Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 26, 2008, 08:07:22 PM
-
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VLG8JG1.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080327/D8VLG8JG1.html)
Mar 26, 10:17 PM (ET)
By ROBERT BURNS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Behind the Pentagon's closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war's mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they'd go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff did say senior commanders in Iraq should make more frequent assessments of security conditions, an idea that appeared aimed at increasing pressure for more rapid troop reductions.
The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.
In the war zone itself, two more American soldiers were killed Wednesday in separate attacks in Baghdad, raising the U.S. death toll to at least 4,003, according to an Associated Press count. Volleys of rockets also slammed into Baghdad's Green Zone for the third day this week, and the U.S. Embassy said three Americans were seriously wounded. At least eight Iraqis were killed elsewhere in the capital by rounds that apparently fell short.
Wednesday's 90-minute Pentagon session, held in a secure conference room known as "the Tank," was arranged by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide Bush an additional set of military views as he prepares to decide how to proceed in Iraq once his troop buildup, which began in 2007, runs its course by July.
"Armed with all that, the president must now decide the way ahead in Iraq," said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The discussion covered not only Iraq but Afghanistan, where violence has spiked, and broader military matters, said Morrell, who briefed reporters without giving details of the discussion. Some specifics were provided by defense officials, commenting on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely.
The Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned about Afghanistan and an increasingly active Taliban insurgency.
The United States has about 31,000 troops in Afghanistan and 156,000 in Iraq.
U.S. forces in Iraq peaked at 20 brigades last year and are to be cut to 15 brigades, with a total of about 140,000 combat and support troops, by the end of July. A key question facing Bush is whether security conditions will have improved sufficiently by then to justify more reductions.
One of the leading advocates of Bush's troop buildup last year, military historian Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, said in an interview Wednesday that security conditions in Iraq, while better, are not good enough to justify any commitment to troop reductions beyond July.
"The military reality is that it's virtually inconceivable that it will make sense to draw down below 15 brigades this year," Kagan said.
Gates has said he would like to see the total drop to 10 brigades by the end of this year, but that now looks unlikely.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has proposed what is commonly called a "pause" to assess the impact of having withdrawn five combat brigades since December. He has argued that it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.
Bush is expected to endorse Petraeus' approach. If, as expected, Petraeus is given until August or September to weigh the effects of the current round of reductions, then it is unlikely that the force would get much below 15 brigades by the time Bush leaves office in January.
Bush is unlikely to announce his decision until after Petraeus and the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, return to Washington next month to report to Congress.
The Joint Chiefs, who do not command troops but are legally responsible for ensuring the fitness of the forces they provide to commanders, have grown increasingly concerned that the weight of five-plus years of war in Iraq could create severe, long-term problems, particularly for the Army and Marine Corps.
In their session with Bush, the chiefs laid out their concerns about the health of the U.S. force, several defense officials said. Bush was accompanied by his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten; his national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and Vice President Dick Cheney.
"The conversations today with the Joint Chiefs were much broader than just Iraq," Hadley said later. "It was a step-back look of what are the challenges we face here in the next decade."
A senior administration official said the chiefs generally are in sync with Petraeus on slowing the pace of troop reductions.
Morrell said Bush is "constantly asking the Joint Chiefs about the health of the force, about retention rates, about family life, and so that was a large part of the conversation today."
The session was led by Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He presented the consensus view of the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps on Iraq strategy.
Mullen and Gates have said repeatedly that in addition to reducing troop levels in Iraq, they want to shorten tour lengths for soldiers from 15 months to 12 months as soon as possible. A decision to do that is expected, perhaps shortly after Bush reaffirms that the number brigades in Iraq will be cut to 15 by July. The Army calculates that at that point it could drop tours to 12 months and still give units at least 12 months at home to recover, retrain and rearm before deploying again.
Morrell said a decision on shortening tour lengths would be made by Gates in consultation with Bush.
"We are not there yet," Morrell said.
Shortly after they Petraeus and Crocker reported to Congress last September Bush announced the decision to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15.
At the time, Petraeus said additional cuts would be made but that he needed to wait until this spring to recommend a timetable. Since September, violence in Iraq has ebbed and U.S. and Iraqi casualties have declined markedly, although violence has jumped in recent weeks.
The president is to give a speech Thursday in Ohio on the political and economic situation in Iraq.
-
The military should just read the Stars and Stripes. If they did that they wouldn't say this.
Would it stand to reason that if we weren't already stretched thin that we could rotate troops faster and in shorter (12 month) TOD's? ::) ::) ::)
But as brix, likes to say: We are no where near over extended.
::) ::)
-
But as brix, likes to say: We are no where near over extended.
classic stuff right there!
-
classic stuff right there!
He's a "loss prevention engineer" for CVS or Walgreen's. Cut him some slack.
-
The military should just read the Stars and Stripes. If they did that they wouldn't say this.
Would it stand to reason that if we weren't already stretched thin that we could rotate troops faster and in shorter (12 month) TOD's? ::) ::) ::)
But as brix, likes to say: We are no where near over extended.
::) ::)
I remember when six and nine month deployments were considered extremely long. :-\
-
He's a "loss prevention engineer" for CVS or Walgreen's. Cut him some slack.
Is that better or worse then the "pissing on signs" position that you hold?
-
Is that better or worse then the "pissing on signs" position that you hold?
All the signs are gone >:( I miss them. :(
-
This is mostly Rummy's fault...the Services wanted to grow the military in 2001 and he blocked it. We'd be much farther along then we are now if that idiot hadn't stood in the way. Hell we might not even be in Iraq.
