Thoughts on the Presidents speech!

[Mr. Intenseone]

..........and be fair !

[Old_Rooster]

Damn good speech.   We have no other choice than to try to WIN this war.   We can't choose the democrats option of LOSING the war, the damage that would do to this country is catastophic.  Democrats in my mind wanting an immediate pullout, stop funding the war, well hell, democrats should be shot for even thinking thats an option.

Not one attack on U.S. soil since this war began.  Thank you for being strong and not wavering President Bush. I salute you sir!

[240 is Back]

It was a solid speech supporting a half-assed solution to very big problem.

Either put in 250k forces in SUmmer 2007 and kill everything with an attitude in 2 months...
Or pull out Americans gradually.

To anyone with a brain, the "insert 20k now and 92,000 over the next 5 years" appraoch means slowly feeding more soldiers to the insurgents.  If you think there aren't going to be 92,000 Iraqis in the next 5 years, you're crazy.  There will be many more.


Of course, bush isn't working for you and I, or he would do what it takes to win, or go home.  Bush is working for the group of firms which profits greatly from war.  I would like to win the war there.  I would hate to leave a void.  but it's pretty clear that Bush isn't trying to win, he's just increasing spending.


It's all about dollars, people.  It's now clear to 70% of Americans.

[240 is Back]

and for anyone who wants to accuse me of hating bush, YOU defend the policy of 21k new men. 

it's nothing but a drop in the bucket.  That's 5000 new men on the ground maximum at any one time.  Do you know how big Baghdad is?  Essentially, every 10th US patrol witll have an extra man on it.  Sure, it'll help some.  but when a prick in a Chevette with a backseat of C4 drives into a humvee, it just means 4 dead soldiers instead of 3.

OVERWHELMING force is needed to win.  The generals keep saying it, and they keep getting moved out because of it.

I DARE someone here to defend the 21k number.  IMO it is nothing but an inflationary raise (to match the growth in insurgent numbers this year).  And since it's been a stalemate with the ratios we've had for the last 3 years, it's going to continue being a stalemate for the next year.  if you argueo therwise, please explain why.

and the 92k number is just a 18,400 per year soldier increase.  Inflationary to match the insurgent growth.  Geez, I dont know why people are too dense to see this.  Bush is simply matching the growth of the insurgents.  Nothing more.  The result will be a continued stalemate, nothing more.

[Old_Rooster]

and for anyone who wants to accuse me of hating bush, YOU defend the policy of 21k new men. 

it's nothing but a drop in the bucket.  That's 5000 new men on the ground maximum at any one time.  Do you know how big Baghdad is?  Essentially, every 10th US patrol witll have an extra man on it.  Sure, it'll help some.  but when a prick in a Chevette with a backseat of C4 drives into a humvee, it just means 4 dead soldiers instead of 3.

OVERWHELMING force is needed to win.  The generals keep saying it, and they keep getting moved out because of it.

I DARE someone here to defend the 21k number.  IMO it is nothing but an inflationary raise (to match the growth in insurgent numbers this year).  And since it's been a stalemate with the ratios we've had for the last 3 years, it's going to continue being a stalemate for the next year.  if you argueo therwise, please explain why.

and the 92k number is just a 18,400 per year soldier increase.  Inflationary to match the insurgent growth.  Geez, I dont know why people are too dense to see this.  Bush is simply matching the growth of the insurgents.  Nothing more.  The result will be a continued stalemate, nothing more.

because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that.  and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com

[OzmO]

..........and be fair !

You're wanting to be fair?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[OzmO]

because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that.  and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com

You trust his prediction of a fast quick war in Iraq?

If he's in it to win.........  he sucks at it.

[Hugo Chavez]

You're wanting to be fair?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

That's what I was thinking... Fair is out the window Intenseone...  You tossed it out a long time ago and so did Bush...

[mightymouse72]

Damn good speech.   We have no other choice than to try to WIN this war.   We can't choose the democrats option of LOSING the war, the damage that would do to this country is catastophic.  Democrats in my mind wanting an immediate pullout, stop funding the war, well hell, democrats should be shot for even thinking thats an option.

Not one attack on U.S. soil since this war began.  Thank you for being strong and not wavering President Bush. I salute you sir!

Bravo.
i like the dems statement; "it's time to start ending the war." 
not winning but ending.
sad

[rockyfortune]

because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that.  and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com

And what knowledge is that? in december, he said we were winning the war..in january..we are not...his generals say 20k men won't do jack s**t but he knows better than seasoned, career military men?  the ISG makes recommendations to him but he ignores all of them..but he knows better than all those in that group?  what has president bush said or done to warrant this trust?

[Mr. Intenseone]

It was a solid speech supporting a half-assed solution to very big problem.

Either put in 250k forces in SUmmer 2007 and kill everything with an attitude in 2 months...
Or pull out Americans gradually.

To anyone with a brain, the "insert 20k now and 92,000 over the next 5 years" appraoch means slowly feeding more soldiers to the insurgents.  If you think there aren't going to be 92,000 Iraqis in the next 5 years, you're crazy.  There will be many more.


Of course, bush isn't working for you and I, or he would do what it takes to win, or go home.  Bush is working for the group of firms which profits greatly from war.  I would like to win the war there.  I would hate to leave a void.  but it's pretty clear that Bush isn't trying to win, he's just increasing spending.


It's all about dollars, people.  It's now clear to 70% of Americans.

I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!

[240 is Back]

I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!

woah, this isn't about liberals. it's about bush's speech and 21,500 soldier plan.

