Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: GroinkTropin on May 15, 2007, 10:54:47 PM
-
He pwns you sorry ass democrats. ROMNEY FOR PREZ IN 2008! Guiliani and mccain showed tonight in south caroline that they are incapable of projecting the strength romney can and does, he will be a good president.
-
He pwns you sorry ass democrats. ROMNEY FOR PREZ IN 2008! Guiliani and mccain showed tonight in south caroline that they are incapable of projecting the strength romney can and does, he will be a good president.
What do you know about his political views?
-Hedge
-
What do you know about his political views?
-Hedge
Last nights debate - "Romney, McCain and Giuliani all endorsed the deployment of additional troops and ruled out the setting of any timetable for withdrawal". :-\
-
Last nights debate - "Romney, McCain and Giuliani all endorsed the deployment of additional troops and ruled out the setting of any timetable for withdrawal". :-\
They were asked that if the General's on the ground wanted more troops would they give the Generals those troops. One of the largest criticisms of Bush was that he didn't listen to the commanders on the gournd.
-
He pwns you sorry ass democrats.
You care more about "pwning" sorry ass democrats than you do about the thousands of American boys and girls who will bleed to death on the streets of Iraq due to Romney's foreign policy plans.
Cool.
-
They were asked that if the General's on the ground wanted more troops would they give the Generals those troops. One of the largest criticisms of Bush was that he didn't listen to the commanders on the gournd.
Didn't the president fire the generals (resignation, early retirement) that called for more troops at the outset of the war?
Didn't the president now choose advisory generals that would agree with him, meaning he wasn't interested in their unbiased professional opinions? He was looking for rubberstamp generals that would endorse anything he wanted re strategy in Iraq.
-
Didn't the president fire the generals (resignation, early retirement) that called for more troops at the outset of the war?
Didn't the president now choose advisory generals that would agree with him, meaning he wasn't interested in their unbiased professional opinions? He was looking for rubberstamp generals that would endorse anything he wanted re strategy in Iraq.
I don't think your facts are correct, can you show me where he "fired" these generals? The generals are calling for more troops right now but you guys don't want to send them.
-
I don't think your facts are correct, can you show me where he "fired" these generals? The generals are calling for more troops right now but you guys don't want to send them.
anyone have the list? He changed generals repeatedly and I believe the surge strategy is the SEVENTH strategy he's employed there.
Several of the generals went on TV last week they said something to the effect of "Bush just told the nation he listens to the generals - and we were his generals - and he never listened to us".
He continually replaced them, ignored them, and changed strategy. This is what the generals say, dude.
-
anyone have the list? He changed generals repeatedly and I believe the surge strategy is the SEVENTH strategy he's employed there.
Several of the generals went on TV last week they said something to the effect of "Bush just told the nation he listens to the generals - and we were his generals - and he never listened to us".
He continually replaced them, ignored them, and changed strategy. This is what the generals say, dude.
Show me the generals that he directly fired. Also answer my question, one of the major criticisms is him not listening. Well yesterday the generals called for more troops, should we send them?
-
Show me the generals that he directly fired. Also answer my question, one of the major criticisms is him not listening. Well yesterday the generals called for more troops, should we send them?
That's not how it works in the Bush administration.
Did the president fire Don Rumsfeld?
No.
They resign or take early retirement--like Shinseki did.
The Generals' Revolt
by Patrick J. Buchanan
...With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary. ...
...This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. ...
-
Show me the generals that he directly fired. Also answer my question, one of the major criticisms is him not listening. Well yesterday the generals called for more troops, should we send them?
Not fired - rotated out and replaced with a new guy and new policy, like clockwork, in order to sustain this war spending machine/stall tactic to install the pipeline.
it's so funny that you still believe we're trying to win this war quickly. We're not, dude. We're taking our time to finish the pipeline. You will see the EXACT same theater you see today, one year from now. just like you saw it 1 year, 2 years, 3 years ago.
-
;D
-
We needed about 200,000 more guys in the beginning..we would have far less there now if Rummy had listened to his generals.
-
That's not how it works in the Bush administration.
Did the president fire Don Rumsfeld?
No.
They resign or take early retirement--like Shinseki did.
