[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Most people criticize the decision to invade...

I haven't criticized the decision to invade. You seem to forget that I support the war. I have considered it my duty to do so from the beginning.

Originally Posted by marden 

There are certain aspects of the war that are done better or worse than other aspects.
These areas of performance might start off a minus then become a plus, or the other way around. Or they might start as a plus and stay a plus. Or the other way around. Or they might be a draw and the enemy keeps evolving and changing their methods until they take advantage of our weaknesses...

If this is an explanation of how the above reasons to invade are legit even if they have bore no fruit, it is irrelevant to me since as I said, I support the war.

Originally Posted by marden 

...and because we are committed to a set of principles which doesn't help achieve victory we become inflexibly mired in the morass of our own mindsets.

So answer my question then. What has Bush done to combat the "morass of our own mindsets"?

This is relevant because the whole operation depends on it.

If you don't believe the whole operation depends on it, just read the article you posted. That's Novak's thesis.

Hell, even the Islamists know this is what the operation depends on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and as I said, then you have Clinton. If he couldn't find a way to spin something or keep the heat off himself, he simply didn't do it. It was much easier work basking in high poll numbers making very few difficult choices than to take the "road less traveled" and hope for the best. Bush, for better or worse, doesn't seem to suffer from the same cowardice.

You are conflating heat on Bush with heat on the mission.

The Democrats are going to try force a timetable on Bush over his protests, and have won the political power to do so. It will likely put the entire mission in jeopardy. This isn't heat on Bush, it's heat on the mission.

The point isn't "don't do something unless you can keep the heat off yourself", it's "if the mission depends on keeping heat off the mission, you need to keep the heat off the mission".

No one wants to answer the question. What did Bush do to keep the heat off the mission?

A speech?

Calling those were giving him heat un-American?

Blaming the press?

He was antagonistic towards the only people who actually had the power to put a spike in things.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one wants to answer the question. What did Bush do to keep the heat off the mission?

This has been one of my bigger complaints with this Administration. Their PR was is woefully inept. However...

A speech?

As President, what else is there?

Calling those were giving him heat un-American?

Never happened outside a colorful bumpersticker.

Blaming the press?

Never happened outside a colorful bumpersticker.

He was antagonistic towards the only people who actually had the power to put a spike in things.

How so?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by subego 

You are conflating heat on Bush with heat on the mission.

The Democrats are going to try force a timetable on Bush over his protests, and have won the political power to do so. It will likely put the entire mission in jeopardy. This isn't heat on Bush, it's heat on the mission.

What exactly is the mission in Iraq now anyway?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This has been one of my bigger complaints with this Administration.

Complaint?

Read the article that marden posted. It makes the (correct) claim that Iraq is (was) a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. That the only way the terrorists can win is by sowing dissent in the mind of the American opposition.

Bush's "woefully inept" PR is what sunk the war. Complaint indeed.

What? It didn't? It was the Democrats fault? How would you know? How can anyone know? Bush never addressed the opposition with anything but bad PR.

You say my claims of antagonism are "bumperstickers". Bumperstickers aren't PR? Bumperstickers can't be antagonistic?

When we talked about this in the other thread you said one of the problems with my argument is that I'm ignoring how antagonistic the Democrats were.

I'm saying "so what?"

The Democrats acted exactly the way they did in Vietnam, and they acted this way to their guy, so it's not like it's a partisan thing. This should have been anticipated and confronted.

Trying to get the Democrats to act the way they did in Vietnam was the goal of the enemy. See the article that marden posted. This should have been anticipated and confronted.

You don't buy all this? So what? The Democrats shouldn't have gotten in the way. So what? "Oh, sorry Mr. Iraqi. The Democrats have stopped me from helping." This is not an acceptable excuse.

It seems more important to you to take shots at the Democrats for acting exactly the way the always act rather than take shots at the person who is supposed to be in charge.

What? You could say the same of me but in reverse? Patently false. I don't complain about the Democrats, I excoriate them.

This "cut and run" thing that's about to go down isn't one of my "bigger complaints". It is the complaint. I've called the rationale the Democrats use to justify it delusional. I've started whole threads about how the Democrats are totally abandoning their core value of helping the oppressed by wanting to "cut and run".

I'm sure everyone will tell me that there wasn't anything Bush could do. What I'm saying is that since all he did do was "woefully inept" PR campaign, he didn't really try.

The reason no one has answered my question about "what did Bush do to prevent this eventuality" is because the the answer is nothing.

As someone who supports the Iraq war, this pisses me off.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

What exactly is the mission in Iraq now anyway?

It's what it's always been. In rough order of importance:

Kick "towel-head" ass for great justice (i.e. because of 9/11).
Stack the deck in the region with allies.
Secure the flow of oil (which just happens to be really convenient for Bush's pals)
Smoke Saddam.

As I have said before, the way WMDs factored into the planning was that of the three countries in the "Axis of Evil", Iraq was guaranteed to have the smallest amount, and hence was the best target in terms of achieving the above goals with some measure of survivability.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's what it's always been. In rough order of importance:

Kick "towel-head" ass for great justice (i.e. because of 9/11).
Stack the deck in the region with allies.
Secure the flow of oil (which just happens to be really convenient for Bush's pals)
Smoke Saddam.

As I have said before, the way WMDs factored into the planning was that of the three countries in the "Axis of Evil", Iraq was guaranteed to have the smallest amount, and hence was the best target in terms of achieving the above goals with some measure of survivability.

The reasons you've listed here make me believe your support of the war is actually insincere.

Few in the government want to kick "towel-head" ass. That is the view of the uninformed who see things as black and white. No one in a decision making position in government feels that way.

Stacking the deck with US allies MAY have been a goal at one time. Not now.

