President Bush: We're Sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

aaharvel

it's 4:43 am here. Thanks Tony. Nothing like some bad coffee and Roger Ailes talking points for that early morning rush. :rolleyes: :cool:

xsmi

You know I thought 20K was too little. But if the forces that are there now have their hands tied, we need to unshackle their bonds and do it again. Although this is a war I have ALWAYS been against, (because I think we took our eyes off terror and started looking at oil) I cannot stomach a defeat in Iraq. If they think they can do it with 20K so be it. My nephew is on his way to Afghanistan in 2wks. I would hope he has enough troops to watch his back who have the orders to defend themselves to the fullest. The only thing that worries me most about this is that this order comes as the window for his two brothers to see combat. So, all three boys could be in the Middle East at the same time.

jdhdiggs

The oil argument is for the ignorant, please people, stop using it. At least the "grudge" angle has some meat to it.

Regardless of whether or not you thought the invasion was justified or not, it happened. Now we need to win this thing, start learning Arabic, or become completely isolated from the world stage.

It is interesting that the people who have gone to the middle east and actually talk to people there are all on one side in this thread. Says something about the other viewpoint, no?

AH: Coffee? What, you ran out of Kool-Aid already?

markmarc

XMSI:
Sadly, the NATO commander in Afghanistan has been begging for 20K more troops for almost a year now. All we have done is blow him off. The Taliban have regrouped and are making our efforst to spread normalcy beyond Kabul quite difficult. Their raids and murdering of teachers keep us from fullfilling our promises to build infrastructure. So now the citizens look at us as liars and the Taliban as a necessaary evil to some.

We all just need to face facts, by going into Iraq we did far more bad than good. We left Afghanistan in a lurch, we created a regional power in Iran, and turned much of the world politically against us. It's a sad fact that some parts of the world can't deal with democracy without dictatorial controls, and the Arab world tops that list.

Demiurge

Rudy just laid it down in spades:

The Battle of the Bulge was a dismal intelligence failure -- meaning that Roosevelt JUNIOR was a "moron." :rolleyes:

So we should have given up and let Hitler take the world....

Over 3,000 died on June 6th, 1944, in Normandy.

Over 2,000 Marines and soldiers lay dead after the first 24 hours of Iwo Jima.

I guess the President should have withdrawn, and sued for peace on the spot, then fired all of the commanders, and replaced them with ambassodors to the Republic of Japan, and its new Southeast Asian empire!

I know using a little perspective might be rough, but give it a shot sometime.

Fighting a war with politics is the only way we'll fail, and why things haven't gone as swimmingly as they should have in the post major-ops governmental reconfigurement phase.

The only thing that's advantageous in having more troops is if the political hand ties are taken off of the troops. You can go ahead and ask yourself who is doing the hand tying. Bush bares part of the blame for it by not ignoring the politics of the opposition in our own country.

Why he ever gave a crap about liberals being critical of him I never understood.

I have to echo what jdhdiggs said. I haven't been there, but the majority of those who have been seem to have a much different perspective than what is given by the MSM and the armchair commandos.

tommyboy

fireshoes wrote:

This is a politics-free zone. Move along.

All I have to say is we need to leave soon victorious because we will soon have bigger problems on our hands.

"end of thread"

markmarc

LOL, politics free zone. With such fine polkers such as Macleod, Demiurge, Aaharvel, JDHiggs, myself, etc., etc, it ain't gonna happen.

Plus, it is our duty as citizens to question our leaders, and dissent when we disagree with their actions.

PhantomOG

I understand the need for more troops in order to stop some of the sectarian violence going on there now. What I don't understand (or believe in) is that *anything* we do will prevent more violence once we leave.

read-alot

With the exception of maybe John F Kennedy I can't remember anyone being happy with our leaders, but that's as far as my memory goes back. It was at one time you had respect for the President regardless of his political affiliation. Kids today don't respect anyone and I see this to be problems for future generations
It seems that every one had rather **** about their leader on their job site or their country.

jdhdiggs

read-alot wrote:

It was at one time you had respect for the President regardless of his political affiliation.

The sad thing is some people probably don't believe you. But our society is really sad when the highest paid federal employee is a football coach and not the president. And Kennedy had revisionist history applied to him. Had he not been assisinated, he'd be viewed as a 60's version of Clinton.

