Thoughts on the Presidents speech!

[Mr. Intenseone]

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.





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.

Sorry Rob, this isn't exactly a bi-partisan effort as the Dems promised, by them saying that is was just a way to get (barely) the majority of the election...if it was a bi-partisan effort the President wouldn't be so much up aginst the wall.

Do you actually think the President came up with those numbers all on his own? It's the Generals who comes up with the war stragities not the President, he finalizes the decisions. Rob, you say your a conservative but 95% of the posts you make are blatent Liberal...it saddens me really!

[GroinkTropin]

Ok, anti war bitches, read my typed print- WE CANNOT LOSE CONTROL OF IRAQ. If we do, Iran will jump in there as quickly as possible, egypt and other middle eastern countries will jump in there as well, trying to seize control of the area. What happens next is predicatable, there will be wide spread violence on a scale not seen in a long time, and china russia and the US will be forced to get troops in the to make sure the global oil supply is not disrupted. AKA WW3. If russia or china puts themselves in a position to control world oil, you think theyre playing friendly with us? Fook no, ALL PERSONS on this planet look out for themselves in one way or another, this is true for the US as well. How would you like to live like our ancestors did in the 1800's? Our way of life ends if our supply of oil gets disrupted, and you liberals can thank YOURSELVES for this fucking mess as you all bitch and complain when we try to drill anywhere near this country, thus forcing our dependance internationally. If we could drill in alaska like we'd like to, this wouldn't be happening. But NOOOOOO, there are birds and small mammals out there! Even though we can drill without destroying the place, the small worthless bags of fur might, might NOTICE there is something that doesnt belong there! Well we can't have that, even though most "activists" have never even set foot in these "sanctuaries" so we have to import. I for one think an easier way to get things done is just invade mexico, boot out there idiot drug cartel government, and take over their oil. They have a large portion of the worlds oil, untapped, from what I hear. I'd rather our troops face dirty water, bad burritos, and filthy prositutes than crazed religious nutjubs with bombs on their chests any day. Oh yeah,l the speech was one of the best he's ever given. I think it lends a lot of support to the theory that he is actually very intelligent, and "dumbs down" for the camera a lot, to appeal to the average american idiot. Bush is a smart man, I don't think we are sending enough troops, but some is better than none I suppose.

[Wombat]

Ok, anti war bitches, read my typed print- WE CANNOT LOSE CONTROL OF IRAQ. If we do, Iran will jump in there as quickly as possible, egypt and other middle eastern countries will jump in there as well, trying to seize control of the area. What happens next is predicatable, there will be wide spread violence on a scale not seen in a long time, and china russia and the US will be forced to get troops in the to make sure the global oil supply is not disrupted. AKA WW3. If russia or china puts themselves in a position to control world oil, you think theyre playing friendly with us? Fook no, ALL PERSONS on this planet look out for themselves in one way or another, this is true for the US as well. How would you like to live like our ancestors did in the 1800's? Our way of life ends if our supply of oil gets disrupted, and you liberals can thank YOURSELVES for this fucking mess as you all bitch and complain when we try to drill anywhere near this country, thus forcing our dependance internationally. If we could drill in alaska like we'd like to, this wouldn't be happening. But NOOOOOO, there are birds and small mammals out there! Even though we can drill without destroying the place, the small worthless bags of fur might, might NOTICE there is something that doesnt belong there! Well we can't have that, even though most "activists" have never even set foot in these "sanctuaries" so we have to import. I for one think an easier way to get things done is just invade mexico, boot out there idiot drug cartel government, and take over their oil. They have a large portion of the worlds oil, untapped, from what I hear. I'd rather our troops face dirty water, bad burritos, and filthy prositutes than crazed religious nutjubs with bombs on their chests any day. Oh yeah,l the speech was one of the best he's ever given. I think it lends a lot of support to the theory that he is actually very intelligent, and "dumbs down" for the camera a lot, to appeal to the average american idiot. Bush is a smart man, I don't think we are sending enough troops, but some is better than none I suppose.

you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...

Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S.  If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..

[Mr. Intenseone]

you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...

Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S.  If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..

You must get your info the same place where the rest of the libs on here do!

[GroinkTropin]

you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...

Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S.  If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..

So, basically you have no arguement to my statement that if we could drill for oil freely as we wish, and we'rent dependant on any country for it, we wouldn't even be in the middle east.

[240 is Back]

i refuse to believe our troops are dying for profits only.  that's too outrageous.

I wish I could believe you were right.  But the trend here is to start a war on shady intel, blaze a trail to the capital in two weeks for CNN, then convert to maintenance mode where you just sit there and fight random groups who are only fighting because you're sitting there (note: They didn't die in the original battle).

It happened in afghanistan.  It happened in Iraq.  Bush said last night we were mobilizing forces to act should he decide (and Tony Snow reinforced it today that if Bush sees a threat, he will order strikes on iran.  Kinda hard to ask him for proof after he bombs half the place).

If it happens in iran, will you believe it?

If not, will a 4th war (while the first 3 sit on standby) convince you?

5?

[Wombat]

So, basically you have no arguement to my statement that if we could drill for oil freely as we wish, and we'rent dependant on any country for it, we wouldn't even be in the middle east.

and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska?  And how long would it last?

