MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

[egj13]

These observations are taken from a closed door meeting btn the generals and the president.  It is not their place to say to the president, "your plan is shit!"  They offer their opinions as to the surge's efficacy.  In short, they said everything but the final summation that the surge is BS.

This does sound like an endorsement of the surge doesn't it:

... the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military...

Fair enough.  Here's another source:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301379.html

Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy
Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army

"The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq..."

"The plan would not allow for any major reduction in U.S. troops in Iraq over the next year -- nor would it call for any surge in troops..."

What happened to those generals?  Did they suddenly flip and become pro-surge?

Or did this happen?
Bush shakes up war team
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-04-mcconnell-negroponte_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Looks like the generals disagreed with Bush.  But then Gen. Casey--the chief Gen. in Iraq got the Heave-ho and Gen. Petraeus was installed.  Someone sharing Bush's surge vision.

Look, you seem smart at times. I know you don't know how the military runs, but there are 6 guys that make the final call on military issues and Gen Casey isn't one of them. Nothing gets done with out the JCS saying it should be done. So until you can show me where one of them is quoted as disagreeing quit lining up desk jockey's; and I will give you there names to save time:

Mr. Robert Gates SECDEF
General Peter Pace USMC
General Michael Moseley USAF
General George Casey USA
Admiral Michael Mullen USN
General James Conley USMC

[240 is Back]

The US couldn't win in Viet Nam with over half a million troops and carpet bombings.

That's the nature of occupation and guerilla warfare.  It is unwinnable.

The enemy can outlast any occupying force.

Estimates of the Iraqi insurgency range from 20,000 to 25,000 hardcore fighters and up to 100,000 fighters in total. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Scope_and_size_of_the_insurgency

Absolutely correct!

Now, if you and I know that... I am betting the fine folks in military planning knew that in 2001-2002.

And maybe they knew owning the country wasn't a possibility - it never has been in any war where you're the occupier and you don't stay.  They know this.  So they made the goal to hang out and defend themselves while grabbing the oil.  Then, leaving.  hell, there's nothing but sand and anger in the area once the oil is taken.

So while you are right in your analysis, you're incorrect in your assumption that we're trying to win the war.  We're not.  We're trying to minimize losses while installing an oil pipeline and the 14 bases which coincidentally sit on that oil pipeline.  it's a hit and run.  We never planned to succeed in war, only to succeed in the heist.

[egj13]

Our 100,000+ contractors have had free reign there.
Our 160,000+ troops have had great ability to break war laws, including use of torture.

We have unlimited money (200mil a day), weapons, technology.  They have finite number of weapons.

We have unlimited funds to pay off snitches and give reward money.


And, there's that one little fact we told the UN we didn't want their help in rebuilding iraq, for the sole purpose of keeping oil revenues to ourselves.








it's not the troops - they fight their asses off.  but methinks that *something* is at work to make sure the bad guys slip away to fight another day, they never run out of munitions, and they always get an attack off when it's most politically feasible.

Try this...
*IF* the goal of the war is oil... then the goal of 2007 would be to stall while we installed the oil (knowing the premise we have to leave when there is peace).  IF the goal is oil, then the goal right now, by definition then, is NO peace.  make sense?

I refuse to engage you on this because you have no knowledge of how the war is fought and what those 160K people are used for. I don't care what ancient chinese books you read, you have zero idea.

[240 is Back]

I refuse to engage you on this because you have no knowledge of how the war is fought and what those 160K people are used for. I don't care what ancient chinese books you read, you have zero idea.

They're too busy building pipeline infrastructure to pick up a gun, eh?

[egj13]

They're too busy building pipeline infrastructure to pick up a gun, eh?

Like I said no idea. While you are well versed in many areas you are ignorant on how the military runs.

[Dos Equis]

He pwns you sorry ass democrats. ROMNEY FOR PREZ IN 2008! Guiliani and mccain showed tonight in south caroline that they are incapable of projecting the strength romney can and does, he will be a good president.

I missed the debate, but I'm impressed with any Republican who can be elected governor of Massachusetts. 

[Decker]

Look, you seem smart at times. I know you don't know how the military runs, but there are 6 guys that make the final call on military issues and Gen Casey isn't one of them. Nothing gets done with out the JCS saying it should be done. So until you can show me where one of them is quoted as disagreeing quit lining up desk jockey's; and I will give you there names to save time:

Mr. Robert Gates SECDEF
General Peter Pace USMC
General Michael Moseley USAF
General George Casey USA
Admiral Michael Mullen USN
General James Conley USMC

Thank you for the condescending compliment. 

The '6 guys' do not make the final call on military issues. 

The president makes the final call. 

The Joint Chiefs are advisory only. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_chiefs_of_staff#Roles_and_Responsibilities
 http://www.jcs.mil/cjs/jcs_mission_statement.html

Your request for quotes is not practical.  Private advisory meetings between the president and the joint chiefs are not subject to public minutes.

And no general expecting to keep his job would go on the record as disagreeing with the president over security matters.

U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey...opposed sending more troops to Iraq...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16297007/

See, the general doesn't disagree with the president.  But he doesn't agree with the surge.  Talk about semantical gymnastics.

Today, Gen. George Casey, U.S. commander in Baghdad, is in hot water with administration proponents of a "surge" because he believes what he recently told the New York Times: "The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq's security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq's problems, which are at base their problems."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010501806.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

That's as close to a public admission as you'll get.

[240 is Back]

The '6 guys' do not make the final call on military issues. 

The president makes the final call. 

"I'm the decider!"

I always wondered why the most powerful man on Earth would feel the need to tell us he's the decider.  Isn't that beyond obvious? 

[Eyeball Chambers]

Ron Paul won the Fox News Debate Poll.

[Decker]

"I'm the decider!"

I always wondered why the most powerful man on Earth would feel the need to tell us he's the decider.  Isn't that beyond obvious? 

It's like an epiphany for him that separation of powers exist.

This guy's so far out of his depth that it's way beyond bathos

[Tre]

You guys are forgetting all about Mitt:

 

[Laughing Sam's Dice]

You guys are forgetting all about Mitt:

 

Bump for knowing how delusional Mormons like Romney are.

[Tesla]

Romney is going to win.  He has shown that he can carry blue states and yet he's conservative enough to win the south.  Who is going to beat him?  Giuliani is too liberal to win the Republican primary and McCain lacks the stature to be president. 

Look at the 2004 election map...



If Hillary is the candidate which of those red states are going to go blue?  None.  But I can easily see some of the states that were blue shifting to red for Romney (New Hampshire, Mass, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).  I'd rather have Ron Paul win but I'm growing more convinced that Mitt is the man to beat. 

[Tre]

Romney is going to win.  He has shown that he can carry blue states and yet he's conservative enough to win the south.  Who is going to beat him? 

Answer: "The other guy."

It'll be at least another quarter-century before a devout Mormon can win the South, even with the church's huge PR campaign. 

That's reality. 

[240 is Back]

Romney is pro-war.

if he would step back on that issue, he'd be a shoo-in to win it all.

But, he backs bush war policy.  Do you want 4 to 8 more years of losing 200 mil and 4 men day in iraq?  Cause you're going to get it if you vote romney.  Behold your folly!