Look at the people in this thread that have already said that the president is stupid. I mean, do people really think a moron could become the most powerful person in the world?

I would guess that he is actually smarter than at least 90% of this forum. How many here could even get into Yale, let alone graduate? How about Harvards MBA program? So he didn't have the best grades, but I'll let you know something, the people who go to those schools and get 4.0's are the people you never want running or managing ANYTHING.

He's not the best public speaker in the world (Yes, that's a gross understatement) but he's not stupid. Additionally, how would any of us fair having the MSM investigating every piece of your life and recording your everymove. How about having over half the population looking for any excuse to rip apart your ideas.

The other kick I get out of the Lib hatred of "W" is the constant criticism with no aleternative. In otherwords, it's not a conflict of ideas, but blind hatred and disrespect that's being shown.

I think the disrespect for the office of President started in '94 and continued to decline through Lewinsky, 2000 election, War in Afganistan, War in Iraq, 2004 election, and now the 2006 election. Each of those events provided a catalyst to disrespect the position.

In the end, Let's ALL hope the President is right this time and a moderate (gov) / liberal (rel) democratic convernment emerges in Iraq that can provide stability and leadership in the region. And hopefully our boys will start coming home this year.

ND13

Nice post James.

I agree, don't underestimate "W". He's far from a moron.

read-alot

jd now you know Willie wouldn't have had the balls to do what JFK did in the Bay of Pigs.

Anyway Ms. Monroe was a far better looking than Monica.:)

tonyb

Hmmm....wishfull thinking JD.I hope your right.I would gather to say the elephant in the room is their radical religion.When there is no acceptance of other cultures or religions besides theirs,will always be war.Kind of like weeds in your lawn.You have to get rid of all of them or they keep comeing back to play havoc on the good grass.Hard to do in a region filled with hatred for all others.There is no negotiating with this kind of mentality.Sad to say,I know someone,maybe Isreal,will wind up nuking them and draw us in even deaper.Thus starting another world war.Sometimes we in America,in our cushy lives,can't fathom why we are in foreign countrys with no apparent reason.Radical Islam is spreading like weeds my friends.Imagine if the rest of the world was headed up by these radicals...and then there was us.Add on our immigration problem and you can easily see that our freedoms will finally have come to an end.Nowhere else to run to folks.Can't hop on a spaceship and zip off to another planet.Fearmongering? I think not.It's happening under your nose and you don't see it.So like we did in the begining,we shall stand and fight,protect our borders,secure our way of life.Thats what I expect out of my president and congress.{wishfull thinking on my part}

Demiurge

I agree, James. Another thing to point out -- I never hated Bill Clinton, or any other President, although I severely disliked Carter for the things he did, but personally? Don't know the guy. I was with President Bush at a campaign rally here in Milwaukee when Mr. Clinton had his heart attack. As the President relayed the news during his speech everyone there was genuinely saddened for what befell him. What did the MSM report? That there were cheers. That was later forced to be retracted by the AP when video of the event surfaced on the Internet. That was the first time I had ever been involved personally in a news story that was completely fabricated.

The same crap is going on with the reporting from Iraq. My best bud is a SEAL, and I have never heard him disrespect his missions in private, or claim there is anything but determination to win. Do these guys want to go home? Of course, who wants to be there? They also want to complete the objective, something they can't do when their hands are tied by Washington's red tape.

Anyhow, some of the crap in this thread is blind hatred, and it doesn't matter one bit what he does or doesn't do to them. He's already been pegged an idiot by them, and they offer no solutions.

I have plenty of hangups with his domestic policy issues, but my reaction isn't to call him dumb. My reaction is to offer my opinion on what should be done. It would be nice if the people who want to pull the troops out could tell us what the end game solution for the Middle East is going to be. This was never about Iraq. It's a war against an ideology that transcends borders. Something that was explained could take generations before we ever left U.S. soil.

PolkWannabie

ledhed wrote:

There will always be civil unrest in the middle east.

It wasn't that long ago when almost all would have said the same thing about northern Ireland ...

Demiurge

read-alot wrote:

jd now you know Willie wouldn't have had the balls to do what JFK did in the Bay of Pigs.

Anyway Ms. Monroe was a far better looking than Monica.:)

Not to mention JFK makes GWB look like an extreme left winger. That's how much the idelogical shift has gone to the left.

mrbigbluelight

jdhdiggs wrote:

The oil argument is for the ignorant, please people, stop using it.

