[besson3c]

I know this is going to sound trollish and partisan, but here goes...

Republicans, where you at? If the conditions on the ground in Baghdad don't improve in the next few months, will your stance change? Have your beliefs on how this war has been waged changed at all in the last year or so? If not, what would it take for them to change?

How do you feel about how the Bush administration has fared domestically?


Please restrain from partisan pot-shots, I'm just looking for candid comments about how you feel about this administration now. I promise I will listen intently and that this isn't a setup for me to criticize what you say.

[goMac]

I liked how the Democrats made sure to stand up first when Bush said that our troops deserved our support. Frequently the Republicans try to twist the Democrat's agenda to be harmful to our troops, and taking the respect they deserve. It was a good gesture that really re-enforced what the Democrats are about.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know this is going to sound trollish and partisan, but here goes...

And misleading in the thread title... what else is new?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Republicans, where you at?

Right here. Never left.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the conditions on the ground in Baghdad don't improve in the next few months, will your stance change? Have your beliefs on how this war has been waged changed at all in the last year or so? If not, what would it take for them to change?

I don't support war. The administration has pleased me in many other ways though.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How do you feel about how the Bush administration has fared domestically?

I don't care really.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Please restrain from partisan pot-shots,

HA! You first!

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm just looking for candid comments about how you feel about this administration now. I promise I will listen intently and that this isn't a setup for me to criticize what you say.

No, you aren't. No, you won't, and yes, you will.

[ironknee]

nancy pelosi rocks!

it's 4th down and long for bush.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If the conditions on the ground in Baghdad don't improve in the next few months, will your stance change? Have your beliefs on how this war has been waged changed at all in the last year or so? If not, what would it take for them to change?

Once again: Criticizing how a war is handled is not the same as criticizing the war itself. Getting huffy at the President and screaming to pull out is not the answer to this war. A group of leaders who actually have the political will and the courage to handle this war as it should be IS the answer. I amazes me how Bush has the strength to stand by this war so adamantly and yet completely lacks the balls to do what he needs to do to fix it. As we say in hick country: "**** or get off the pot son!" Of course, in a fairly short time we will have another President and we can finally see just differently someone else can foul things up.

How do you feel about how the Bush administration has fared domestically?

On spending he gets a D-. He doesn't seem to mind signing every single piece of money-wasting garbage that has been thrown at him.

On taxes he gets a C+. Yes, taxes were cut under him and that is always a good thing. But he vowed to overhaul the tax system which didn't happen YET AGAIN and his tax cuts were not nearly broad or deep enough. Our tax system is so utterly retarded and he didn't make much of a dent in it.

On social programs he gets a D+. I didn't see a whole lot of new programs which is good but he continued to increase spending on everything when he should have been cutting them.

On homeland defense I give him a B-. Despite all the criticism there was a visible effort to make things more secure here. We won't really know if his policies actually kept us safe but at least changes were made.

On Immigration. F. His stance on Illegal immigration is a joke.

Education he gets a solid C. I don't see any HARM being done due to his policies but he sure hasn't helped to improve things either. Abolishing the Dept. of Ed. would have been a good start but that's a pipe dream.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I liked how the Democrats made sure to stand up first when Bush said that our troops deserved our support. Frequently the Republicans try to twist the Democrat's agenda to be harmful to our troops, and taking the respect they deserve. It was a good gesture that really re-enforced what the Democrats are about.

It's election time again. They aren't going to care about what happens to Iraq or the US until the elections is over.

If a democrat does get elected, watch and see how "we need to keep our troops there just a tad longer' starts coming into play.

The Dems don't want Iraq lost. They just don't want it won by someone NOT on their side.

It's purely partisan bullshit.

The Democrats are about this coming election. Once that is over they will either concentrate on Iraq, or do more mudslinging depending on who wins in 2008.

[sek929]

Then I guess he is just being difficult for no reason.

I respect all the NeoCons on this board solely on the fact that they don't get dizzy from spinning all the bad news from Iraq.

Last two days have been pretty bloody, but yeah, "Stay the Course" will triumph in the end...or will it?

Luckily I will still be a member here 5 years from now when the 90,000 troops have set things right, or will they?

It has gotten to the point where this war must start showing signs of actual progress, and those who support it need to put up or shut the hell up. Enlist, fight, win. That's all ya gotta do.

Meanwhile those who knew it was a mistake from day one can (and should) constantly badger those who vehemently supported it, and don't feel bad.....Vietnam was not lost because of a disillusioned public (what a ridiculous notion to begin with) it was lost because of bad policy, bad planning, and bad leadership.

