MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

[GroinkTropin]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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

[AE]

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". 

[egj13]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[Decker]

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.

[egj13]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[egj13]

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?

[Decker]

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. ...

[240 is Back]

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.

[Tre]

 

[headhuntersix]

We needed about 200,000 more guys in the beginning..we would have far less there now if Rummy had listened to his generals.

[egj13]

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

[Decker]

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.

[egj13]

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.

[Decker]

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?

[egj13]

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.

[Decker]

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?

[egj13]

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."

[Decker]

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.

[240 is Back]

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.

[egj13]

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.

[240 is Back]

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?

[Decker]

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