorize it as such, all you like, it's just not the case this time. We are losing soldiers daily, we are in a hostile environment, there are still elements in Iraq who want to kill us. As long as there are ANY American forces in Iraq, they will unfortunately be targets of someone. Those are facts of reality we must accept and deal with, and there is little we can ever do, to change that.
Completely abandoning Iraq, is not going to happen. I've already gone into great detail on why, your own leadership understands why, and the only people on the planet, seemingly stupid enough to not understand, are the idiots who post here daily and Keith Olberman. Short of leaving completely, there is no other logical way to end the killing of Americans in Iraq. I hate to be that cold about it, but that is just a fact of reality we must understand here. I realize, you liberals get a lot of traction pulling at the heartstrings of America, with the feigned compassion for the dead soldiers, but that isn't going to work here, logic mandates that there will be dead soldiers in Iraq. The question is, do we want more for a short period, or less for a long period?
In other words, we know that America and it's forces, are going to be in Iraq until peace is secured, our oil interests alone, insure that. We know as long as we are there, we will have Americans who will die there. Again, a fact of life. We can take measures to improve the conditions in Iraq, where our troops would be safer, and fewer Americans would die in Iraq, we can sit on our hands and do nothing, and expect the status quot. Those are our only options, and it's best that we focus on the one that makes it more secure for Americans in Iraq, in the long term, regardless of what our liberal heartstrings may tell us at the moment.
maineman
Banned
I saw some merit - which is different than giving my wholehearted support -
It's also different than giving your wholehearted disapproval, which is what you actually did. You were FOR more troops before you were AGAINST it.
are you capable of any level of nuance whatsoever? Is the difference between supporting the use of troops to train Iraqi soldiers and supporting the use of troops to patrol the mean streets of Baghdad completely beyond your ability to comprehend? Are you really this big of a moron or is this an act?
to an approach that had our troops disengaging from neighborhood patrols and combat missions and focusing on the rapid intense training of Iraqis.
I've got news for you, unless you are aware of something I don't know, this is precisely the approach that has been taken in Iraq for the past 18 months. Neighborhood patrols and 'combat missions' are handled exclusively by Iraqi's at this time, we are only there in a 'support' role. Our main focus, for the past three years, has been to fully train Iraqi's as rapidly as possible. I don't see that objective changing with an influx of new troops.
"exclusively"? "18 months"??? what bullshit. We support the Iraqis by sending patrols of young americans to be ambushed on the streets. How do 1230 Americans die over those 18 months if the combat missions and neighborhood patrols have been handled exclusively by Iraqis? You are a lying bullshit artist.... that, and your cowardice makes me nearly nauseous with contempt
I still think that, given the %#$@ this $#&@# administration - and it's $%#@-#%@&$-&$#@ pompom waving supporters like you - have gotten us into, a total focus on training Iraqis is not without merit and a whole lot better than losing our young men and women fighting boths sides from the middle of a civil war.
. You said it yourself, this "civil war" is between two Muslim sects, they are killing each other, not American troops.
are you suggesting that Americans are dying by some mysterious process like spontaneous combustion? Or are you suggesting that the only people killing Americans are the handful of deadenders - the mythical foreign fighters in their final throes and that Iraqis only kill each other and leave us alone?
I hate to be that cold about it, but that is just a fact of reality we must understand here. I realize, you liberals get a lot of traction pulling at the heartstrings of America, with the feigned compassion for the dead soldiers, but that isn't going to work here, logic mandates that there will be dead soldiers in Iraq. The question is, do we want more for a short period, or less for a long period?
fuck you, you coward. Feigned compassion my ass. It is YOUR side who gleefully surges more cannon fodder into the fray from the safety of your fighting keyboardist station back in CONUS that feigns compassion. This war was stupid. It will always be stupid. Iraqis are spoiling for a fight...they will continue to kill one another until they have spilled enough of their enemy's blood and enough of their own... then and only then will they sit down and solve the problems confronting a bunch of people tossed together by European colonialists who probably ought not to be living in the same country to begin with.... and the presence of American troops will only prolong the completion of that bloodletting...and all it will accomplish is ramping up the costs to us in dollars and lives and limbs before for no purpose
We can take measures to improve the conditions in Iraq, where our troops would be safer, and fewer Americans would die in Iraq, we can sit on our hands and do nothing, and expect the status quot. Those are our only options, and it's best that we focus on the one that makes it more secure for Americans in Iraq, in the long term, regardless of what our liberal heartstrings may tell us at the moment.