Wars, in the end, are a responsibility of those who start them. Once you start losing you can't just say "It's xxx's fault, not mine!!!" BS, this war will be GWs legacy, and only time will tell how that legacy will be viewed.

My guess, it will be viewed just as badly as Vietnam.

US was duped into fighting Communism for the wrong reasons and now we are still being duped that we are fighting in Iraq for the right reasons.

What will happen?

Lets watch

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The Dems don't want Iraq lost. They just don't want it won by someone NOT on their side.

Bush has had control of Congress for a long long time. The Democrats were in no position to "stop" him from winning Iraq.

Who are you going to blame Bush not winning Iraq on next? The little green men?

[medicineman]

I criticize the war in one respect. It has not been fought in a robust manner. I have no idea who is/was responsible for dictating the rules of engagement, but when US contractors were hung from a bridge, that town should have been leveled. The populace should have been disarmed when the initial fight with the Iraq Army ended. Thereafter, anyone with a firearm in the public square would be considered an enemy.

I believe the administration has been trying to fight this war in a 'more sensitive' capacity, so as not to incur more bad press or stir even more ill will from the world community. But the world community is not interested in fighting this war. I'd rather they stepped on toes and gotten the job done.

[:dragonflypro:]

We can't win this war because 'sensitivity' is in play.

As the 'lone superpower' if we come down hard we are just bullies… and we continue fighting a 'nice' war.

Sorry, the entire posture of the war is wrong if we want to win. We've spent 2 years pussy-footing around, letting useless casualties mount, when we should have been 'fighting; and making them count.

The State of Our Union? Great, unless you want to ask us about our resolve… we don't have it.

Toby

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Bush has had control of Congress for a long long time. The Democrats were in no position to "stop" him from winning Iraq.

Who are you going to blame Bush not winning Iraq on next? The little green men?

When did I blame ANYONE for Iraq? BTW we aren't LOSING.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

. . .town should have been leveled.

We don't live in the middle ages.

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I'd rather they stepped on toes and gotten the job done.

Just because the U.S. is referred to as a "superpower" doesn't mean we can do anything we want without fear of consequences. We still need to trade with foreign nations and to have diplomatic ties to them so we have to watch what toes we step on. The bottom line is other countries can hurt us if they wanted to. Therefore, we can't run around the world like barbarians beating our chests and leveling towns on a whim.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When did I blame ANYONE for Iraq? BTW we aren't LOSING.

I wouldn't necessarily say we are winning either.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When did I blame ANYONE for Iraq? BTW we aren't LOSING.

the fact that there is a blame game implys there is something wrong with iwaq.

not losing is bunker thinking

it's the bottom of the 9th, 2 outs and a full count for bush....

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When did I blame ANYONE for Iraq? BTW we aren't LOSING.

Hmmmm ... I thought we were losing. We've ceded several parts of the country as areas that we can no longer successfully "manage" and are focusing on securing key parts of the country (Baghdad, which is almost completely out of our control beyond the green zone and Anbar province we have pretty much ceded at this point). I would call that a slow retreat. We are neither expanding nor holding steady but actually contracting the areas that we control .... and we're sending 20K more troops specifically because we can't even control those areas effectively.

Sounds like a classic Zimphire semantics game. Please ... pull out your dictionary and show us how our situation in Iraq does not technically match the verbatim definition of "lose". Then look at our position in Iraq nearly 4 years in vs when we were 6 -9 months in. We aren't even holding steady in Iraq, we are in worse shape now than before. That's called losing.

[paul w]

You can use a sports analogy to describe how some feel about our situation in Iraq. We, team America strike first, scoring quickly leaving the opponent team..um...Evil dazed. It's aging star Saddam limps off the field to jeers from America's fans and the next few minutes/innings/quarter everyone waits for the final blow that never comes.

Instead team Evil, led by it's star young phenom Insurgency, rallies and starts to chip away at America's lead, playing a dirty, physical style while team USA cries foul to no avail. Injuries on America's side begin to mount and fans begin to be worried about the team coming out of the game in one piece than having any hoping of pulling off a victory.

Coach Bush on the sidelines is impassive, refusing to change strategy and is clearly running out of young fresh legs. Towards the end of the game with the team desperately in need of a score he chooses to replace a defensive player with another, to the boos of his fans.

The game is till yet undecided, but it looks grim. Team Evil seems to have and endless supply of scrappy young players with fresh legs, who play a defensive, counterattacking style that wears down the US squad. The game is deadlocked and this is essentially where we stand.

[analogika]

No, see: "NO TERROR ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL SINCE 9/11!!!" means you're winning. Winning iRaq, winning the international economy, winning international diplomacy, winning domestic politics, winning debt, winning education, winning the Intelligent Design debate, winning the global warming debate, winning G9, winning the arms race - just winning in general.