Securing the oil is an important reason, even if Bush's pals had been in the construction business (OBL's background) or in civil engineering and academia (Ahmadinejad's background).

Saddam's fate has already been determined.

Are you trying for sarcasm or a lampoon of some sort?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I haven't criticized the decision to invade. You seem to forget that I support the war. I have considered it my duty to do so from the beginning.



If this is an explanation of how the above reasons to invade are legit even if they have bore no fruit, it is irrelevant to me since as I said, I support the war.



So answer my question then. What has Bush done to combat the "morass of our own mindsets"?

This is relevant because the whole operation depends on it.

If you don't believe the whole operation depends on it, just read the article you posted. That's Novak's thesis.

Hell, even the Islamists know this is what the operation depends on.

In the long, long war that existed and was being waged against us BEFORE 911 and will continue long after GWB has left office GWB's efforts have been to use 51% of America's will to do what needed to be done.

Basic functions had to take place to save the nation and the world's life and stabilize it so that
a specialist might come along and with more nuance and unconcerned about the most fundamental aspects of the patient's life, can do those things that need to be done to bring the patient back to optimal condition.

Look at GWB's efforts as battlefield surgery designed to save the patient's life.

The next POTUS will be able to spend time on the finer points.

GWB did what needed to be done and he did it remarkably well.

One of this country's greatest presidents and greatest jobs of leadership this country will ever see.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by marden 

The reasons you've listed here make me believe your support of the war is actually insincere.

Few in the government want to kick "towel-head" ass. That is the view of the uninformed who see things as black and white. No one in a decision making position in government feels that way.

And THAT is the reason why we are getting our asses kicked in Iraq. We need to think this way in order to defeat the islamofacists.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

The reasons you've listed here make me believe your support of the war is actually insincere.

And that's been your problem all along. You can't separate the good reasons to be there from the bullshit reasons that Bush sent us there.

People do the right thing for the wrong reason all the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Look at GWB's efforts as battlefield surgery designed to save the patient's life.

I have no problem with this analogy, the problem I have is with your assessment of his performance. He let the patient die on the ground. You still haven't answered what he actually did to address the tactics discussed in the article.

Originally Posted by marden 

The next POTUS will be able to spend time on the finer points.

Keeping heat off the mission isn't a finer point, it's a requirement for success. Did you read the article you linked to?

[subego]

Hey! I just came up with one. Embedding. That was a pretty out of the box idea.

I read one journalist talk about how one of the grunts he was embedded with was teaching him how to use an M16, "just in case". The reporter made an offhanded comment about "being impartial". The grunt's eyes narrowed and he said "if someone is trying to kill me, are you going to be impartial, or shoot the ****er?"

Help me out here guys. What else has Bush done to win the hearts and minds of the naysayers? (a/k/a the "finer" point). The silence is deafening.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

And that's been your problem all along. You can't separate the good reasons to be there from the bullshit reasons that Bush sent us there.

People do the right thing for the wrong reason all the time.

You really think you speak from a position of knowledge on my positions and arguments?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have no problem with this analogy, the problem I have is with your assessment of his performance. He let the patient die on the ground. You still haven't answered what he actually did to address the tactics discussed in the article.



Keeping heat off the mission isn't a finer point, it's a requirement for success. Did you read the article you linked to?

I guess I've always believed the best decisions are made when the 'decider' is aware of the situation and the consequences and then steps back from the moment to moment, micro-view point to look at the overall situation and the big picture. In the meantime there must be smart, capable, brave, tough minded people managing the day to day conduct of the war.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

You really think you speak from a position of knowledge on my positions and arguments?

Insofar as to what you post here.

You can't be seriously saying I need to see more to get the gist. Likewise, you treat me as if you have my number.

Most of the time.

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Hey! I just came up with one. Embedding. That was a pretty out of the box idea.

I read one journalist talk about how one of the grunts he was embedded with was teaching him how to use an M16, "just in case". The reporter made an offhanded comment about "being impartial". The grunt's eyes narrowed and he said "if someone is trying to kill me, are you going to be impartial, or shoot the ****er?"

Help me out here guys. What else has Bush done to win the hearts and minds of the naysayers? (a/k/a the "finer" point). The silence is deafening.

As far as I can tell I think he's been trusting in the American ideal as it lives out there in the world's view, unvarnished, un-spun by the govt. to be presented so that those who are expert at spin will do as they will and the truth will stand out in sharp or even subtle contrast. But maybe it takes too much time for the truth to set some people free. Many people are used to making knee jerk reactions and they like being manipulated.

I still don't know if the Pres. is right on this aspect of things. But he's the decider so i go with his decision.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

...and then steps back from the moment to moment, micro-view point to look at the overall situation and the big picture.

I'm not understanding where "micro-view" is coming from. Who said this was an issue of failure to micro-manage?

How is winning the hearts and minds of the naysayers not part of the "big picture"?

[marden]

Originally Posted by subego 

Insofar as to what you post here.

You can't be seriously saying I need to see more to get the gist. Likewise, you treat me as if you have my number.

Most of the time.

Sorry. You are in an in-between stage with me right now. I don't want to attack you. But I haven't yet gotten your number and so I keep trying to pigeonhole you and I can't. You don't fit. And I want to get a better feel of you gradually but you keep provoking interaction. So I fall back to the default position which isn't appropriate.

So, let's step back from 'tricking or treating' each other at all until more familiarity is reached.

Factual exchanges are fine, though.

And for a point of comparison there are more than a few posters, even some who argue from the conservative side, who are still "?" in my mind. So don't feel badly.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/991gvxyi.asp
What the Islamists Have Learned
How to defeat the USA in future wars.
by Michael Novak
11/22/2006 1:35:00 PM


If I were an Islamist, a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy, here is what I think I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what I would write down in my hard-earned manual of instruction.

