Preemptive Attack on Sept. Surge Report: Part II - Page 9

Originally Posted by Jubelum

So, it's down to this... change your views and be mocked and ridiculed among people you now agree with and be labeled "childish" when you critique said behaviour, or stick to your guns to the bitter end regardless of what you really believe, and demonstrate a lack of character. I think we can do better than that.

As an experiment, let's remove the personal part of this... because it does not matter. What I am getting at is a phenomena not exclusive to this board. It is happening in many forums in society. As people are starting to wake up to the reality that neither party has their best interests at heart (as evidenced by the dismal approval numbers for both Congress and Bush right now), a good number of people are moving ideologically, not so much to the center as away entirely from loyalty to party. Its an opportunity for people who are disenchanted from across the spectrum to get off their "sides."

It's one of the reasons I really admire Fellows. He's brought me around to believe as he does on a number of issues. Mocking would have had the opposite effect. What purpose does it serve? Seems to be 180 degrees out of phase. Personally, when I find a liberal who is willing to change, that is an opportunity for encouragement.

Originally Posted by addabox

Bygones, hippies!

defeat-o-crat, cut-and-run, America hating, terror enabling, get-us-all-killed, spit-on-the-troops, elitist, faggy, socialist, communist, fascist, Pol Pot-ish, objectively anti-freedom liberals... the best thing the Democrats could do was shut the fuck up and die, since no decent freedom loving American had anything but withering contempt those latte sipping homos who wanted nothing more than to sit down with the terrorists and sing kum-by-ya, on account of being such manifest pussies (as exemplified by that straight-up French faggot "wind-surfin'" Kerry and his fake purple heart

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Decaf, adda. Decaf. You, too, are missing the point. The point is about how you choose to approach someone who says "you were right" about the things you've critiqued addamantly...

You seem much more focused on getting the bile and frustration out that you've stored for who knows how long.

Retribution against people who are, more and more, seeing the world your way. 'Way to reel 'em in.

Obama? Elitist fag? What are you talking about?

Oh, and you've lost a bit of high ground in claiming other people are using cartoonish hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Jubelum

No, it was neocon PNAC policies that resulted in this mess. Values, BTW, which have been largely repudiated within the party with the selection of McCain. The Republican party has moved back toward the center, vinea.

You aren't listening. I voted for Bush the first time and not the second. Go back and re-read my post. What does voting for Bush 8 years ago have to do with my identification and loyalty now? Did you not vote for Bush and then have some huge disappointments? In that way, how have you not done exactly what you are calling me out for?

You did not respond to what I posted re: the Democratic rank and file vs the leadership.

News flash... neither of the two sides you mention really care all that much about the country.

This is hysterical. Earlier I was being a "partisan." Now I'm a "Fairweather Republican."

You need to get your story straight here. The fact is that I will vote for a candidate from either party who I believe represents my values... you know, like the majority of the people in this country who are not straight-ticket folks.

And you assume the most cynical reason for me going from R to I... didja ever think it might be because of a rejection of the effects of neocon Republican leadership? I mean, is there really any way that you won't have some cynical critique of my position and motives?

Originally Posted by addabox

"Things"? Like "Bush sucks"? High five, I guess. Or maybe you mean "yes, the war is a disaster, you were right, but, oddly, all the wrong people still are much smarter about how to extricate ourselves, since the people who were right (such as yourself) are still defeat craving losers that revel in America's humiliation"? I feel strangely un-won over. Of course, that probably just my totalitarian inclinations talking.

Yep, shrill. Watching the apparatus of state and war-making turned into an annex of the Republican party while anyone saying boo about got pilloried for hating their country can do that.

Say, any news on the Nancy Pelosi death-camp plans?

Honestly, I'm at a lost to know what it is that you're seeing my way. At any rate, I can't see the upside of "reeling in" people who think a progressive tax is a stepping stone to the Gulag. Nothing personal, it just strikes me as irreconcilable differences.

Google "Obama bowling", and stay tuned.

If you mean my characterization of the framing of liberals, post 9/11, I guess we could look at the quotes from Dick Cheney, et al, including every damn conservative pundit on the face of the planet, again.

If you mean my characterizations of the Bush White House and the conduct of the post 9/11, fully Rovian Republican Party, is "cartoonish hyperbole" even possible?

If you mean my characterization of your particular take on the Democratic Party, is "cartoonish hyperbole" even possible?

Originally Posted by vinea

Mmm...I would presume that leadership represents the rank and file for the Democrats as much as they do for Republicans.

As much as I dislike Bush, Cheney, Rove I disbelieve that.

Yes. Because you spew ideological hatred.

Are there any D's that represent your values?

I really don't see you as a moderate or centrist and, while this may be unfair, I don't think that you reject the neocon position

Your fiscal and foreign policy beliefs are still in line with the neocons (tax cuts and not negotiating) based on your comments here on "high taxes". The problem isn't "high taxes" but "high spending". We need "high taxes" because we've been spending too damn much. We do NOT need more tax cuts and we NEED to start paying down the debt.

