Critics and criticism...

image.php
 
Gato_Solo said:
So...how long did the Iraqi army fight? When they folded, the war, by the standard definition, was over. What we have now, is a bunch of holligans, most not even from Iraq, coming in and stirring up shit. The US has already stated how, and when, we leave Iraq. If the terrorists really wanted us to leave, they'd let us complete the rebuilding of the infrastructure and stabilization process, but they don't do that, do they? Anybody with a smidgen of knowledge of our openly stated purposes would say your whole post was bullshit. When you have a plan, let us know, until then, you are filed under the same catagories as the other folks who have no idea what they talk about, except to denigrate the people who are doing the real work.

Part One:
wow. i'm awed by the moral force of your argument. and it's easy when things are so simple.

"openly stated purposes." yes. reality WILL conform to those purposes.

just like the civil war was about slavery.

Part Two:
I didn't say anything about the people on the ground doing the REAL WORK.

but thanks for assuming the high ground on that one.

Part Three:
noticed, at all, that bush has made concessions in speeches admitting that iraq is a little more complicated than was anticipated?

now, why is that? maybe, just maybe, it's because anyone who knew shit from shinola about that part of the world would have anticipated exactly what has happened, and would have planned things a little differently.

nah, it's all the plan and the stated objectives. and the plan will come together. just like in an episode of the A-team, which probably rivals the bush administrations grasp of reality when planning the war.
 
2minkey said:
Part One:
wow. i'm awed by the moral force of your argument. and it's easy when things are so simple.

What's the matter? Can't grasp the concept?

2minkey said:
"openly stated purposes." yes. reality WILL conform to those purposes.

just like the civil war was about slavery.

We let the Iraqi people, and the world, know when, and how, it would be acceptable for us to leave. Just because you're against the decisions made by the government doesn't mean that those purposes weren't stated. You've been hanging around the wrong people, if you think that load of crap will fly...

2minkey said:
Part Two:
I didn't say anything about the people on the ground doing the REAL WORK.

but thanks for assuming the high ground on that one.

I had to, seeing as you low-balled everything we're trying to accomplish just because your personal agenda isn't being met.

2minkey said:
Part Three:
noticed, at all, that bush has made concessions in speeches admitting that iraq is a little more complicated than was anticipated?

Noticed, at all, that nobody ever said that this was going to be easy? Noticed, at all, anything besides your narrow opinion on how you think things should be run?

2minkey said:
now, why is that? maybe, just maybe, it's because anyone who knew shit from shinola about that part of the world would have anticipated exactly what has happened, and would have planned things a little differently.

Maybe it's because people who have no clue as to whats really going on here have decided that the best course of action is to cower under the bedsheets try to forget that, since we've been here, that no attack on the US, or US interests, has occured since 9/11. Maybe it's because some people don't like the idea that somebody had the sack to do tyhe job instead of hiding behind resolutions that weren't working. Perhaps, just perhaps, a decisive person scares them, so they attack without even looking past their own agendas...

2minkey said:
nah, it's all the plan and the stated objectives. and the plan will come together. just like in an episode of the A-team, which probably rivals the bush administrations grasp of reality when planning the war.

So...how would you go about it?...oh, that's right...YOU DON'T KNOW!!! All you can do is the same thing Kerry did when he lost the election...nothing, but claim that you're better than the one who is doing what should've been done almost 15 years ago...
 
i'm not lowballing shit.

and i'm not understimating or unappreciative of what people are trying to accomplish there. but thanks again for assuming the moral high ground.

all that i've been trying to say is that the people that planned this thing from high up did not and do not understand that area well enough to anticipate the problems that have (and perhaps, WILL) come up.

the notion that the iraqi army would stand there and fight a conventional battlefield war was asinine. when's the last time a war was fought like that? but that's apparently what was planned for, and "achieved" when "major combat operations" ceased after 3 weeks. But the REAL war is as anyone with half a brain woulda anticipated - insurgency and guerilla war. and that form of warware obviously wasn't planned for by bush, rummy, and whomever.

i DON'T think we should leave now. we'll need to stay for quite some time. "until the job is done."

what would my plan have been? gee, if i were president... i would have taken the $300 billion we're spending and put it into REAL energy reform, so some day we won't have to be involved in meddling the middle east.
 