BY THE WILL OF ALLAH, in all wars to come, may it prepare our brave martyrs for combat operations!

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

The weaker political will yielded to the stronger will.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction--the more stomach-turning the better--which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy.

In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins.

To defeat the United States, then, it suffices to demonstrate that their vaunted military, for all its awesome power and tactical bravery in the field, cannot halt daily "chaos." To achieve this victory over America, it is not even necessary to create actual "chaos," but only its appearance. This definition of chaos cannot be made on cerebral, analytic, statistical, or comparative grounds. (In October the Times of London reported, "An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France" this year, with 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services and nearly 3,000 police officers injured. We don't need comparisons like this or comparisons with traffic deaths and violent crimes in individual U.S. states.)

No, the shadowy existence of this "chaos" in Iraq is projected by a steady stream of stomach-churning, atavistic, destructive acts, staged day by day where the cameras of the U.S. press cannot resist them. Some of these acts bring orange explosions and black smoke, others consist simply of dumping dead and tortured bodies where the public cannot avoid discovering them.

We design these images to show that our fighters will go where the United States will not, that our brave martyrs have harder linings in their stomachs than anyone in the West, and that our ferocity and determination, day after day, cannot be resisted.

The aim of our terror is to induce surrender before the great battles are even fought. This is the true meaning of "asymmetric" warfare. The weaker side in military strength may demonstrate conclusively that it has a stronger stomach for relentless, unstoppable acts of terror.

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public.

This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

Maxim # 2: Take heart, then, my terrorist brothers! Bin Laden is even more correct than we knew before the last two years. The West does not have the will to resist. Those elites among them who do have the stomach to fight back, inexorably, day after day, are being undermined by their own media.

Now and in the future, the media will do our work. All we need are martyrs sufficient in number to keep a steady stream of orange flames and black smoke before their cameras, and to dump before them bodies that are stone-cold dead, and bear all over them the unmistakable blue marks of power drills and other disfigurements.

Of such martyrs, we need each day only a handful. In 365 successive days, we need fewer than one thousand.

This small band of brothers can defeat the most powerful army in human history. The path, my brothers, is to come to dominate the minds of their public, which they must suppose is supporting them, and in reality turns quite quickly into our best ally.

This is not so huge a task, my brothers! In the long run of glorious history, the time required is like the blinking of an eye.

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

But he's the decider so i go with his decision.

Umm... ahhh...



You've chosen a tough row to hoe my friend.

Originally Posted by marden 

As far as I can tell I think he's been trusting in the American ideal as it lives out there in the world's view, unvarnished, un-spun by the govt. to be presented so that those who are expert at spin will do as they will and the truth will stand out in sharp or even subtle contrast.

You see, I know this was the wrong decision. Did you notice the "thumpin'" a few weeks back? What is the thesis of both Vietnam articles? They seem to buy the idea that the hearts and minds of the naysayers is more than a "finer" point. In fact both point to it being why we lost the war.

Talk about not learning the lessons of Vietnam. Sweet Jesus, of all the things over which Bush could have chosen to abandon spin!

You're in such a hurry to latch on to the negative implications of Vietnam for the Democrats you aren't realizing that argument is just punching bigger holes in Bush's armor. "Deciding" not to spin this is a demonstration of vast incompetence.

I don't think he really "decided" anything anyways. There is a mountain of evidence pointing towards the fact that we were supposed to be gone before the heat built up. Instead, things went blooey.

What you're calling "trusting in the American ideal" seems more like either "failing to alter your plan to meet changing conditions" or "hubris".

Toss this on the pile of major ****-ups:

Not getting full fledged assistance from the UN
Not making WMDs a primary objective
No increase in troop concentration after major combat operations ceased
Not firing Generals
Not preparing for long-term interment of prisoners (Abu Ghraib)

What am I supposed to do? Why should I whack on Democrats when they're not really the problem?

P.S. I didn't see your post above until I posted this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Complaint?

Yeah, one of my bigger ones you'll recall.

Read the article that marden posted. It makes the (correct) claim that Iraq is (was) a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. That the only way the terrorists can win is by sowing dissent in the mind of the American opposition.

What type of dissent? See below.

Bush's "woefully inept" PR is what sunk the war. Complaint indeed.

Complaint indeed, in a world of McGriddles and 2 minute hashbrown patties. It's been less than 4 years. Naysayers were comparing this to Vietnam during shock and awe for crying out loud. I don't think the war is sunk. So... because Bush has done nothing to help your resolve, you have none? Is that what you're trying to say? You're pissed off because Bush has hurt your morale?

What? It didn't? It was the Democrats fault? How would you know? How can anyone know? Bush never addressed the opposition with anything but bad PR.

What I'm telling you is that there was no PR for the Democrats. You can't debate aspects of foreign policy such as;
- people will die
- you'll never topple the elite guard
- you'll never capture Saddam
- where are the WMDs
- they'll never draft a Constitution they can agree on
- so... there's a Constitution, but they'll never vote. It'll be a bloodbath at the polling places
- Where are the WMDs?
- Bush lied

This is not the foundation for discourse. These are not ideas. This is partisanship. Before the "thumpin'", you'll recall many elections lost because of the left's inability to express an actual foundation for discourse, you know... an idea. Now, you want to act as if the American public has authored some mandate? Now you give them credit? The American public wants transparency. Period. They're tired of corruption, sex scandals, and lack of communication. They support wire-tapping, they support winning the war in Iraq, and they support the spread of democracy as the only hope for peace in a region wrought with socio-economic turmoil and despotism.

You say my claims of antagonism are "bumperstickers". Bumperstickers aren't PR? Bumperstickers can't be antagonistic?