We can't do that in time of war, and whining about high taxes during wartime is IDIOTIC. Either suck it up and even pay more or get the hell out of the war.

So how do you propose maintaining 19+ brigades in Iraq for years without completely breaking the volunteer force or what is your timetable and plan for a pullout?

You continue to fail to address our lack of manpower to sustain both Iraq and Afghanistan efforts while also maintaining our commitments elsewhere. Why? Because there are no viable answers. We have insufficient bodies for the mission requirements.

Originally Posted by vinea

Perhaps. To some degree I agree given the hatred for McCain that some folks have and he's the presumptive nominee. You know, I tend not to listen to Rush, et al, I guess I should to see what they are saying these days.



No actually. I've never voted for Bush.



Mmm...I would presume that leadership represents the rank and file for the Democrats as much as they do for Republicans.



As much as I dislike Bush, Cheney, Rove I disbelieve that.



Yes. Because you spew ideological hatred.



Are there any D's that represent your values?



I really don't see you as a moderate or centrist and, while this may be unfair, I don't think that you reject the neocon position as much as deserting a sinking ship. Or I guess, more accurately, you'd still be tolerating the neocon positions if Bush and Cheney weren't so incompetent and driving the country into the ground.

Your fiscal and foreign policy beliefs are still in line with the neocons (tax cuts and not negotiating) based on your comments here on "high taxes". The problem isn't "high taxes" but "high spending". We need "high taxes" because we've been spending too damn much. We do NOT need more tax cuts and we NEED to start paying down the debt.

We can't do that in time of war, and whining about high taxes during wartime is IDIOTIC. Either suck it up and even pay more or get the hell out of the war.

In any case, you still mock democrats so I would expect you not to whine about getting mocked in return by them.

And as far as staying on topic, you asked for my opinion on a pullout and then competely ignored it. So how do you propose maintaining 19+ brigades in Iraq for years without completely breaking the volunteer force or what is your timetable and plan for a pullout?

You continue to fail to address our lack of manpower to sustain both Iraq and Afghanistan efforts while also maintaining our commitments elsewhere. Why? Because there are no viable answers. We have insufficient bodies for the mission requirements.

Originally Posted by addabox

Clearly, after having been proven right about virtually every aspect of their critique of invading Iraq in the first place, the problem is that the defeat-o-crat, cut-and-run, America hating, terror enabling, get-us-all-killed, spit-on-the-troops, elitist, faggy, socialist, communist, fascist, Pol Pot-ish, objectively anti-freedom liberals are insufficiently gracious.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well this is why I put Jubleum on my ignore list. He just doesn't stop.

Originally Posted by tonton

Don't forget "Left of Lenin"

Originally Posted by Jubelum

Glad you could make your monthly visit to tell everyone that you have an ignore list. As always, congrats. We're proud of you. Really.
I cannot tell you how much nicer life has been without your special breed of juvenile, non-content nonsense.

This post has been pounce-delayed for 5 minutes to "let you finish."

Originally Posted by vinea

So what's your plan for staying? Can you discuss the impact to the US military (that you claim to support) with more than platitudes and hope it all works out? Care to show the math were we can continue to support long term presence at these troop levels?

Why ask for plans and then ignore the whole issue?

Originally Posted by Jubelum

You know, vinea, I'm not sure why you have chosen me to troll and make a case for things you think I agree with, and then keep going back to the well with "the plan" demand. You want me to make a case for staying long-term at these troop levels, when I have never advocated that... actually I've posted the opposite sentiment.

And what's this "claim to support" shit? You're clueless. And trolling for a fight... save it for someone who really disagrees with you.

Go read my posts on 4/2 and 4/4.

Originally Posted by vinea

Don't issue a challenge you aren't willing to accept yourself.

Go read my posts on 4/2 and 4/4.

Originally Posted by midwinter

While y'all are having your little pissing match, I'm still chuckling over the idea that America is so nationalized that I might as well just be living in China or Cuba.

Originally Posted by vinea

That's because you don't understand the nuances of being a little pregnant.

Originally Posted by midwinter

No kidding.

BTW, SDW: Patronus says no timetable for withdrawal and that the success of the surge has been so good that we can't afford to withdraw any more troops or Iraq will go to hell.

Originally Posted by addabox

So let's see: "pause" the drawdown in mid-July, wait 45 days, then begin "a period of assessment" to see how things are going.....

Yep, that gets us to the election, with the official story being that Iraq is finally coming around but we need to Stay The New Course or see our Hard Won Gains go to waste.

The surge worked!

Originally Posted by vinea

You mean a "Peace With Honor" type of responsible ending? Mmm...I recall the last time we did that it was a Republican President at the helm....