-
This is mostly Rummy's fault...the Services wanted to grow the military in 2001 and he blocked it. We'd be much farther along then we are now if that idiot hadn't stood in the way. Hell we might not even be in Iraq.
In some ways this all might be a good thing HH6, if we weren't over extended as we are, we might already be at war with Iran.
And even though Iraq was a mistake as you say, we still are reaping some benefits from it now and in the future if we can hold on to it.
-
In some ways this all might be a good thing HH6, if we weren't over extended as we are, we might already be at war with Iran.
And even though Iraq was a mistake as you say, we still are reaping some benefits from it now and in the future if we can hold on to it.
The first part, I agree. As for the second part: In what way is 12 billion dollars a month a benefit to us?
-
The first part, I agree. As for the second part: In what way is 12 billion dollars a month a benefit to us?
This way:
We are not in a ground war with Iran also becuase of perceived threats or our stupid public being brainwashed as to the level of threat Iran is.
-
Aw.. looks like I'm deep in your head Oz. :D
Just cause I don't think we're overextended now do you assume I think we could never become it? And I agree that from a morale stand point we might very well be pushing it. But from a capability standpoint we are not.
-
Aw.. looks like I'm deep in your head Oz. :D
Just cause I don't think we're overextended now do you assume I think we could never become it? And I agree that from a morale stand point we might very well be pushing it. But from a capability standpoint we are not.
I'm not surprised you'd say something like that becuase to address the real issue would cause you to face the truth.
It's rare that i see anyone give such and idiotic statement as you did and insists on trying to back it up with the S & S and your General friend. And now we have the JC's saying it.
It only proves how much of an ignorant statement that was.
-
It's rare that i see anyone give such and idiotic statement as you did and insists on trying to back it up with the S & S and your General friend. And now we have the JC's saying it.
No.. this is another lie.
They are NOT saying we are over extended. They are saying it is a concern and something that has to be considered. That is all and I completely agree. Until we fail to complete a mission because we cannot support it due to being somewhere else it cannot be said that we are over extended. As long as we maintain our capability than we are nowhere near it. ;D
You libs are amazing.. you try and twist every little thing, don't you?
-
As long as we maintain our capability than we are nowhere near it. ;D
That's pretty stupid.
How far will you go to spin your originally dumb statement?
Is your middle name "Clinton"?
We are barely maintaining our capability and all indications point to us having problems handling another crisis or conflict.
On top of that, even a 13 year boy, could tell you it's not militarily or strategically sound to think as long as we maintain our capability to address our current missions we are nowhere near over extended.
We are over extended. And no, we not failing to meet or address current mission, but we are only doing that by extending TOD's, and cutting budgets everywhere.
What's funny, is now, even true conservatives, in the military, on this board call Iraq a mistake.
But, hey, Brix. I respect you for your loyalty. The world is always in need of people like you, who refuse to have thoughts outside a particular political alignment.
-
That's pretty stupid.
How far will you go to spin your originally dumb statement?
Is your middle name "Clinton"?
We are barely maintaining our capability and all indications point to us having problems handling another crisis or conflict.
On top of that, even a 13 year boy, could tell you it's not militarily or strategically sound to think as long as we maintain our capability to address our current missions we are nowhere near over extended.
We are over extended. And no, we not failing to meet or address current mission, but we are only doing that by extending TOD's, and cutting budgets everywhere.
What's funny, is now, even true conservatives, in the military, on this board call Iraq a mistake.
But, hey, Brix. I respect you for your loyalty. The world is always in need of people like you, who refuse to have thoughts outside a particular political alignment.
Great job avoiding my point... btw.
The war is not a mistake because a few people who claim to be conservative have buckled to an anti war onslaught brought on by the media, democrats, and people like you who are against it merely because it serves as another reason to hate Bush. That's all this is and all it has been. You are the same people who don't blink an eye about the waste libs in gov't have caused over the last 20 years.
And once we really finish in Iraq everyone will be better for it and you won't have a leg to stand on. Maybe that's why everyone wants to call it quits? hmm..
-
Great job avoiding my point... btw.
What point? That we are no where near over extended in the face of the JC's eluding to?
The war is not a mistake because a few people who claim to be conservative have buckled to an anti war onslaught brought on by the media, democrats, and people like you who are against it merely because it serves as another reason to hate Bush. That's all this is and all it has been.
Is that why you think people think the war is a mistake becuase they "hate" Bush? You thinking is amazing, unbelievable!
You are the same people who don't blink an eye about the waste libs in gov't have caused over the last 20 years.
Look around the forum there are charts somewhere showing the repubs spend much more.
But don't get that confused, which you most certainly will becuase your programming says so, that i endorse more government spending. I think we could accomplish everything we ant by spending exactly or less than we do now, which will include universal health care for children under 18, flat tax or sales tax, less on welfare, more on education etc...
But then again anything other than full approval of Bush is "Liberal" right? ::)
And once we really finish in Iraq everyone will be better for it and you won't have a leg to stand on. Maybe that's why everyone wants to call it quits? hmm..
Show me where i've advocated leaving Iraq....
Show me.
You can't becuase i haven't said we should.
talk about missing points, replacing them, or avoiding them..... ::)
-
I have seriously never run across anyone as dense as brixy. He tries so hard that its embarrassing. He relies on labeling "Libs" and running away.
Amazing that you warp and mis-use all that Ozmo has stated.