Bumperstickers are ticklers for those with short attention spans. Bumperstickers say things like; "He called people unAmerican". Bush did no such thing and you know it. This was mind-numbing partisanship and hate for a man speaking, not fact. "He blamed the press." Bush did no such thing, he merely indicated that the press will cover atrocity because it's newsworthy. Was he telling you something you didn't know already?

When we talked about this in the other thread you said one of the problems with my argument is that I'm ignoring how antagonistic the Democrats were.

I'm saying "so what?"

You didn't even say that much in the last thread. Why on earth would you bring it up in this thread?

The Democrats acted exactly the way they did in Vietnam, and they acted this way to their guy, so it's not like it's a partisan thing. This should have been anticipated and confronted.

It's a partisan thing, make no mistake about it. I'll remind you of this when the "Dems" augment troop levels.

Trying to get the Democrats to act the way they did in Vietnam was the goal of the enemy. See the article that marden posted. This should have been anticipated and confronted.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I believe they saw a political party not interested in discourse. They saw an adversarial political opponent and tried to handle it in the political arena. Another blunder to be sure, but it wasn't because the Dems had offered any solid solutions to Iraq.

You don't buy all this? So what? The Democrats shouldn't have gotten in the way. So what? "Oh, sorry Mr. Iraqi. The Democrats have stopped me from helping." This is not an acceptable excuse.

I don't recall anyone offering this as an excuse. Can you cite any statement that would suggest such a thing or are you just going off half-cocked on yet another emotional tirade?

It seems more important to you to take shots at the Democrats for acting exactly the way the always act rather than take shots at the person who is supposed to be in charge.

No. I, and the majority of the American public are tired of people taking "shots" at one another in general. I don't take shots at Democrats, I challenge their views. We want to know that we're collectively taking shots at the enemy.

What? You could say the same of me but in reverse? Patently false. I don't complain about the Democrats, I excoriate them.

You're welcome to rip the skin from whomever you please. I'll be watching anxiously, the movements of my government and chiming in when I can. Personally, I'd like to see less excoriating here in the US and a little more success on the battlefields abroad.

This "cut and run" thing that's about to go down isn't one of my "bigger complaints". It is the complaint. I've called the rationale the Democrats use to justify it delusional. I've started whole threads about how the Democrats are totally abandoning their core value of helping the oppressed by wanting to "cut and run".

This argument does not work for those who cry "HUMANITARIAN" 'til you ask them of the hundreds of thousands dead to starvation at the hands of yet another oppressive economic sanction.

I'm sure everyone will tell me that there wasn't anything Bush could do. What I'm saying is that since all he did do was "woefully inept" PR campaign, he didn't really try.

The reason no one has answered my question about "what did Bush do to prevent this eventuality" is because the the answer is nothing.

Oh, he tried. Unfortunately, he listened to advisors in engaging the battlefield in the political arena instead of where it really mattered. He should've gone with his own gut. Inept leadership IMO.

As someone who supports the Iraq war, this pisses me off.

FYI; calling the Iraq War sunk prior to 4 years of activity is not supporting jack. With support like that, I'm sure most of us would rather you remain silent. When you come up with answers to the above "ideas" that were offered by the those of whom you supposedly "excoriate", by all means let us know how you'd have handled it. Until then, it's more naysaying which is reprehensible regardless. I don't care how much you claim to hate Democrats.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah, one of my bigger ones you'll recall.

Well, it's easy to say it's one of your complaints, but you don't seem to be doing much complaining about it in this thread. You'll say "inept leadership IMO", but seem unwilling to address what the consequences were.

His PR campaign was inept but the Democrats were partisan and were unable to "express an actual foundation for discourse". What exactly were the results of Bush's ineptitude then? If he had been more adept, what would he have accomplished in the face of the Democrats' uhh... onslaught?

If your answer is not very much, your complaint rings rather hollow.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... because Bush has done nothing to help your resolve, you have none? Is that what you're trying to say?

In the sense that what has shaken my resolve is his demonstrated lack of ability. Inept leadership IMO.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's a partisan thing, make no mistake about it. I'll remind you of this when the "Dems" augment troop levels.

Please point me to where Bush asked to augment troop levels, and in their partisan snit, the Dems denied it to him.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I believe they saw a political party not interested in discourse. They saw an adversarial political opponent and tried to handle it in the political arena. Another blunder to be sure, but it wasn't because the Dems had offered any solid solutions to Iraq.

How are you not the one being partisan here? What chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that the Democrats' failing to offer a solution vindicates Bush's solution. I mean on any level whatsoever.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

FYI; calling the Iraq War sunk prior to 4 years of activity is not supporting jack. With support like that, I'm sure most of us would rather you remain silent.

You have me seriously confused with someone else.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

When you come up with answers to the above "ideas" that were offered by the those of whom you supposedly "excoriate", by all means let us know how you'd have handled it. Until then, it's more naysaying which is reprehensible regardless.

It's statements like this that tend to make me emotional. I totally understand if you don't want to read what I write, but it's just not cool to accuse me of things that you would have realized are untrue had you read what I said. What I personally asked you to read.

I talk about what I would do (or have done) at the drop of a hat. I don't do it more because people tend not to read unsolicited hypothetical solutions, as you have just impetuously demonstrated.

In the WoT thread I outlined a plan that involved Bush treating the Democrats like he wanted something from them (which he did, but was too inept to realize it). I even wrote a whole speech to serve as an example of how the Democrats needed to be courted.

On a few occasions I have either mentioned or posted what I think needs to be done in Iraq in a more "bullet point" style. You are in fact one of the people I have mentioned it to in response to an accusation of lacking a plan.