We do indeed have other options. we can leave a cadre of trainers behind and pull our combat forces out of the cities and off the streets and out to the borders where they can stop the pickup truck filled with AK47's from entering the country... and let the Iraqis duke this thing out like they are determined to do sooner or later. That would allow Iraqis to determine their own destiny and it would significantly reduce American casualties.
It's also different than giving your wholehearted disapproval, which is what you actually did. You were FOR more troops before you were AGAINST it.
are you capable of any level of nuance whatsoever? Is the difference between supporting the use of troops to train Iraqi soldiers and supporting the use of troops to patrol the mean streets of Baghdad completely beyond your ability to comprehend? Are you really this big of a moron or is this an act?
to an approach that had our troops disengaging from neighborhood patrols and combat missions and focusing on the rapid intense training of Iraqis.
I've got news for you, unless you are aware of something I don't know, this is precisely the approach that has been taken in Iraq for the past 18 months. Neighborhood patrols and 'combat missions' are handled exclusively by Iraqi's at this time, we are only there in a 'support' role. Our main focus, for the past three years, has been to fully train Iraqi's as rapidly as possible. I don't see that objective changing with an influx of new troops.
"exclusively"? "18 months"??? what bullshit. We support the Iraqis by sending patrols of young americans to be ambushed on the streets. How do 1230 Americans die over those 18 months if the combat missions and neighborhood patrols have been handled exclusively by Iraqis? You are a lying bullshit artist.... that, and your cowardice makes me nearly nauseous with contempt
I still think that, given the %#$@ this $#&@# administration - and it's $%#@-#%@&$-&$#@ pompom waving supporters like you - have gotten us into, a total focus on training Iraqis is not without merit and a whole lot better than losing our young men and women fighting boths sides from the middle of a civil war.
. You said it yourself, this "civil war" is between two Muslim sects, they are killing each other, not American troops.
are you suggesting that Americans are dying by some mysterious process like spontaneous combustion? Or are you suggesting that the only people killing Americans are the handful of deadenders - the mythical foreign fighters in their final throes and that Iraqis only kill each other and leave us alone?
I hate to be that cold about it, but that is just a fact of reality we must understand here. I realize, you liberals get a lot of traction pulling at the heartstrings of America, with the feigned compassion for the dead soldiers, but that isn't going to work here, logic mandates that there will be dead soldiers in Iraq. The question is, do we want more for a short period, or less for a long period?
fuck you, you coward. Feigned compassion my ass. It is YOUR side who gleefully surges more cannon fodder into the fray from the safety of your fighting keyboardist station back in CONUS that feigns compassion. This war was stupid. It will always be stupid. Iraqis are spoiling for a fight...they will continue to kill one another until they have spilled enough of their enemy's blood and enough of their own... then and only then will they sit down and solve the problems confronting a bunch of people tossed together by European colonialists who probably ought not to be living in the same country to begin with.... and the presence of American troops will only prolong the completion of that bloodletting...and all it will accomplish is ramping up the costs to us in dollars and lives and limbs before for no purpose
We can take measures to improve the conditions in Iraq, where our troops would be safer, and fewer Americans would die in Iraq, we can sit on our hands and do nothing, and expect the status quot. Those are our only options, and it's best that we focus on the one that makes it more secure for Americans in Iraq, in the long term, regardless of what our liberal heartstrings may tell us at the moment.
We do indeed have other options. we can leave a cadre of trainers behind and pull our combat forces out of the cities and off the streets and out to the borders where they can stop the pickup truck filled with AK47's from entering the country... and let the Iraqis duke this thing out like they are determined to do sooner or later. That would allow Iraqis to determine their own destiny and it would significantly reduce American casualties.