Brixy, you need to open your mind to other discussions on matters. Good luck in the future, Youre going to need it. :-\
-
What point? That we are no where near over extended in the face of the JC's eluding to?
That you twist and spin everything to support your POV. Includes lying which you have done multiple times.
Is that why you think people think the war is a mistake becuase they "hate" Bush? You thinking is amazing, unbelievable!
No, the people that hate bush and have a vendetta against him have put out so much propaganda that it's easy to see why even some conservatives doubt the war even when the facts support what we are doing there.
Look around the forum there are charts somewhere showing the repubs spend much more.
But don't get that confused, which you most certainly will becuase your programming says so, that i endorse more government spending. I think we could accomplish everything we ant by spending exactly or less than we do now, which will include universal health care for children under 18, flat tax or sales tax, less on welfare, more on education etc...
But then again anything other than full approval of Bush is "Liberal" right? ::)
Correct, and eveytime the democrats take office they use that as an excuse, not to fix the problem, but to take more money from the american people.
And I am not looking for Bush approval.. I believe in conservatism plain and simple.
Show me where i've advocated leaving Iraq....
Show me.
You can't becuase i haven't said we should.
talk about missing points, replacing them, or avoiding them..... ::)
You didn't and I didn't say you did. More spin, huh?
That's the general feeling I get from most on this board who also happen to be leftists (and some who are not).. and it comes from how misled people have been about the war.
-
I have seriously never run across anyone as dense as brixy. He tries so hard that its embarrassing. He relies on labeling "Libs" and running away.
Amazing that you warp and mis-use all that Ozmo has stated.
Brixy, you need to open your mind to other discussions on matters. Good luck in the future, Youre going to need it. :-\
I haven't run away from anything..
but I know that without lying you have no argument, so carry on.
-
That you twist and spin everything to support your POV. Includes lying which you have done multiple times.
Show me.
No, the people that hate bush and have a vendetta against him have put out so much propaganda that it's easy to see why even some conservatives doubt the war even when the facts support what we are doing there.
Wow, very twisted.
Facts like the WMD's?
Correct, and eveytime the democrats take office they use that as an excuse, not to fix the problem, but to take more money from the american people.
And I am not looking for Bush approval.. I believe in conservatism plain and simple.
And you think they do this becuase they want to take more money from the American people? and why do you think they want to do that?
Because they are evil?
You didn't and I didn't say you did. More spin, huh?
Maybe that's why everyone wants to call it quits? hmm..
Your brainwashing is showing again. You either think EVERYONE wants to leave Iraq or I do becuase you where talking to me when you said it.
Which is it brix?
That's the general feeling I get from most on this board who also happen to be leftists (and some who are not).. and it comes from how misled people have been about the war.
You think most of the people in this board are leftists? Would you consider them Commies too?
-
Just cause I don't think we're overextended now
There are many generals who have said we're overtaxed now.
ARE THEY WRONG, BRIX?
-
Show me.
Wow, very twisted.
Facts like the WMD's?
And you think they do this becuase they want to take more money from the American people? and why do you think they want to do that?
Because they are evil?
Your brainwashing is showing again. You either think EVERYONE wants to leave Iraq or I do becuase you where talking to me when you said it.
Which is it brix?
You think most of the people in this board are leftists? Would you consider them Commies too?
You give an article which says the topic of over extending our troops was discussed then you turn around and try to use that as proof that we are exactly that. Just because it is an issue and has to be taken into consideration doesn't mean it is true. But you lie just to support your argument. And yes, you lied in the last thread we had this discussion as well. You tried to say I blamed the entirety of 9/11 on Clinton among other things I don't remember off the top of my head.
We had many reasons to kill Saddam which have been discussed at length. If your golden boy Clinton had marched on Baghdad we'd have a very different attitude in the media than we do now. But because everyone is so hell bent on hating Bush as much as possible we have what we have. That's not to say he hasn't made mistakes but there has been no objectivity in reporting when it comes to Bush.
Democrats/liberals want more power, more funding, more $$$. They want bigger gov't than any conservative as they see themselves benefitting from it. They want everyone to be dependant on gov't and therefore dependant on them. They want control. They despise the constitution and individual rights along with anyone who disagrees with them. I won't go so far as to say they are evil but they are definitely bad news.
I know you don't want to pull out now because you see that we can't. But you will continue to use it as a chess piece to throw more and more blame on Bush and conservatives who support him. This board is far more liberal than otherwise and that is why most people on here want to leave Iraq. Nothing more than internet critics with no understanding of war, freedom, and what the US is and has been all about and trying to do in the middle east. That's not to say there aren't other less admirable reasons to be in Iraq but nevertheless there are many reasons to be there. And yes, liberalism is socialism.
-
There are many generals who have said we're overtaxed now.
ARE THEY WRONG, BRIX?
My opinion is that we are overtaxed.. but that is in no way based on what any general has said.
-
You give an article which says the topic of over extending our troops was discussed then you turn around and try to use that as proof that we are exactly that. Just because it is an issue and has to be taken into consideration doesn't mean it is true. But you lie just to support your argument. And yes, you lied in the last thread we had this discussion as well. You tried to say I blamed the entirety of 9/11 on Clinton among other things I don't remember off the top of my head.
We had many reasons to kill Saddam which have been discussed at length. If your golden boy Clinton had marched on Baghdad we'd have a very different attitude in the media than we do now. But because everyone is so hell bent on hating Bush as much as possible we have what we have. That's not to say he hasn't made mistakes but there has been no objectivity in reporting when it comes to Bush.