The Generals' Revolt
by Patrick J. Buchanan
...With the exception of Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former head of Central Command who opposed the Bush-Rumsfeld rush to war, the other generals did not publicly protest until secure in retirement. Nevertheless, they bring imposing credentials to their charges against the defense secretary. ...
...This is a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the U.S. armed forces by senior officers once responsible for carrying out the orders of that leadership. ...
Ok so they didn't like where the war was going and got out. That is far from Bush firing them. If you can show me where the JCS made a reccomendation to Bush that he ignored I will come to you side. Not some 2 or 3 star, but where the JCS made a reccomendation
-
Ok so they didn't like where the war was going and got out. That is far from Bush firing them. If you can show me where the JCS made a reccomendation to Bush that he ignored I will come to you side. Not some 2 or 3 star, but where the JCS made a reccomendation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/18/AR2006121801477.html
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
So the JCS were asking for more troops for a longer period. I wonder who would have been up in arms if Bush had given them what they wanted, hmmm Decker maybe? He met in the middle of public opinion and what the JCS wanted.
-
So the JCS were asking for more troops for a longer period. I wonder who would have been up in arms if Bush had given them what they wanted, hmmm Decker maybe? He met in the middle of public opinion and what the JCS wanted.
From the beginning the generals wanted substantially more troops to manage the occupation.
That is a sound strategy for occupying Iraq.
Bush continues to not listen to them.
Of course I would have been up in arms about troop escalation. I view the invasion as illegal and a war crime. But that's not relevant to whether Bush opposed the opinion of the JCS.
I showed you that the JCS were opposed by Bush. I guess you are on my side now?
-
From the beginning the generals wanted substantially more troops to manage the occupation.
That is a sound strategy for occupying Iraq.
Bush continues to not listen to them.
Of course I would have been up in arms about troop escalation. I view the invasion as illegal and a war crime. But that's not relevant to whether Bush opposed the opinion of the JCS.
I showed you that the JCS were opposed by Bush. I guess you are on my side now?
You didn't show me anything, they both agreed on a surge but disagreed on a number of troops. I am betting Bush didn't come up with the final number himself.
-
You didn't show me anything, they both agreed on a surge but disagreed on a number of troops. I am betting Bush didn't come up with the final number himself.
No they did not both agree on a surge. The Generals think it's a lousy idea and the WH thinks it's just what the doctor ordered.
"...the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military..."
Does that look like fundamental agreement?
-
No they did not both agree on a surge. The Generals think it's a lousy idea and the WH thinks it's just what the doctor ordered.
"...the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military..."
Does that look like fundamental agreement?
guess you skim read over this
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."
-
guess you skim read over this
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."
These observations are taken from a closed door meeting btn the generals and the president. It is not their place to say to the president, "your plan is shit!" They offer their opinions as to the surge's efficacy. In short, they said everything but the final summation that the surge is BS.
This does sound like an endorsement of the surge doesn't it:
... the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military...
Fair enough. Here's another source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301379.html
Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy
Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army
"The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq..."
"The plan would not allow for any major reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq over the next year -- nor would it call for any surge in troops..."
What happened to those generals? Did they suddenly flip and become pro-surge?
Or did this happen?
Bush shakes up war team
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-04-mcconnell-negroponte_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Looks like the generals disagreed with Bush. But then Gen. Casey--the chief Gen. in Iraq got the Heave-ho and Gen. Petraeus was installed. Someone sharing Bush's surge vision.
-
I feel like we're having a fight over who would win in a fight: Santa claus or th easter bunny.
this war is political theater while we pump the oil.
you're arguing about whether so-and-so specifically asked whats-his-face about some issue...
think bigger picture. 160,000 forces cannot kill 2500 insurgents in 4 years?
Fuck you if you're stupid enough to believe that. Period. :)
-
I feel like we're having a fight over who would win in a fight: Santa claus or th easter bunny.
this war is political theater while we pump the oil.
you're arguing about whether so-and-so specifically asked whats-his-face about some issue...
think bigger picture. 160,000 forces cannot kill 2500 insurgents in 4 years?
Fuck you if you're stupid enough to believe that. Period. :)
Do you or do you not think that if we had been fighting conventional warfare against those "2500" we would have wiped them out by now? You make alot of good points on this forum but that one just shows ignorance.