[Mr. Intenseone]

and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska?  And how long would it last?

LOL...okay, so we're there to take the oil...right?

[240 is Back]

we're in iraq to prevent china and russia from making deals witht he new iraqi govt.   we don't want them to sell their oil to anyone they choose.  we told al malaki- here, you can run the place, but we will control your only export forever.  and he took it. 

[GroinkTropin]

and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska?  And how long would it last?

The stores are actually quite large, enough to run the entire country for 25 years if I remember correctly. This IS and ISN"T a war for oil, oil is certainly a part of it but there is also the issue of fighting terrorists (now called insurgents, or laughably "freedom fighters" by insane liberals) and also the issue of feeding the military/industrial complex. I would rather see us fight iranians than russians, wouldn't you?

[GroinkTropin]

we're in iraq to prevent china and russia from making deals witht he new iraqi govt.   we don't want them to sell their oil to anyone they choose.  we told al malaki- here, you can run the place, but we will control your only export forever.  and he took it. 

EXACTLY. It's a matter of self preservation, like it or not.

[240 is Back]

EXACTLY. It's a matter of self preservation, like it or not.

yep.  problem is, instead of guarding the borders and pipeline, and telling the world we are there for the resource, we prefer to say "we're fighting for democracy'.  we're losing men, doing nothing (this is the 5th troop surge now), just to maintain face and keep our true intentions quiet.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

I agree.  We're not invading Iran. 

[GroinkTropin]

I agree.  We're not invading Iran. 

It would be far too costly, both financially and im human loss. If you remember, Iran in the past had no problem sending out a human shield of small children to help defeat iraq, can you even IMAGINE what kind of reaction the bleeding heart libs would have in this country?! It would be pandemonium.

[240 is Back]

I agree.  We're not invading Iran. 

Will we be striking them with missiles?

[Dos Equis]

Will we be striking them with missiles?

Perhaps.  Certainly not anything I'm losing any sleep over. 

[240 is Back]

Perhaps.  Certainly not anything I'm losing any sleep over. 

of course not.



Go watch the OC.

[Dos Equis]

of course not.

Go watch the OC.

Go watch Sesame Street.  You might learn something.  In between your crackpot conspiracies of course.  Priorities. 

[GroinkTropin]

Will we be striking them with missiles?

We're not gonna do shit, Israel will and we will just support them. If Iran launches some devastating WMD's at Israel though, it's MOAB time.

[mightymouse72]

I wish I could believe you were right.  But the trend here is to start a war on shady intel, blaze a trail to the capital in two weeks for CNN, then convert to maintenance mode where you just sit there and fight random groups who are only fighting because you're sitting there (note: They didn't die in the original battle).

It happened in afghanistan.  It happened in Iraq.  Bush said last night we were mobilizing forces to act should he decide (and Tony Snow reinforced it today that if Bush sees a threat, he will order strikes on iran.  Kinda hard to ask him for proof after he bombs half the place).

If it happens in iran, will you believe it?

If not, will a 4th war (while the first 3 sit on standby) convince you?

5?

we will not invade iran guaranteed.

we went to afganistan because they were harboring al-qada.  not a maintenance war.  come on. 
we went into iraq because saddam was a threat to us and the world and he wouldn't abide by international law.
are we still in germany, japan and korea for "maintenance?"

i'm not saying iran doesn't need to be bi**h slapped, but we won't invade and occupy.

however, if they mess with israel like that dopey leader says he will, israel will take care of iran for us.
 

[Dos Equis]

we will not invade iran guaranteed.

we went to afganistan because they were harboring al-qada.  not a maintenance war.  come on. 
we went into iraq because saddam was a threat to us and the world and he wouldn't abide by international law.
are we still in germany, japan and korea for "maintenance?"

i'm not saying iran doesn't need to be bi**h slapped, but we won't invade and occupy.

however, if they mess with israel like that dopey leader says he will, israel will take care of iran for us.
 

I agree, but just to clarify, we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea.  I think we'll probably always have a division in Iraq, but it won't be much different than say Korea. 

[Camel Jockey]

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!

What does the the Iraq war have to do with keeping this country safe? How would it do damage to this country? You're a dumbass redneck who still believes Iraq was responsible for 9/11. rofl do you think the hijackers were Iraqi too? With every post you make yourself look worse, so stop posting and go kill yourself.

[Mr. Intenseone]

What does the the Iraq war have to do with keeping this country safe?

*SIGH*

[Camel Jockey]

*SIGH*

They didn't attack us on 9/11? You do know the hijackers were Saudi, right? They are manily concerned with creating a Shia muslim state and don't want the US there. They ARE NO THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY.

There was a report released a while back that said Iraq had nothing to do with the security of this nation.

[Mr. Intenseone]

They didn't attack us on 9/11? You do know the hijackers were Saudi, right? They are manily concerned with creating a Shia muslim state and don't want the US there. They ARE NO THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY.

There was a report released a while back that said Iraq had nothing to do with the security of this nation.

In the Presidents first speech after 9/11 he said (I'm paraphrasing) " that we will go after anyone in any country that harbors terrorists or that have ties to terrorism" Saddam had precisly those ties and that effects the safety of our country!