Likewise, I seem to recall a very popular Republican President leaving a certain middle eastern country after 241 Marines got blown up. It was actually the right choice. Lebanon was a complete mess and we weren't willing to spend the effort to fix it. Pulling out was the sane choice despite the other costs.

After that we had the Powell Doctrine.

Here as written by President Reagan:

...The policy we adopted included these principles:

• The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
  
• If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
  
• Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)
  
• Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available."

While the first point is debatable we seriously failed points 2 and 3. 4 probably as well but it is coupled to 1...

We're in a quagmire. It isn't likely fixable with the assets at hand. What chance we had of victory was squandered by Cheney and Rumsfeld in year 1 and nothing Petraeus can do today with the force levels he has is anything more than delaying the inevitable.

If all the damn chickenhawks volunteered for service in Iraq, we might actually have a shot but the operative word is "chicken" and not "hawk".

Originally Posted by Flat Stanley

Perfect Republican strategy. Keep Iraq on life support until the election then blame the melt down on the Dems "surrendering to the terrorists". Of course if McCain wins, he will beat the war drums harder than ever.......

Originally Posted by Flat Stanley

Perfect Republican strategy. Keep Iraq on life support until the election then blame the melt down on the Dems "surrendering to the terrorists". Of course if McCain wins, he will beat the war drums harder than ever.......

Originally Posted by MaxParrish

Sorry to disappoint, but Republicans are not competent enough to have a strategy on anything.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's kind of a vague term. Insufficient for what?

You're assuming that another 200K is necessary. I don't think it is.

And 130K is? Your argument simply doesn't make sense. You feel we need more troops to "win." Isn't some addition in terms of troops better than no addition, even if it's not sustainable?

That's really a terrible thing to say. The fact is that we have a volunteer military. The kind of sacrifices we had to make in WWII are not needed anymore. We don't need every able bodied person to pick up a rifle, especially for this kind of conflict.

I'm willing to pay whatever is necessary. We just disagree on what that is. As I've said, if a draft was reinstated and I was called and accepted, I would certainly go serve.

I disagree there is no support for the war. Seems like we have thousands volunteering for the armed forces:

The Army's recruiting sucess was not without price. During Fiscal Year 2007, only 79 percent of the new recruits entering the Army possessed a high school diploma. The DOD standard is that at least 90 percent of new recruits should have a high school diploma. The other services met or exceeded the 90 percent goal.

The Army also approved more criminal history waivers than they have in years past. About 15 percent of new recruits required a criminal history waiver. 87 percent of those approved waivers were because of misdemeanor convictions, and the remainder for more serious offenses, including felonies.

The Armys enlisted recruiting shortfall in 2005 generated significant congressional and media interest, and served as the impetus for several legislative initiatives. However, until very recently, there has been little mention or visibility of potential shortages in the Armys officer corps. This problem is currently unique to the Army. While specific skill shortages and imbalances have been reported by the other services, only the Army is reflecting service-wide active component shortages.

The Army currently projects an officer shortage of nearly 3,000 in FY2007, with the most acute shortfalls in senior captains and majors with 11 to 17 years of experience. For example, the Army considers any personnel fill rate (the number of officers available to fill requirements) of less than 85% a critical shortage, and projects a fill rate of 82.6% for majors in FY2007.

Originally Posted by midwinter

Maybe not anymore, but boy they were awesome for a few years there.

Originally Posted by Flat Stanley

You bet they do. They will work hard to portray Obama as someone white people can't trust and blue color white America will buy into it. We will learn of new foiled terror plots and continuing threats to Americans. Look for OBL to get his tape recorder out regularly in the coming months. Intellectual arguments and reality seldom defeat ignorance and fear in the short term. This is going to be a tuff battle.

Originally Posted by mydo

Of course OBL will start releasing tapes because ... he wants to influence the election. He is a real person you know, not a CIA or Mossad fabrication.

Originally Posted by midwinter

Maybe not anymore, but boy they were awesome for a few years there.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Say midwinter. When did you become a " Regietserd Uesr " ?

I just thought the spelling was a little odd next to your name.

Originally Posted by iPoster

A little word association game:

Iraq

Afghanistan (USSR version)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he has abandoned hope that troop levels in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year.

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, it's April, SDW2001. It's 1/3 of the way through the year.

Here is SecDef Robert Gates today:



When you're done arguing about whether or not the surge worked, you might like to take a minute to notice that the Secretary of Defense is saying that there will be MORE than 100K troops in Iraq at the end of the year. This is, of course, after Patronus has said that we need to stop unsurging and take at least "45 days" to evaluate how our un-surging is going. How long that evaluation will take, we don't know. I'm betting 6 more months.

Let us know when you get angry about this.

Originally Posted by midwinter

Let us know when you get angry about this.

Originally Posted by Jubelum



Good 'ole middy... that was great delivery.