I know you don't want to pull out now because you see that we can't. But you will continue to use it as a chess piece to throw more and more blame on Bush and conservatives who support him. This board is far more liberal than otherwise and that is why most people on here want to leave Iraq. Nothing more than internet critics with no understanding of war, freedom, and what the US is and has been all about and trying to do in the middle east. That's not to say there aren't other less admirable reasons to be in Iraq but nevertheless there are many reasons to be there. And yes, liberalism is socialism.
How do i lie to support my argument? I provided a current article based on statements by JC's. I pointed out TOD's, which you are too scared to address, i pointed out budget cuts, and personal information. You provided the Stars and stripes and your general friend to support your statement that we are not nowhere near over extended which got to be in the top 10 stupidest statements and back up ever on this forum. ;D
Now you are telling yourself fairy tales about me to support your own bias.
Did you or did you not say Clinton let 9/11 happen?
Never saw it.. and I wouldn't need it to show how Clinton allowed 9/11 to happen.
so he is to blame in the context of allowing 9/11 or not? Or is OBL's Mom also to blame for not aborting OBL?
Like i said you are worse than a liberal spin clerk.
So I'm still waiting for where you show me i lied. But don't get too worked up over it, I'd hate you to blame me for shattering your illusions about the state of our military and some how connect it to Clinton.
If my golden boy marched on Bagdad? ::) You mean if your Golden boy's father marched on Bagdad.
Is this another lame attempt to "blame Clinton" now for the Iraq mess?
Now before you get yourself all worked up, just answer the question. Because in your line of thinking, We should be blaming Eve for having offspring that would eventually lead to Clinton and OBL.
Democrats/liberals want more power, more funding, more $$$. They want bigger gov't than any conservative as they see themselves benefitting from it. They want everyone to be dependant on gov't and therefore dependant on them. They want control. They despise the constitution and individual rights along with anyone who disagrees with them. I won't go so far as to say they are evil but they are definitely bad news.
I agree with some of this, but some of it is needed for balance, as we've seen what a lack regulation can do with our current housing and lending market.
I know you don't want to pull out now because you see that we can't. But you will continue to use it as a chess piece to throw more and more blame on Bush and conservatives who support him. This board is far more liberal than otherwise and that is why most people on here want to leave Iraq. Nothing more than internet critics with no understanding of war, freedom, and what the US is and has been all about and trying to do in the middle east. That's not to say there aren't other less admirable reasons to be in Iraq but nevertheless there are many reasons to be there. And yes, liberalism is socialism.
As a chess piece? We are in this mess because of Bush's poor decision making. Plain and simple.
Tool is, tool thinks, tool does. That's about sums it up.
-
Just cause I don't think we're overextended
My opinion is that we are overtaxed.
(http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper101/kerry03.jpg)
-
"We are no where near over extended!"
Redefining the term: clueless
-
(http://media.mnginteractive.com/media/paper101/kerry03.jpg)
I thought you were referring to taxes in America. Yeah.. I missed that one.
-
I thought you were referring to taxes in America. Yeah.. I missed that one.
fair enough. Is kerry wearing lipstick and mascara there?
-
How do i lie to support my argument? I provided a current article based on statements by JC's. I pointed out TOD's, which you are too scared to address, i pointed out budget cuts, and personal information. You provided the Stars and stripes and your general friend to support your statement that we are not nowhere near over extended which got to be in the top 10 stupidest statements and back up ever on this forum. ;D
Now you are telling yourself fairy tales about me to support your own bias.
Did you or did you not say Clinton let 9/11 happen?
Letting something happen through negligence and having priority issues and being the sole and direct cause of something are different. Yet another LIE that I claimed Clinton was the latter. Then you lie saying the article itself shows the JC's saying we are over exteneded versus just being the topic discussed with the prez. You twisted it to support your POV plain as day.
I'm not scared to address anything. TOD's are a morale issue not a capability issue.. the very definition of overextension.
so he is to blame in the context of allowing 9/11 or not? Or is OBL's Mom also to blame for not aborting OBL?
Like i said you are worse than a liberal spin clerk.
So I'm still waiting for where you show me i lied. But don't get too worked up over it, I'd hate you to blame me for shattering your illusions about the state of our military and some how connect it to Clinton.
If my golden boy marched on Bagdad? ::) You mean if your Golden boy's father marched on Bagdad.
Is this another lame attempt to "blame Clinton" now for the Iraq mess?
Now before you get yourself all worked up, just answer the question. Because in your line of thinking, We should be blaming Eve for having offspring that would eventually lead to Clinton and OBL.
How would OBLs mom know what he would do in his life??.. Clinton was well aware. Stupid argument.
Your pathetic attempts at an argument have become nothing more than you trying to use my own arguments against me, and failing miserably. Bush 1 SHOULD have marched on Baghdad. Whoop dee do!
You must have a problem with reading comprehension not to see that I was only using Clintons reputation among the media and the American left to point out that if he had done the same things George W has done he wouldn't be nearly the target of hatred as we have today.. not at all an attempt to blame Clinton for Iraq.
-
fair enough. Is kerry wearing lipstick and mascara there?
Eh.. not sure. Let me call my general friend and the press office at Stars and Stripes ;D
-
Eh.. not sure. Let me call my general friend and the press office at Stars and Stripes ;D
Ask him if Gore is gonna run for prez on the dem ticket.
-
Letting something happen through negligence and having priority issues and being the sole and direct cause of something are different.
Avoiding the question again.....Did Clinton let 9/11 happen?