P.S. I'm sot sure if you read my last response to you in the WoT thread, but a good part of it went along the lines of every single admission I had made of the flaws in my perception you had interpreted as a partisan attack.

[Macrobat]

After all the "it was a dig against Bush" crap about the Kerry incident, Charlie Rangel goes ahead and jams the "the troops are po, dumb, minorities" back down the Democrats' collective throat.

Then he adds a little gem of his own, that the only people who join the military 'don't have decent career options" other than the military.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Rangel says men join the army only if they can’t have “a decent career”

Go ahead and tell me how Charlie was telling a Bush joke and "botched" it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Then he adds a little gem of his own, that the only people who join the military 'don't have decent career options" other than the military.

Originally Posted by Charlie Rangel

If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

A bit less sensationalistic.

[Macrobat]

Just as accurate. Please don't feel you have to constantly apologise for these asshats, they keep demonstrating, time and again, that they simply do not deserve your loyalty.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Just as accurate. Please don't feel you have to constantly apologise for these asshats, they keep demonstrating, time and again, that they simply do not deserve your loyalty.

Where do you get the idea that it was apology.

You must hate the military if you have no sympathy for the difficulty of recruiting during wartime.

[Macrobat]

Yeah, that's the case - lmao.

The draft is NOT recruiting - way to go there, Stretch Armstrong.

For your (and Charlie Rangle's) information, the military has reported - time and again - that it is easily meeting its recruitment goals, needs no draft, wants no draft.

My point was that every single time that you try and get someone like myself, or any other person with conservative leanings, to give one of the aforementioned asshats the benefit of the doubt in the meaning of their spewings. Another one of them (or - most times - the same one) with their "explanations" exposes the FACT that your plea for mitigation is unfounded.

They simply blow your proxied apology out of the water by further affirming why the conservative person was right all along. Yet, you keep wanting us to give them more benefit of the doubt.

Truly, they are completely undeserving of your loyalty, since they continually undercut your arguments in favor of them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The draft is NOT recruiting

And I wasn't talking about the draft, hence my use of the term recruitment. I don't support a draft. At all.

The quote "if a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq" doesn't have the word draft in it.

For your information, if you have the option to join you aren't being drafted.

The fact that a war is going on is going to make it more difficult to recruit. I don't care who's mouth the statement is coming from.

Likewise, I don't care if they're meeting their recruitment goals. We're stretched too thin for my liking. General Abizaid said that it would be impossible to send more troops to Iraq outside of a short term commitment of 20,000. Even if we don't need those troops at the moment, this is not acceptable to me.

You took a sentence of Rangel's and eviscerated it to suit your own agenda. I don't care if Satan said it. Iraq puts a damper on recruitment. That's the content of that sentence. I don't care if he meant something else. Maybe the Father of Lies did. You're certainly not going to prove that to me by editing out his words.

[Macrobat]

No one edited. I may have paraphrased, but I said the PRECISE thing he meant, as backed up by his OWN later clarification of adding the words "like I did and many others of my generation." Meaning the Vietnam generation, of course.

The entire point is that Rangel's entire spiel is to reinstate the draft. Perhaps you should actually argue the debate that is being offered, instead of obfuscating?

BTW - Abizaid, when he says "stretched thin," does NOT mean that the military is understaffed. He may feel he is stretched thin on the ground IN IRAQ but that hardly applies to the military as a whole.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Perhaps you should actually argue the debate that is being offered, instead of obfuscating?

I already have. Against the draft.

Any more demonstrably false accusations?

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

BTW - Abizaid, when he says "stretched thin," does NOT mean that the military is understaffed. He may feel he is stretched thin on the ground IN IRAQ but that hardly applies to the military as a whole.

I know exactly what he means. My statement stands.

[Macrobat]

At least Rangel is an equal opportunity offender:

The New York Observer Politicker: Rangel Schools Ivy League

Speaks volumes about any electorate he claims to represent, since they keep re-electing him, huh?

[Millennium]

If a country cannot get enough volunteers among its citizens to provide for its defense, then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be defended.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

If a country cannot get enough volunteers among its citizens to provide for its defense, then perhaps it doesn't deserve to be defended.

This is a good ideal, but there's still the issue of money.

I don't think we had the cash to field the troops we conscripted in WW II as volunteers.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is a good ideal, but there's still the issue of money.

I don't think we had the cash to field the troops we conscripted in WW II as volunteers.

Why not? Canada did.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Why not? Canada did.

I thought you ended up conscripting several thousand people late in the war.

Separate from that, IIRC we fielded like 6 million (!) conscripts.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

I thought you ended up conscripting several thousand people late in the war.

Yeah, but not for combat. Conscription in Canada is tricky to figure out, as conscription for military service in Canada was not intended for overseas duty.

It's important to note that some conscripts were deployed overseas late in the war, but for blatantly cynical political reasons (the King government maintaining power), not out of military necessity.

Of the more than 40,000 Canadians who died in WWII, only 79 were conscripts.

Regarding overall military contributions, Canada employed about 1.1 million in military service for WWII, which is remarkable considering the nation was less than 12 million at the time.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Regarding overall military contributions, Canada employed about 1.1 million in military service for WWII, which is remarkable considering the nation was less than 12 million at the time.

That is impressive.

We fielded a slightly lower percentage versus our total population, but as I said, we drafted 3/5ths of them.

[Macrobat]

What's even more impressive is that the Canadian military is - literally - bankrupt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, it's easy to say it's one of your complaints, but you don't seem to be doing much complaining about it in this thread. You'll say "inept leadership IMO", but seem unwilling to address what the consequences were.