After all, you're NUMBER ****ING ONE.



Edit: ^ Paul's was good, too.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by paul w 

You can use a sports analogy to describe how some feel about our situation in Iraq. We, team America strike first, scoring quickly leaving the opponent team..um...Evil dazed. It's aging star Saddam limps off the field to jeers from America's fans and the next few minutes/innings/quarter everyone waits for the final blow that never comes.

Instead team Evil, led by it's star young phenom Insurgency, rallies and starts to chip away at America's lead, playing a dirty, physical style while team USA cries foul to no avail. Injuries on America's side begin to mount and fans begin to be worried about the team coming out of the game in one piece than having any hoping of pulling off a victory.

Coach Bush on the sidelines is impassive, refusing to change strategy and is clearly running out of young fresh legs. Towards the end of the game with the team desperately in need of a score he chooses to replace a defensive player with another, to the boos of his fans.

The game is till yet undecided, but it looks grim. Team Evil seems to have and endless supply of scrappy young players with fresh legs, who play a defensive, counterattacking style that wears down the US squad. The game is deadlocked and this is essentially where we stand.

i'd add this isn't even a superbowl, world series or stanley cup game...it's an exhibition side game and there's an even more evil team we have to play after this one

[subego]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

I criticize the war in one respect. It has not been fought in a robust manner.

I asked DLQ2006, who said the same thing, this question:

Why is the issue the Rules of Engagement and not too small of a deployment?

I contend that the troop concentrations you would need to safely and responsibly fight with unlimited RoE are similar to the concentrations you need to fight with limited RoE (about 3/4 million).

[vmarks]

You may notice a fair amount of deleted posts here. They're gone because they were obsessing over capitalization of a proper noun, and distracting from the topic at hand. Thanks!

[analogika]

Good morning, vmarks (and good morning, Railroader)!

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Kevin

When did I blame ANYONE for Iraq? BTW we aren't LOSING.

Originally Posted by Rumor

I wouldn't necessarily say we are winning either.

SCNR:



PB.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You may notice a fair amount of deleted posts here. They're gone because they were obsessing over capitalization of a proper noun, and distracting from the topic at hand. Thanks!

Thanks for your post.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by analogika 

good morning, Railroader!

Good afternoon to you.

[Dakar²]

[medicineman]

Sorry this is late. I thought this thread was in the toilet.

Unlike many, I am not privy to military intelligence. I assume Rules of Engagement have dictated our activites there. While it is *usually* better to have a larger force in field, we're fighting a more technical war with more technicals weapons. One of today's soldiers is probably equal to more than one soldier of past wars. So, you can play a number's game, that's not part of my equation.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by Zeeb 

We don't live in the middle ages.



Just because the U.S. is referred to as a "superpower" doesn't mean we can do anything we want without fear of consequences. We still need to trade with foreign nations and to have diplomatic ties to them so we have to watch what toes we step on. The bottom line is other countries can hurt us if they wanted to. Therefore, we can't run around the world like barbarians beating our chests and leveling towns on a whim.

Sorry this is so late. Cities of Germany and Japan were leveled about 60 years ago. You need not go back to the middle ages to find an analogy. Trade occurs between nations because it benefits each trading partner. One doesn't have to approve of the other's policies to engage in trade. See the US/China trade agreements. You cannot fight a war while worrying what a 3rd party might think. You are not filling out a dance card. The objective is to be victorious, not to be voted 'most popular'.

[analogika]

Hence the emphasis on "They'll be dancing in the streets" before the invasion, and the painfully obvious lack of planning for actual victory.

[Kerrigan]

Peter Brookes is a brilliant cartoonist. I dislike his perspective, but he's consistently clever.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Hence the emphasis on "They'll be dancing in the streets" before the invasion, and the painfully obvious lack of planning for actual victory.

What planning strategy meetings did you attend? I know of none that were published. What conflict or war have you known or read about that went as planned? Or even a battle, for that matter?

Or were you among those in Congress who predicted the need for tens of thousands of body bags?

Snide remarks are cute, but lend nothing to a discussion.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Good afternoon to you.

good evening Railroader.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

good evening Railroader.

i wasn't talking two you

[analogika]

Originally Posted by medicineman 

What planning strategy meetings did you attend? I know of none that were published. What conflict or war have you known or read about that went as planned? Or even a battle, for that matter?

Or were you among those in Congress who predicted the need for tens of thousands of body bags?

Snide remarks are cute, but lend nothing to a discussion.

I note that you weren't around these forums back when all of this was discussed BEFORE the invasion.