And thats where his mom comes into the picture, becuase it's failed logic on your part, part of the blelief system that lets you live with the contradiction, Clinton had no idea of 9/11 just as OBL's mom had no idea of 9/11.
But then again, you said, "Clinton let 9/11 happen" Which is blaming Clinton for 9/11, squirm little boy squirm. Or at least be a man and stand by what you said without trying to spin it like a little :o.
Then you lie saying the article itself shows the JC's saying we are over exteneded versus just being the topic discussed with the prez. You twisted it to support your POV plain as day.
here you go again:
The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.
Can you read? Are you that stupid?
If they were as you say: "No where near being over extended" why in the hell would they be talking about it in the first place?
How sad you have lowered yourself to accuse me of lying when it's in plain black and white. They didn't say "might be" they said "are" being worn thin. where's the POV twist? ::)
I'm not scared to address anything. TOD's are a morale issue not a capability issue.. the very definition of overextension.
Why would any competent General risk a morale issue unless he didn't have to?
Geez you're stupid or you're trading your intelligence to win and argument.
Oh and are we at the part now when you are going to start whining about me insulting you and getting all worked up over it when the real issue is you can't handle the truth?
-
Careful ozmo. hes going to tell you hes in your head!!! This is a tactic picked up from his 7th grade year...............2 yrs ago.
-
Careful ozmo. hes going to tell you hes in your head!!! This is a tactic picked up from his 7th grade year...............2 yrs ago.
Well he's in my head alright at least his name is, He's currently at the top of the list of the most brainwashed people I've ever ran across.
-
Careful ozmo. hes going to tell you hes in your head!!! This is a tactic picked up from his 7th grade year...............2 yrs ago.
Looks like I'm in your head too.. no surprise there!
-
Avoiding the question again.....Did Clinton let 9/11 happen?
And thats where his mom comes into the picture, becuase it's failed logic on your part, part of the blelief system that lets you live with the contradiction, Clinton had no idea of 9/11 just as OBL's mom had no idea of 9/11.
But then again, you said, "Clinton let 9/11 happen" Which is blaming Clinton for 9/11, squirm little boy squirm. Or at least be a man and stand by what you said without trying to spin it like a little :o.
Can you read? Are you that stupid?
If they were as you say: "No where near being over extended" why in the hell would they be talking about it in the first place?
How sad you have lowered yourself to accuse me of lying when it's in plain black and white. They didn't say "might be" they said "are" being worn thin. where's the POV twist? ::)
Why would any competent General risk a morale issue unless he didn't have to?
Geez you're stupid or you're trading your intelligence to win and argument.
I haven't avoided anything. I'll say it over and over if I have to. Clinton knew far more about the ADULT OBLs intentions and capabilities than his mother would have giving birth short of being a prophet for Christs sake.. Once again.. a stupid argument. Through negligence Clinton bears a lot of responsibility for letting 9/11 happen, although not all of it. After all, it is you who blames Bush for everything under the sun so this should make sense to you.
No avoidance.. no squirming.. you simply don't grasp this and you don't want to.
They said it was a concern and I already AGREED with you that from a morale stand point we are being worn thin. Morale is important, no argument there but it isn't an accurate assessment of our strength. However the point I have been trying to get through is that our capability is still VERY strong and we have yet to see us be anywhere near overextended from THAT stand point. None of this have I not said before.. you are just not listening.
The simple fact is that without lying your argument really doesn't hold water so I guess you do what you have to do and it's crystal clear. Twist, spin. whatever. As expected.
Oh and are we at the part now when you are going to start whining about me insulting you and getting all worked up over it when the real issue is you can't handle the truth?
Bark Bark Bark.. lol.
"Starting to meltdown, you are.. hmm?"
-
I haven't avoided anything. I'll say it over and over if I have to. Clinton knew far more about the ADULT OBLs intentions and capabilities than his mother would have giving birth short of being a prophet for Christs sake.. Once again.. a stupid argument. Through negligence Clinton bears a lot of responsibility for letting 9/11 happen, although not all of it. After all, it is you who blames Bush for everything under the sun so this should make sense to you.
No avoidance.. no squirming.. you simply don't grasp this and you don't want to.
Again, still avoiding your statement and desperately spinning it like a broken top. the statement of yours, like so many, highlights your ignorant bias....Clinton let 9/11 happen as if he knew 9/11 was even possible....
It would be nice if you were man enough to stand by your statement, but again you shrunk at the opportunity to back up what you say.
And I bet you even blame him for not invading bagdad....lol
They said it was a concern and I already AGREED with you that from a morale stand point we are being worn thin. Morale is important, no argument there but it isn't an accurate assessment of our strength. However the point I have been trying to get through is that our capability is still VERY strong and we have yet to see us be anywhere near overextended from THAT stand point. None of this have I not said before.. you are just not listening.
No, you said all that long after your stupid statement about we are no where near over extended. You said it in the face of Generals coming out and making statements, you said it in the face of the JC's saying it, and you said it in the face of TOD's being extended.
Let's remind you again of what you said: "We are no where near over extended."
then you even childishly tried to deflect the TOD issue by saying it was a morale issue not a capability issue and now you are trying to back peddle your stupid argument.
That's the point, we are over extended. Now you can say we are not because none of our missions are not being met, but any idiot knows (excluding you), if the JC's are making public statements about it and are worried about the US being able to handle another conflict then we are certainly, depending upon your pov either nearly over extended or are over extended, but we are certainly not: no where near over extended.