I'm not unwilling to accept the consequences of anything. The difficulties we're having in Iraq are the difficulties of engaging the kind of battle we are. This type of battle requires the buy-in of the American public. When you don't talk to the American public, they don't buy-in. The cost? Well, this year's elections for one thing. Bolstering the enemies' resolve for another. All of which are damaging to the action.

His PR campaign was inept but the Democrats were partisan and were unable to "express an actual foundation for discourse". What exactly were the results of Bush's ineptitude then? If he had been more adept, what would he have accomplished in the face of the Democrats' uhh... onslaught?

I don't know, the Dems were big on Social Security reform under a (D), but absolutely hated the notion under Bush. I often think in politics, it doesn't matter if you're moving in the direction of your opponent, they'll redirect again. The vocal Dems were entirely unable to formulate opinions of their own. The loudest of them offered nothing, but doomsday scenarios and naysaying. This lost them the 2004 Presidential bid. Bush has maintained that he has followed the directions of his military advisors. What would you have accomplished? What would you have done? So far, you're only answer is that you'd have offered an olive branch to the Dems, that you'd have kept an open ear. An open ear for what? You support the action. Most of them did too, just before they didn't. They've been more pessimistic than idealistic and there simply is no time for listening to naysaying for the sake of a bid for office. We're talking about the lives of Iraqi civilians and a host of soldiers from several countries here.

Please point me to where Bush asked to augment troop levels, and in their partisan snit, the Dems denied it to him.

I never said he did. Please try to follow along. The Dems were in no position to deny him anything. This may have been part of the problem because most of them were unelectable particularly because they were too pessimistic. In a sweeping move of genius, they put more reasonable Dems up for their respective bids, they separated themselves from the vocal naysayers and pessimists, they've moved more to the center/right and have gotten elected. Now we have balances which I've expressed thankfulness for in other threads. Now they have a voice and it'd behoove this Administration to listen to them.

How are you not the one being partisan here? What chain of reasoning leads you to the conclusion that the Democrats' failing to offer a solution vindicates Bush's solution. I mean on any level whatsoever.

I never made any statement of the kind. You know, this is not the first time you've jumped to emotional conclusions to bolster strawmen. If you're unable to express a view without projecting on me, please just let me know. There's better things to do. I'm not in any way trying to suggest that woeful lack of a Dem idea vindicates Bush. Bush is entirely responsible for Bush's decisions. What chain of reasoning leads you to believe there are better ideas. 400,000 troops? 250,000 troops? More town-hall meetings? More Fox News interviews? What would you have done differently? What's your solution?

You have me seriously confused with someone else.

Originally Posted by subego

Bush's "woefully inept" PR is what sunk the war. Complaint indeed.

Naw, I got the right one. Again, with "support" like this I'm sure many would rather you just remain silent. This is partisan quackery of the highest order.

In the WoT thread I outlined a plan that involved Bush treating the Democrats like he wanted something from them (which he did, but was too inept to realize it). I even wrote a whole speech to serve as an example of how the Democrats needed to be courted.

They weren't courtable. This is what I'm trying to tell you. Your idea may "feel good" to you, it may seem "nice", but virtually ineffective against people claiming you should be in prison for war crimes. You don't reach out to people like this. You reach over them to the American public. A public much more reasonable than someone who wants nothing more than to bash an (R).

Upon your last invite, I read what you stated and replied with a summarization of your points and addressed them in kind. I think you should copy-paste them again here. I think most would agree that your "plan" was long on wishful thinking and idealism, short on substance and reality. i.e. not really a plan at all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This type of battle requires the buy-in of the American public. When you don't talk to the American public, they don't buy-in. The cost? Well, this year's elections for one thing. [emphasis added]

Yes.

The public didn't buy-in, the Republicans didn't win the election, and now what's on the table is "cut and run".

As I've said, I think "cut and run" is a really bad idea.

I think the Democrats are going to force us to leave before the mission is over. If we leave before the mission is over this will sink the mission. With horrible, horrible, long-term consequences.

I am using the past tense and saying the mission is "sunk" because the Democrats have provided almost no evidence they intend to do anything else.

Bush has better PR, public buys-in, Republicans win election and "cut and run" is off the table.

War not sunk.

Note that this spreads the blame around, however it hinges things on Bush's PR because Bush having better PR is a more plausible scenario than the Democrats coming up with a better idea, or not being assholes.

This is the lesson of Vietnam. The Democrats are going to act like assholes. Ignore at your peril.

You're in such a hurry to accuse me of being partisan you miss that if my arguments are accurate (which you can assume I think they are), taking them into account would have enabled the Republicans to win. How does that support my "partisan" goals?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know, the Dems were big on Social Security reform under a (D), but absolutely hated the notion under Bush. I often think in politics, it doesn't matter if you're moving in the direction of your opponent, they'll redirect again. The vocal Dems were entirely unable to formulate opinions of their own. The loudest of them offered nothing, but doomsday scenarios and naysaying. This lost them the 2004 Presidential bid.

As I already said, the Democratic public hated the idea the first time around. If you offer something their constituents want and their elected representatives redirect, those elected representatives lose.

This is why I'm having trouble buying your argument that the Democrats are (were) intractable. If their constituents are placated, grousing becomes counter-productive to staying in office.

Yes, the war puts them in a foul mood, and is going to make the effort needed to balance things out way out of proportion with what they deserve. That doesn't matter. You do what it takes. This, as far as I can see, is the crux of our disagreement. The inherent injustice of the Democrats acting like little whiny brats is not a barrier to doing what needs to be done to succeed in Iraq. If you look at Vietnam what needs to be done is the little whiny brats need to be shut down. Bush shut them down with vinegar. Bad choice. Inept leadership. I say he should have shut them down with honey.

If that doesn't work, the public sees that you've tried everything, even past the point of what's deserved.