-
Do you or do you not think that if we had been fighting conventional warfare against those "2500" we would have wiped them out by now? You make alot of good points on this forum but that one just shows ignorance.
Our 100,000+ contractors have had free reign there.
Our 160,000+ troops have had great ability to break war laws, including use of torture.
We have unlimited money (200mil a day), weapons, technology. They have finite number of weapons.
We have unlimited funds to pay off snitches and give reward money.
And, there's that one little fact we told the UN we didn't want their help in rebuilding iraq, for the sole purpose of keeping oil revenues to ourselves.
it's not the troops - they fight their asses off. but methinks that *something* is at work to make sure the bad guys slip away to fight another day, they never run out of munitions, and they always get an attack off when it's most politically feasible.
Try this...
*IF* the goal of the war is oil... then the goal of 2007 would be to stall while we installed the oil (knowing the premise we have to leave when there is peace). IF the goal is oil, then the goal right now, by definition then, is NO peace. make sense?
-
I feel like we're having a fight over who would win in a fight: Santa claus or th easter bunny.
this war is political theater while we pump the oil.
you're arguing about whether so-and-so specifically asked whats-his-face about some issue...
think bigger picture. 160,000 forces cannot kill 2500 insurgents in 4 years?
Fuck you if you're stupid enough to believe that. Period. :)
The US couldn't win in Viet Nam with over half a million troops and carpet bombings.
That's the nature of occupation and guerilla warfare. It is unwinnable.
The enemy can outlast any occupying force.
Estimates of the Iraqi insurgency range from 20,000 to 25,000 hardcore fighters and up to 100,000 fighters in total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Scope_and_size_of_the_insurgency
-
These observations are taken from a closed door meeting btn the generals and the president. It is not their place to say to the president, "your plan is shit!" They offer their opinions as to the surge's efficacy. In short, they said everything but the final summation that the surge is BS.
This does sound like an endorsement of the surge doesn't it:
... the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military...
Fair enough. Here's another source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301379.html
Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy
Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army
"The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq..."
"The plan would not allow for any major reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq over the next year -- nor would it call for any surge in troops..."
What happened to those generals? Did they suddenly flip and become pro-surge?
Or did this happen?
Bush shakes up war team
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-04-mcconnell-negroponte_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Looks like the generals disagreed with Bush. But then Gen. Casey--the chief Gen. in Iraq got the Heave-ho and Gen. Petraeus was installed. Someone sharing Bush's surge vision.
Look, you seem smart at times. I know you don't know how the military runs, but there are 6 guys that make the final call on military issues and Gen Casey isn't one of them. Nothing gets done with out the JCS saying it should be done. So until you can show me where one of them is quoted as disagreeing quit lining up desk jockey's; and I will give you there names to save time:
Mr. Robert Gates SECDEF
General Peter Pace USMC
General Michael Moseley USAF
General George Casey USA
Admiral Michael Mullen USN
General James Conley USMC
-
The US couldn't win in Viet Nam with over half a million troops and carpet bombings.
That's the nature of occupation and guerilla warfare. It is unwinnable.
The enemy can outlast any occupying force.
Estimates of the Iraqi insurgency range from 20,000 to 25,000 hardcore fighters and up to 100,000 fighters in total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Scope_and_size_of_the_insurgency
Absolutely correct!
Now, if you and I know that... I am betting the fine folks in military planning knew that in 2001-2002.
And maybe they knew owning the country wasn't a possibility - it never has been in any war where you're the occupier and you don't stay. They know this. So they made the goal to hang out and defend themselves while grabbing the oil. Then, leaving. hell, there's nothing but sand and anger in the area once the oil is taken.
So while you are right in your analysis, you're incorrect in your assumption that we're trying to win the war. We're not. We're trying to minimize losses while installing an oil pipeline and the 14 bases which coincidentally sit on that oil pipeline. it's a hit and run. We never planned to succeed in war, only to succeed in the heist. ;)
-
Our 100,000+ contractors have had free reign there.
Our 160,000+ troops have had great ability to break war laws, including use of torture.
We have unlimited money (200mil a day), weapons, technology. They have finite number of weapons.
We have unlimited funds to pay off snitches and give reward money.