Now you can spin and squirm all you want. But it is what it is and you said what you said, not that you have the balls to stand by your ignorant statement to begin with.
The simple fact is that without lying your argument really doesn't hold water so I guess you do what you have to do and it's crystal clear. Twist, spin. whatever. As expected.
Again, you fail miserably to show lying on my part and only furthered making your self look like a desperate fool while the JC's pretty much melted your ice cream. ;D
Bark Bark Bark.. lol.
"Starting to meltdown, you are.. hmm?"
no....lol
just that, tools are pretty predictable.
-
Again, still avoiding your statement and desperately spinning it like a broken top. the statement of yours, like so many, highlights your ignorant bias....Clinton let 9/11 happen as if he knew 9/11 was even possible....
It would be nice if you were man enough to stand by your statement, but again you shrunk at the opportunity to back up what you say.
And I bet you even blame him for not invading bagdad....lol
No, you said all that long after your stupid statement about we are no where near over extended. You said it in the face of Generals coming out and making statements, you said it in the face of the JC's saying it, and you said it in the face of TOD's being extended.
Let's remind you again of what you said: "We are no where near over extended."
then you even childishly tried to deflect the TOD issue by saying it was a morale issue not a capability issue and now you are trying to back peddle your stupid argument.
That's the point, we are over extended. Now you can say we are not because none of our missions are not being met, but any idiot knows (excluding you), if the JC's are making public statements about it and are worried about the US being able to handle another conflict then we are certainly, depending upon your pov either nearly over extended or are over extended, but we are certainly not: no where near over extended.
Now you can spin and squirm all you want. But it is what it is and you said what you said, not that you have the balls to stand by your ignorant statement to begin with.
Again, you fail miserably to show lying on my part and only furthered making your self look like a desperate fool while the JC's pretty much melted your ice cream. ;D
no....lol
just that, tools are pretty predictable.
It's almost like you're not even reading my posts.
I have stood by every statement I have made and even gone into greater detail and broke it down for you since you seem to have a hard time getting it.
I have not twist or spun anything and yet you have done both and lied on top of it.
I've now pointed it out twice before and you STILL aren't admitting it.. and weren't you just accussing ME of squirming, lol? ;D
.. and then your absurd comparison between Clinton and OBL's mother ::) I'm almost embarrassed for you.
-
It's almost like you're not even reading my posts.
If your post contained something other deflection and running away form the facts they might be worth talking about.
But pretty much they are nothing but ignorant bias and fantasy.
I've outlined it again and again.
once more on only 2 points and a shorter version:
- You blame Clinton for 9/11
- You think we are no where near over extended.
Both of which are bias fantasies concocted in an simple mind to support and feed a bigger untrue bias.
tool is, tool does. ::)
So then, you accuse me of lying becuase now the facts are so slanted against your original statement about "no where near being over extended" , you have no choice but to accuse me of lying.
How sad and pathetic.
-
If your post contained something other deflection and running away form the facts they might be worth talking about.
But pretty much they are nothing but ignorant bias and fantasy.
I've outlined it again and again.
once more on only 2 points and a shorter version:
- You blame Clinton for 9/11
- You think we are no where near over extended.
Both of which are bias fantasies concocted in an simple mind to support and feed a bigger untrue bias.
tool is, tool does. ::)
So then, you accuse me of lying becuase now the facts are so slanted against your original statement about "no where near being over extended" , you have no choice but to accuse me of lying.
How sad and pathetic.
You create reasons to hate Bush, then lie and spin to support your arguments. You're calling me biased? ah ahahahahahahahahahahahah ha!!! Oh brother..
Clinton let OBL get away even AFTER he had attacked US forces. He did not care about the country, only himself. Classic Clinton. He didn't cause 9/11, he allowed it to happen far more than Bush did.
We're are not overextended. Our capabilities are more than adequate and we can still respond to any foreseeable crisis. Morale issues are not an assessment of ability.
-
You create reasons to hate Bush, then lie and spin to support your arguments.
Yes, I created faulty intel on WMD's
Yes, I made one of the worse foreign policy decision on the history of the office
Yes, I invaded Iraq with an incompetent after-war plan
Yes, It took me nearly 4 years, 3000 US deaths, 20,000 wounded and 300+ billion for me to figure out we needed more troops in Iraq.
I could lis tmore of what i did to create reasons to hate Bush,
But you definitely got me red handed here.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
You make retarded people look smart.
Clinton let OBL get away even AFTER he had attacked US forces.
Yeah, he did that on purpose, becuase he hates America, is a pacifist, doesn't believe in punishing people, thinks everyone should get money and not earn it.
::) ::) ::) ::)
An you don;t blame clinton for 9/11 it's just that it wouldn't have never happen if it wasn't for him.
We're are not overextended.
So we've down graded from "we are no where near over extended" to "we are not over extended"
::) ::) ::) ::)
Our capabilities are more than adequate and we can still respond to any foreseeable crisis.
Yeah, you know better than the JC's who are concerned that we are.
Yeah, you have the information they have
Yeah, you have knowledge to even interpret the information they have
Yeah, they are wrong and you are not.
Yeah, mandatory extended TOD's are not a sign of problems with over extension.
I really do apologize, you might very well be the stupidest person on earth. I mean just really a dumb dense dim witted person. Like if 100 people at random took a test with you, you'd be in the bottom 10. Or like Forrest Gump.
But at least you know what conservativeness is.... ::)
-
Yes, I created faulty intel on WMD's
Yes, I made one of the worse foreign policy decision on the history of the office
Yes, I invaded Iraq with an incompetent after-war plan
Yes, It took me nearly 4 years, 3000 US deaths, 20,000 wounded and 300+ billion for me to figure out we needed more troops in Iraq.