I can't understand why you are so resistant to this idea. If the Democrats are as intractable as you say in the face of overwhelming graciousness, this only makes Bush look better.

How is wanting Bush to look better partisan on my behalf?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bush has maintained that he has followed the directions of his military advisors. What would you have accomplished? What would you have done? So far, you're only answer is that you'd have offered an olive branch to the Dems, that you'd have kept an open ear. An open ear for what?

You have a real hard time coming to grips with the fact that good PR is a plan.

As for the "open ear" statement, I amended that to include that with good PR alone, he would have had more room to maneuver, and hence not needed to keep the "open ear".

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They've been more pessimistic than idealistic and there simply is no time for listening to naysaying for the sake of a bid for office. We're talking about the lives of Iraqi civilians and a host of soldiers from several countries here.

Again, this is the crux of our difference of opinion. There is no better reason than the fact that so many lives are at stake.

Even if you're listening only for appearances. You know, appearances? Public Relations.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Now they have a voice and it'd behoove this Administration to listen to them.

So now they have good ideas? Most of them are timetable oriented, a/k/a "cut and run". I don't think these are good ideas.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I never made any statement of the kind. You know, this is not the first time you've jumped to emotional conclusions to bolster strawmen.

Sure thing. That's why I phrased it as a question. Inviting response is the best way to bolster your straw man.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What chain of reasoning leads you to believe there are better ideas.

Seeing the American public is intolerant of the pace of the war. If one is unwilling to change from the PR angle, the only other possibility is to do it faster. Doing it faster means...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

400,000 troops?

As I have also said, I would have put in more troops and fired a bunch of advisors. I felt we needed more (preferably non-American) boots on the ground literally two weeks into the invasion, this was when the assumption was a Desert Storm level deployment. I can dig up a post where I declare the need for more troops (and that we should be increasing their pay) from a few months after I came here (Katrina), lest you think I'm jumping on the bandwagon. In this very same post I say he should have sacked a bunch of Generals. Firing Generals is vital to fighting a war properly. Peacetime Generals excel at maneuvering through the politics of the Defense Department. Wartime Generals excel at making war.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Naw, I got the right one. Again, with "support" like this I'm sure many would rather you just remain silent. This is partisan quackery of the highest order.

The first part of my post should dispel the misunderstanding that my statement "Bush's 'woefully inept' PR is what sunk the war" was equivalent to "calling the Iraq War sunk prior to 4 years of activity" which is the (dare I say "emotional") conclusion you jumped to. The precise point that "could sink" became "sunk" was the recent election.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They weren't courtable. This is what I'm trying to tell you. Your idea may "feel good" to you, it may seem "nice", but virtually ineffective against people claiming you should be in prison for war crimes. You don't reach out to people like this. You reach over them to the American public. A public much more reasonable than someone who wants nothing more than to bash an (R).

See above. In bold.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Upon your last invite, I read what you stated and replied with a summarization of your points and addressed them in kind. I think you should copy-paste them again here. I think most would agree that your "plan" was long on wishful thinking and idealism, short on substance and reality. i.e. not really a plan at all.

That would be counter-productive because based on your input those arguments are further refined here for you to address them in kind, you know? A dialogue.

From your posts I gather you are more interested in "exposing" my "partisan quackery" than engaging in a dialogue.

If this is the case, then consider your mission of laying me bare "accomplished". Take my ideas for what could have made Bush look better and revel in their partisanship. Take pride in the knowledge you've uncovered my devious plot to mischaracterize you with questions.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes.

The public didn't buy-in, the Republicans didn't win the election, and now what's on the table is "cut and run".

I have to admit, upon watching the news today that is in fact what the Iraq study group is advising. I originally thought the Dems would pull an end-around and actually augment deployment. It appears I may have been wrong. We'll find out what the bipartisan group has to say on Wednesday and how Dems react to the news.

As I've said, I think "cut and run" is a really bad idea.

We definitely agree here.

I think the Democrats are going to force us to leave before the mission is over. If we leave before the mission is over this will sink the mission. With horrible, horrible, long-term consequences.

Totally agree here as well.

I am using the past tense and saying the mission is "sunk" because the Democrats have provided almost no evidence they intend to do anything else.

A few days ago I would've disagreed with this. I really believed (and still hang hopes on) the Dems are all bark and no bite and that they will in fact augment troop levels, with several key goals in mind, and begin pulling out slowly in 12 months.

Bush has better PR, public buys-in, Republicans win election and "cut and run" is off the table.

Actually subego, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think the American people want to support the war. I think the American people want to support the troops and the Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, he did not give the American people enough information and they have simply bent to the voices on the left. The loud ones. The persistent ones. While Bush remained silent, they kept hammering the message of failure and death into the American public and we've bent. I don't believe Bush should've offered anything to those accusing him of lying and of war crimes. He needed to reach over their heads and back to the American people who wanted so desperately to believe in our cause.

War not sunk.

I apologize for the misunderstanding subego. It was hard for me to wrap my mind around an argument that seemed to be saying "win the war" and "the war is sunk" at the same time. I thought you were claiming the war was already sunk.

Note that this spreads the blame around, however it hinges things on Bush's PR because Bush having better PR is a more plausible scenario than the Democrats coming up with a better idea, or not being assholes.

What I meant by "bad PR" was the manner in which he addressed the American people (shoulder shrugging, defensive tone, almost pleading for buy-in where an air of confidence would've done him some good), not how he addressed Dems. The Dems had been kept in their place by simply speaking. You could hang your hat on the fact that a Dem was going to stick their foot in their mouth. The Republicans did best when they spoke directly with the American people. I'd offer the "Contract with America" as an example of what I'm talking about. IMO, I would've continued to let them stumble over shallow, vitriolic rhetoric while I spoke calmly and rationally directly to the American public.