And, there's that one little fact we told the UN we didn't want their help in rebuilding iraq, for the sole purpose of keeping oil revenues to ourselves.
it's not the troops - they fight their asses off. but methinks that *something* is at work to make sure the bad guys slip away to fight another day, they never run out of munitions, and they always get an attack off when it's most politically feasible.
Try this...
*IF* the goal of the war is oil... then the goal of 2007 would be to stall while we installed the oil (knowing the premise we have to leave when there is peace). IF the goal is oil, then the goal right now, by definition then, is NO peace. make sense?
I refuse to engage you on this because you have no knowledge of how the war is fought and what those 160K people are used for. I don't care what ancient chinese books you read, you have zero idea.
-
I refuse to engage you on this because you have no knowledge of how the war is fought and what those 160K people are used for. I don't care what ancient chinese books you read, you have zero idea.
They're too busy building pipeline infrastructure to pick up a gun, eh? ;)
-
They're too busy building pipeline infrastructure to pick up a gun, eh? ;)
Like I said no idea. While you are well versed in many areas you are ignorant on how the military runs.
-
He pwns you sorry ass democrats. ROMNEY FOR PREZ IN 2008! Guiliani and mccain showed tonight in south caroline that they are incapable of projecting the strength romney can and does, he will be a good president.
I missed the debate, but I'm impressed with any Republican who can be elected governor of Massachusetts.
-
Look, you seem smart at times. I know you don't know how the military runs, but there are 6 guys that make the final call on military issues and Gen Casey isn't one of them. Nothing gets done with out the JCS saying it should be done. So until you can show me where one of them is quoted as disagreeing quit lining up desk jockey's; and I will give you there names to save time:
Mr. Robert Gates SECDEF
General Peter Pace USMC
General Michael Moseley USAF
General George Casey USA
Admiral Michael Mullen USN
General James Conley USMC
Thank you for the condescending compliment.
The '6 guys' do not make the final call on military issues.
The president makes the final call.
The Joint Chiefs are advisory only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_chiefs_of_staff#Roles_and_Responsibilities
http://www.jcs.mil/cjs/jcs_mission_statement.html
Your request for quotes is not practical. Private advisory meetings between the president and the joint chiefs are not subject to public minutes.
And no general expecting to keep his job would go on the record as disagreeing with the president over security matters.
U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey...opposed sending more troops to Iraq...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16297007/
See, the general doesn't disagree with the president. But he doesn't agree with the surge. Talk about semantical gymnastics.
Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with administration proponents of a "surge" because he believes what he recently told the New York Times: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501806.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
That's as close to a public admission as you'll get.
-
The '6 guys' do not make the final call on military issues.
The president makes the final call.
"I'm the decider!"
I always wondered why the most powerful man on Earth would feel the need to tell us he's the decider. Isn't that beyond obvious?
-
Ron Paul won the Fox News Debate Poll. :D
-
"I'm the decider!"
I always wondered why the most powerful man on Earth would feel the need to tell us he's the decider. Isn't that beyond obvious?
It's like an epiphany for him that separation of powers exist.
This guy's so far out of his depth that it's way beyond bathos
-
You guys are forgetting all about Mitt:
;D
-
You guys are forgetting all about Mitt:
;D
Bump for knowing how delusional Mormons like Romney are.
-
Romney is going to win. He has shown that he can carry blue states and yet he's conservative enough to win the south. Who is going to beat him? Giuliani is too liberal to win the Republican primary and McCain lacks the stature to be president.
Look at the 2004 election map...
(http://mwhodges.home.att.net/2004-election-map.gif)
If Hillary is the candidate which of those red states are going to go blue? None. But I can easily see some of the states that were blue shifting to red for Romney (New Hampshire, Mass, New Jersey, Pennsylvania). I'd rather have Ron Paul win but I'm growing more convinced that Mitt is the man to beat.
-
Romney is going to win. He has shown that he can carry blue states and yet he's conservative enough to win the south. Who is going to beat him?
Answer: "The other guy."
It'll be at least another quarter-century before a devout Mormon can win the South, even with the church's huge PR campaign.
That's reality.
-
Romney is pro-war.
if he would step back on that issue, he'd be a shoo-in to win it all.
But, he backs bush war policy. Do you want 4 to 8 more years of losing 200 mil and 4 men day in iraq? Cause you're going to get it if you vote romney. Behold your folly!