Iraq has the 3d largest oil reserve in the world.

Color me ignorant. In spades.

jdhdiggs

mrbigbluelight wrote:

Iraq has the 3d largest oil reserve in the world.

Color me ignorant. In spades.

Obviously... Why are we there in your eyes? Cheap oil? To raise the price of oil so big oil gets rich? To secure the supply? Which flavor of Kool-Aid are you drinking?

markmarc

GWB will never be considered the smartest, nor the stupidest President to occupy the White House. For his all his inability to speak fluently, he does have a down home way of getting his point across. One may disagree with it, but rarely does he hide it behind vague, political language.

Be as that may, an Ivy league education and an MBA does not make you smarter than 90% of the population, just more educated.

Like everyone, GWB has his faults, and like all modern President's, he has become somewhat insulated from outside views. Even worse, is the legacy of getting into the "yes men" mentality of those that work for him.

In GWB's case, his greatest strength (loyalty) has become his biggest liability. He cannot breakaway from his policies because of how it affects others. IMHO, a strong sub-concious reason for his invasion of Iraq was to end the one bad legacy of his father (not finishing off Saddam in the Gulf War). I use his personal attitude towards Clinton. Anytime together they are buddy-buddy. Why, because after the CIA discovered Saddam was going to assasinate GHWB on a visit to Kuwait, Clinton lobbed 60+ cruise missiles into Iraq. That created a lifetime of respect from GWB.

Iraq will be his legacy, is it no wonder he will do whatever it takes to come out on top?!

jdhdiggs

Mark, the 90% comment is more directed at the man's entire body of work. He wouldn't get were he is today if he wasn't that smart.

Take the moonbat's left view of the guy: Raging alcoholic with cocaine problems and still managed to be smart enough to get through the Ivy league schools, invited to skull and bones, artfully dodge the Vietnam war, become Governer, and become president. Shoot, if he could do all that while boozing and recreational cocaine use, he's probably in the top 1% of intelligence. As it is, his SAT scores only put him in the top 10%

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Mark, the 90% comment is more directed at the man's entire body of work. He wouldn't get were he is today if he wasn't that smart.

Take the moonbat's left view of the guy: Raging alcoholic with cocaine problems and still managed to be smart enough to get through the Ivy league schools, invited to skull and bones, artfully dodge the Vietnam war, become Governer, and become president. Shoot, if he could do all that while boozing and recreational cocaine use, he's probably in the top 1% of intelligence. As it is, his SAT scores only put him in the top 10%

They were all bought and paid for, though. Smart people clouding the minds of the common folk with cunning and putting a dumb guy in charge.

jdhdiggs

Ah, I get it, now I also get the Iraq war for oil argument! I just forgot to take my LSD

ND13

The general public, educated or not, for the most part, will believe just about anything that the networks/media feed them.

brettw22

it makes me throw up a little (in my mouth) when people think anyone other than W (and his team) is responsible for what's going on....

jdhdiggs

Brett, can you expound on that? Are you talking about just Iraq, or do you think that Islamic Extremists and 9/11 were caused by "W" as well?

I can understand the "just Iraq" viewpoint.

Demiurge

brettw22 wrote:

it makes me throw up a little (in my mouth) when people think anyone other than W (and his team) is responsible for what's going on....

What's going on?

brettw22

If "just Iraq" was a contained situation then you could limit it to one localized screwup.........

I don't think that W is responsible for 9.11, but everything after has been grossly mishandled.....

As for him being a moron.......I'm not giving him props for enough people voting for him (I think a lot of people voted for the the perceived 'lesser than two evils' thing back then too).......I'm personally embarrassed that we have someone in office that has done as much damage to our standing in the world as he has in the time he's been there. And that's much more than just "do people like us"........it's "can we beg for enough people to help us when we REALLY need it".....

jdhdiggs

Ok, next follow up, what should have been done?

jakelm

brettw22 wrote:

.......I'm personally embarrassed that we have someone in office that has done as much damage to our standing in the world as he has in the time he's been there.

Who are we in "bad" standings with? Or maybe I miss understood what your saying.

brettw22

This is one of those round table discussions........you know where I stand, I know where you stand.......

I'm off for the day......y'all have fun.