This is the lesson of Vietnam. The Democrats are going to act like assholes. Ignore at your peril.

I often appreciate those checks and balances however. It seems there are times when; gosh dang it, someone's got to be an asshole. I really thought the Dems would pop in and do the unpredictable. Encourage communication with the American public and "rally the troops" if you will. I really believed (and again remain cautiously optimistic) that the Dems were going to assume a more hawkish posture (for them) and sell this mission directly to the American people. What a stand that would be for the Democratic party. What a wonderful check to an otherwise stale balance.

You're in such a hurry to accuse me of being partisan you miss that if my arguments are accurate (which you can assume I think they are), taking them into account would have enabled the Republicans to win. How does that support my "partisan" goals?

Because you suggested reaching out to Democrats before suggesting reaching out to the American people. A great many have relatives overseas fighting and a great majority of those soldiers "buy-in", the American public does too. This election was not a referendum on Conservatism, it was a referendum on the increasingly stale message. Our action in Iraq also needs more civilian soldiers here at home and by not reaching out to them first, we risk sinking this war. The only Dems who were getting any real media attention were the vitriolic ones. The pessimistic ones. The naysayers. The disengaged, the actively disengaged, and even the destructive. The only Republicans who got any real media attention were the scoundrels, the cigar-chomping execs busted in scandal, the pedophiles, and the meth-using Christian right. In the meantime, healthy debate should've been louder and spoken directly to the people. Some of it occurred and in rare occasions even here, but not enough.

This is why I'm having trouble buying your argument that the Democrats are (were) intractable. If their constituents are placated, grousing becomes counter-productive to staying in office.

The American people are not motivated. The American people are a bit beat-down with news and they're not paying enough attention. Not because Republicans weren't reaching out to Democrats, but because the Republicans weren't reaching out to them.

Yes, the war puts them in a foul mood, and is going to make the effort needed to balance things out way out of proportion with what they deserve. That doesn't matter. You do what it takes. This, as far as I can see, is the crux of our disagreement. The inherent injustice of the Democrats acting like little whiny brats is not a barrier to doing what needs to be done to succeed in Iraq. If you look at Vietnam what needs to be done is the little whiny brats need to be shut down. Bush shut them down with vinegar. Bad choice. Inept leadership. I say he should have shut them down with honey.

I say he shouldn't have addressed them at all. 100% American people, voters, concerned citizens who wanted badly to support this action. One thing we can agree on is inept leadership.

I can't understand why you are so resistant to this idea. If the Democrats are as intractable as you say in the face of overwhelming graciousness, this only makes Bush look better.

I think we're close to saying the same thing. I'm suggesting he should've reached out solely to the American public and that the Dems piece of this was not as much a concern. When you address people accusing you of war crimes, you only give their nonsense more credibility. Once rhetoric like this is espoused, they become impossible to work with.

So now they have good ideas? Most of them are timetable oriented, a/k/a "cut and run". I don't think these are good ideas.

I believed the ones that earned the vote this time did so because of a centrist "sell". I thought this indicated to me a party that was finally at least acknowledging the public pulse. I could be wrong. I don't think they'll disagree with the Iraqi "thinktank" and it appears the think-tank is advocating a withdrawal. I also think "cut and run" is bad policy.

As I have also said, I would have put in more troops and fired a bunch of advisors. I felt we needed more (preferably non-American) boots on the ground literally two weeks into the invasion, this was when the assumption was a Desert Storm level deployment. I can dig up a post where I declare the need for more troops (and that we should be increasing their pay) from a few months after I came here (Katrina), lest you think I'm jumping on the bandwagon. In this very same post I say he should have sacked a bunch of Generals. Firing Generals is vital to fighting a war properly. Peacetime Generals excel at maneuvering through the politics of the Defense Department. Wartime Generals excel at making war.

I totally agree with all of this regarding increased troop levels and I'll go with a little positive turnover in the ranks as well. I think the majority of our disagreement was on the stale message and the inability (in some respects, refusal) to address the American people.

[ironknee]

i have a question cause i don't know. at what point do we need to step up recruiting more (draft?)in case we have another crisis?

do we have enough soldiers as is fighting in 2 wars?

please don't copy/paste long novels. thanks

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i have a question cause i don't know. at what point do we need to step up recruiting more (draft?)in case we have another crisis?

do we have enough soldiers as is fighting in 2 wars?

please don't copy/paste long novels. thanks

Good question ironknee, but I don't think the answer is something that can be contained within a small quip. IMO, we will never have enough soldiers to fight in two wars, draft or otherwise. True regime change occurs with boots on the ground. Some claim 400,000 needed for Iraq alone. That said, there is nothing to suggest inaction is the answer either. I call it analysis paralysis. Air war for some, sea war for others, boots for others, and immense support from home for all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Actually subego, I think this is the crux of our disagreement. I think the American people want to support the war. I think the American people want to support the troops and the Commander in Chief.

The "average" member of the Democratic public doesn't want to support the war. They want to win the war. If war must be made it is only tolerable if we are winning. This is a vastly different animal from a practical standpoint.

To them, "supporting the troops" means not throwing (literal) rocks at them when they come home. They know they aren't going to do that, so they consider that mission accomplished.

They want to support the Commander in Chief when he's winning.

I have further arguments that are based on this premise, so I wanted to fly this past you first. A disagreement on this point would only tangle what follows.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I apologize for the misunderstanding subego.

It's all good. Considering what you thought I was saying, I appreciate you sticking it out to this point.

[marden]

Just found this.

Looks like Jack Bauer, doesn't it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by marden 

Just found this.

You'll appreciate this one:



Personally, I think WW I posters smack around WW II posters and calls them "bee-yotch".