I could lis tmore of what i did to create reasons to hate Bush,
But you definitely got me red handed here.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
You make retarded people look smart.
-Yes because Bush CREATED the intel, lol! ::) The same intel that had Dems conviced he had WMDs and to vote for the war. Considering what Clinton did to our intel agencies it's no surprise our intel suffered.
-If we win than our war plan might be considered adequate.. I think it was a great foreign policy decision. Destroy a torturous, murderous dictator before he gets too powerful and pulls another Kuwait?.. absolutely.
-Considering what we're doing over there it's pretty impressive that our casualties have been so low. Further testament to our capabilities. Obviously any amount of deaths/wounded/$$$ is too much for someone with a bone to pick against the man in office.
You seem to have the opinion of someone who doesn't really face reality. No surprise there.
An you don;t blame clinton for 9/11 it's just that it wouldn't have never happen if it wasn't for him.
Take a breath and calm down before you pass out there buddy.
So we've down graded from "we are no where near over extended" to "we are not over extended"
::) ::) ::) ::)
Same dif.
Yeah, you know better than the JC's who are concerned that we are.
Yeah, you have the information they have
Yeah, you have knowledge to even interpret the information they have
Yeah, they are wrong and you are not.
Yeah, mandatory extended TOD's are not a sign of problems with over extension.
I really do apologize, you might very well be the stupidest person on earth. I mean just really a dumb dense dim witted person. Like if 100 people at random took a test with you, you'd be in the bottom 10. Or like Forrest Gump.
But at least you know what conservativeness is.... ::)
You mean conservatism? ;D
-
-Yes because Bush CREATED the intel, lol! ::) The same intel that had Dems conviced he had WMDs and to vote for the war.
and who brought the intel to the dems who voted for it in the fear hysteria we were in a the time? ::)
And it doesn't matter anyway if they voted, it was a bad decision on their part.
Considering what Clinton did to our intel agencies it's no surprise our intel suffered.
-If we win than our war plan might be considered adequate.
Here we go banging the "blame clinton for everything drum"
::)
All the country's problems would be have never happened if it wasn't for non-conservatives....
-If we win than our war plan might be considered adequate.
Only the most stupid person on earth would say that, wait that's you.
IF he invaded with the proper amount of troops and a better after war plan this whole thing wouldn't been dragged out like this.
But you are too stupid to even comprehend that possibility or you'll just blame on clinton.
Destroy a torturous, murderous dictator before he gets too powerful and pulls another Kuwait?.. absolutely.
too powerful for what? ::)
-Considering what we're doing over there it's pretty impressive that our casualties have been so low. Further testament to our capabilities.
modern tactics and equipment. Not significant outside of that.
Obviously any amount of deaths/wounded/$$$ is too much for someone with a bone to pick against the man in office.
that's what is a great about a tool, the owner of the tool can do anything and the tool will never see fault or problems in it. Like in this case, the tool cannot see that if the job was done right to begin with many of deaths would be avoided. But the tool is stupid and brained washed to see that or even admitt it. The tool's head might explode.
Yeah, you know better than the JC's who are concerned that we are.
Yeah, you have the information they have
Yeah, you have knowledge to even interpret the information they have
Yeah, they are wrong and you are not.
Yeah, mandatory extended TOD's are not a sign of problems with over extension.
yeah, i figured you'd run out of stupid shit to comeback with about this stuff.
You mean conservatism? Grin
No, i meant conservativeness. I don't think the present conservative would like to associate themselves with the bottom 10%.
-
and who brought the intel to the dems who voted for it in the fear hysteria we were in a the time? ::)
And it doesn't matter anyway if they voted, it was a bad decision on their part.
Here we go banging the "blame clinton for everything drum"
::)
All the country's problems would be have never happened if it wasn't for non-conservatives....
Only the most stupid person on earth would say that, wait that's you.
IF he invaded with the proper amount of troops and a better after war plan this whole thing wouldn't been dragged out like this.
But you are too stupid to even comprehend that possibility or you'll just blame on clinton.
too powerful for what? ::)
modern tactics and equipment. Not significant outside of that.
that's what is a great about a tool, the owner of the tool can do anything and the tool will never see fault or problems in it. Like in this case, the tool cannot see that if the job was done right to begin with many of deaths would be avoided. But the tool is stupid and brained washed to see that or even admitt it. The tool's head might explode.
yeah, i figured you'd run out of stupid shit to comeback with about this stuff.
No, i meant conservativeness. I don't think the present conservative would like to associate themselves with the bottom 10%.
You mean how you blame Bush for everything? lol... what a hypocrite.
It doesn't what I or anyone has said you will find away to use it to support your absurd and illogical views. Typical of someone who knows nothing about the purpose of modern warfare and about priorities. You have fallen victim to the trend of hating Bush and you haven't even blinked an eye. And you were calling ME a tool? ahhahahahahahaah.. very nice. ::)
Destroying Saddam and his regime was necessary and a good thing.
Destroying terrorism throughout the middle east is also the above.
When this is over the world and especially the USA will be better off for it.
Almost all the negativity surrounding the war is from people who have made Bush out to be the devil himself and just want more ammunition against him, nothing more. (this means you)
Go back and read my posts again and maybe you'll start to use your noggin, ok buddy?
-
You mean how you blame Bush for everything? lol... what a hypocrite.