I want to win the war there.  But this is what baffles me about bush's plan:

If the Generals, most republicans, and many democrats, all say that 21,500 isn't enough, WHO is telling him to select 21,500?

The generals and most sensible folks say "put in 100k quickly and crush them".  They can't stop Bush, the forces are available on a short term basis.  Why not do that?  The 21,500 number now and 92,000 level over 5 years is nothing more than maintenance forces.  i don't think anyone can argue that.  Treading water. period.

because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that.  and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com

No, it's not asinine.  Look at some of our past wars.  They were "maintenance" wars designed to keep a region in turmoil so that the US could remain and protect vital interests in the region, without the messiness of WINNING and turning over control, at which point we would have to leave and the iraqis could start making deals with neighbors and would quickly become danger.

You're wrong, rooster, because you don't understand our purpose there.  The 21,500 number and 92k over 5 years figures - these further support my claim.  This is a maintenace war.  We want to MAINTAIN a presence.  our troops are only growing as fast as the insurgents are.  Do you not find this weird?

If you disagree, go ahead and explain putting in just enough troops to match insurgent growth, with the existing ratio has proven wrong for 3 years.

[Wombat]

so he wants to send in 20,000 more security guards...I say cut our losses take off, let the Iraqies fight it all out for a few years and we take the 1/4 billion we were spending everyday and put it toward securing this country inhouse...Borders and ports..

[OzmO]

I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!

I thought you said be fair?   

I guess that only applies if you support Bush's brilliant blunder.

[rockyfortune]

so he wants to send in 20,000 more security guards...I say cut our losses take off, let the Iraqies fight it all out for a few years and we take the 1/4 billion we were spending everyday and put it toward securing this country inhouse...Borders and ports..

Why do that?..the republicans and georgie W. say 1/4 billion spent on a bunch of hammerheads in the desert is money well spent...especially when a half that money ends up back in no-bid govt contracts.

[youandme]

Bravo.
i like the dems statement; "it's time to start ending the war." 
not winning but ending.
sad

"ending" what is there to win?
DUH more contracts!

[mightymouse72]

"ending" what is there to win?
DUH more contracts!

like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory.  we will fight these fanatics for a very long time. 

when the iraqi military can hold the towns, and neighborhoods by themselves without the US would be winning. not won but winning

[240 is Back]

like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory.  we will fight these fanatics for a very long time. 

when the iraqi military can hold the towns, and neighborhoods by themselves without the US would be winning. not won but winning

you will see iraq become another afghan. when we invade iran.

you will see iran become another afghan. when we invade syria.

you will see all 4 sit in a 'holding pattern' when we take on whoever is next.

[mightymouse72]

you will see iraq become another afghan. when we invade iran.

you will see iran become another afghan. when we invade syria.

you will see all 4 sit in a 'holding pattern' when we take on whoever is next.

what makes you believe these things.

[youandme]

like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory.  we will fight these fanatics for a very long time. 

Yeah he made it a little "fuzzzy" don't you think. Hmmmm
There is not going to be a victory, it's pull out know or pull out later. Troops are stretched to thin right now, and with Iran knocking things 'outlook not so good'
I though it was pretty funny how Bush decalared "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."

[240 is Back]

what makes you believe these things.

Because

1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)

2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.

3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.

4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies

5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.

[OzmO]

Because

1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)

2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.

3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.

4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies

5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.

Very nice summary.

[mightymouse72]

Because

1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)

2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.

3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.

4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies

5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.

huh??

that doesn't explain to me why you think we will invade iran and syria.

[240 is Back]

huh??

that doesn't explain to me why you think we will invade iran and syria.

Because instead of these groups being able to profit once (afghan) or twice (iran), they can profit 3 or 4 times.

Globally, it means the twunts in charge can't get swindled or invaded, etc - we remain, fighting with a group of local douchebags who resent us.  For these groups, it means more money.  The only losers are the civilians we're invading, our children's economy, the dead US forces, etc.

I think Bush's cabinet's PNAC plan called for invasion and occupation of one nation after another in the middle east, every 2 or 3 years, until we control the region's resources.

It's gonna happen.  This will later be known as the period of "democracy spreading in the region" when in reality, we are just getting their sexy oil.

You don't have to believe me.  Just save this post and open it every time we invade another nation.  Iran is next, and we'll be just holding pattern in the other countries.  Syria, while we sit in the other 3.  Then, who knows.  But this was planned by Bush's people in 2000 (google PNAC)

[mightymouse72]

Because instead of these groups being able to profit once (afghan) or twice (iran), they can profit 3 or 4 times.

Globally, it means the twunts in charge can't get swindled or invaded, etc - we remain, fighting with a group of local douchebags who resent us.  For these groups, it means more money.  The only losers are the civilians we're invading, our children's economy, the dead US forces, etc.

I think Bush's cabinet's PNAC plan called for invasion and occupation of one nation after another in the middle east, every 2 or 3 years, until we control the region's resources.

It's gonna happen.  This will later be known as the period of "democracy spreading in the region" when in reality, we are just getting their sexy oil.

You don't have to believe me.  Just save this post and open it every time we invade another nation.  Iran is next, and we'll be just holding pattern in the other countries.  Syria, while we sit in the other 3.  Then, who knows.  But this was planned by Bush's people in 2000 (google PNAC)

i refuse to believe our troops are dying for profits only.  that's too outrageous.
i don't believe we will invade iran.  or occupy as you say
what i do believe is we will begin to fight iran on a smaller scale.  we are fighting them now in iraq anyway.  we are just going to move the fighting closer to the border of iran.
if we don't, iraq doesn't stand a chance. 

this nutbag in iran is probably on his way out, from what i've read about.