It doesn't what I or anyone has said you will find away to use it to support your absurd and illogical views. Typical of someone who knows nothing about the purpose of modern warfare and about priorities. You have fallen victim to the trend of hating Bush and you haven't even blinked an eye. And you were calling ME a tool? ahhahahahahahaah.. very nice. ::)
Destroying Saddam and his regime was necessary and a good thing.
Destroying terrorism throughout the middle east is also the above.
When this is over the world and especially the USA will be better off for it.
Almost all the negativity surrounding the war is from people who have made Bush out to be the devil himself and just want more ammunition against him, nothing more. (this means you)
Go back and read my posts again and maybe you'll start to use your noggin, ok buddy?
Fail. As usual. We dont need ammunition to use against bush. He provides new material every 20 min's.
-
You mean how you blame Bush for everything? lol... what a hypocrite.
It doesn't what I or anyone has said you will find away to use it to support your absurd and illogical views. Typical of someone who knows nothing about the purpose of modern warfare and about priorities. You have fallen victim to the trend of hating Bush and you haven't even blinked an eye. And you were calling ME a tool? ahhahahahahahaah.. very nice. ::)
You are the idiot, that claims we are "no where near" over extended while the JCS tells the president they are concerned about our ability to respond to another crisis.
What you are speaks so loudly, no one can hear what you are saying.
Destroying Saddam and his regime was necessary and a good thing.
Destroying terrorism throughout the middle east is also the above.
When this is over the world and especially the USA will be better off for it.
Almost all the negativity surrounding the war is from people who have made Bush out to be the devil himself and just want more ammunition against him, nothing more. (this means you)
Go back and read my posts again and maybe you'll start to use your noggin, ok buddy?
Labeling anyone who questions the obvious major mistake of Bush's decision as a "Bush hater" is a desperate attempt to misdirect attention from the facts of Bush's failure as a president after 2003.
But then again that's the only tactic that the mental capacity of a tool allows. So forgive me if i don't re-read your posts. Re-reading them again will not change the fact that they where written by an idiot and contain no substance outside of a rambling tool.
-
You are the idiot, that claims we are "no where near" over extended while the JCS tells the president they are concerned about our ability to respond to another crisis.
What you are speaks so loudly, no one can hear what you are saying.
Labeling anyone who questions the obvious major mistake of Bush's decision as a "Bush hater" is a desperate attempt to misdirect attention from the facts of Bush's failure as a president after 2003.
But then again that's the only tactic that the mental capacity of a tool allows. So forgive me if i don't re-read your posts. Re-reading them again will not change the fact that they where written by an idiot and contain no substance outside of a rambling tool.
I agree.. your ignorance makes it very hard for you to read what I say. Not my problem.
And it's pretty pathetic that you have to marginalize me as an idiot or what not because if you didn't you might actually have to respond with something other than "you're a tool" and sound intelligent for once.
-
I agree.. your ignorance makes it very hard for you to read what I say. Not my problem.
And it's pretty pathetic that you have to marginalize me as an idiot or what not because if you didn't you might actually have to respond with something other than "you're a tool" and sound intelligent for once.
No, tool you got it all wrong as usual.
I call you an idiot and a tool because in the face of statements from the JCS, and other things, you still maintain we are no where near over extended and provide lame arguments like extended TOD's are a moral issue or use the S & S to support your stupid arguments.
Now i can try and draw a picture for you if you'd like.
But it won't change a thing.
-
Brix,
they just replayed 4 top military men's testimony, plus that of barry mccaffrey.
all said we're strained.
additionally, for the first time in us history, we're actually letting troops numbers dictate field policy. usually, you write the military plan and use as many men as are needed. Now, we are limited in battlefield options because we're limited in soldiers.
also, gen mccaffrey said 10% of our military men shouldn't be there - that lowering standards so far to meet numbers is causing this.
-
Brix,
they just replayed 4 top military men's testimony, plus that of barry mccaffrey.
all said we're strained.
additionally, for the first time in us history, we're actually letting troops numbers dictate field policy. usually, you write the military plan and use as many men as are needed. Now, we are limited in battlefield options because we're limited in soldiers.
also, gen mccaffrey said 10% of our military men shouldn't be there - that lowering standards so far to meet numbers is causing this.
Don't confuse him with more facts. He's libel to implode and meltdown.
Just let him live in his little fantasy world where all the problems are the Liberal's fault and we are no where near over extended and Clinton let 9/11 happen.
Otherwise, he'll start whining again.
-
Brix,
they just replayed 4 top military men's testimony, plus that of barry mccaffrey.
all said we're strained.
additionally, for the first time in us history, we're actually letting troops numbers dictate field policy. usually, you write the military plan and use as many men as are needed. Now, we are limited in battlefield options because we're limited in soldiers.
also, gen mccaffrey said 10% of our military men shouldn't be there - that lowering standards so far to meet numbers is causing this.
Agree with the 10%. I am well aware of some of the garbage the US Army has let in in order to meet recruitment goals.. it's sickening.
I will find and read what they say but I am sure that the morale and welfare issues are a far greater concern than actual capability.
-
the iraqi progress hearings have been on cnn, fox, and msnbc all day.
general petraeus and ambasador crocker have shifted to defending the bush policy on each item - the first time they've appeared partisan. They've both stepped outside military discussion into political areas today... and they can't do that lol...
they've both essentially admitted that nothing will change until spring 2009. They have a 4-step process of evaluation and assessment with undefined timelines. They admit each step could be 4 months or more. it's pretty official - the war will stay the same until next year.