2minkey said:
maybe, just maybe, it's because anyone who knew shit from shinola about that part of the world would have anticipated exactly what has happened, and would have planned things a little differently.

Start by throwing Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, et al, in the can for siding with the enemy. Close the DU website as enemy propaganda. That's will start ending these problems.

The enemy knows, after a multitude of previous lessons, that setting up the left does more to help their cause than any single other thing. Cohesion would dampen their efforts. As long as these morons are pissing & moaning about Hitler Bush the terrorists have ammunition to keep it up. Remember the lessons learned from Somalia.
 
Gonz said:
Start by throwing Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, et al, in the can for siding with the enemy. Close the DU website as enemy propaganda. That's will start ending these problems.

hmmm. authoritarianism.... how flattering.
 
Clearly, if you don't agree with the current administration you're the enemy. One wonders whether this same attitude applied when Slick Willie was the Prez? :rofl:
 
chcr said:
Clearly, if you don't agree with the current administration you're the enemy. One wonders whether this same attitude applied when Slick Willie was the Prez? :rofl:

that's funny. i remember arguing with my dad about the whole bomb the serbs thing, which i was in favor of... and he wasn't, simply because it was clinton doing it. must have been hard for him to resist his usual uber-republican "bomb the shit out of 'em" attitude....
 
You won't believe this more than Gonz does, but the only difference between republicans and democrats is marketing. They want the same things, they use the same methods to get them. The only difference is the rhetoric, and none of them really mean any of that.
 
Mini ain't no demorat

but he is part of the educated elite heh heh heh

"4...3...2...1...
Earth below us
Drifting falling
Floating weightless
Calling calling home..."
 
Gato_Solo said:
Nice try, 2minkey, but the question remains...why only 6 out of around 4700?

The others are doing retired stuff? Sure doesn't mean 4694 disagree.
 
flav said:
The others are doing retired stuff? Sure doesn't mean 4694 disagree.

of course it does.

you're either with us, or against us.

everything is black and white.

and morally unambiguous.

we're right. they're wrong.

and, of course, they're a bunch of pussies.

right?
 
Well it is well known that Rumsfeld's approval of sending small tactual units in rather then sending a much larger force has been met with considerable resistance by upper brass who preferred sending in a far more vast deployment of soldiers. It is of little surprise that this combined with a few other issues has finally got his ass in the hot seat.

Personally, I think it’s good that there is debate on how his actions may have saved or killed soldiers. A dialog is needed with top decision makers to hold them accountable when they aren’t doing a good job.

However, I don’t believe that this is what we are seeing here. He is getting blasted because they can smell weakness all around him. With the war effort and the administration under which he serves dropping in popularity, out come the vultures and hyenas. He stepped on too many toes and now when he is becoming venerable out they come to get a piece.
 
flav said:
The others are doing retired stuff? Sure doesn't mean 4694 disagree.

But they didn't join those six, either. That's the point I'm making, while all you're doing is trying to prop up a rather shakey argument by a person who has no interest other than sniping at a person because it looks like he's down...
 
chcr said:
You won't believe this more than Gonz does, but the only difference between republicans and democrats is marketing. They want the same things, they use the same methods to get them. The only difference is the rhetoric, and none of them really mean any of that.

Someday you'll come to realize I'm not a Republican. I don't stand by the (R). I am a conservative. Unfortunately, the only (D)'s that I can think of that fit my personal political perspective are Joe Lieberman & Zell Miller. The rest would have very brown noses if Teddy ever stopped fast.

BoP said:
'Course not. He had the gumption to get a blowjob.

Put down the NY Times & back slowly away. He lied to a grand jury. He, a lawyer & the President of the United States knowingly committed perjury, for which he lost his Arkansas law license & was impeached by the House of Representatives. The Senate, in their infinite lack of wisdom, gave him his ball back & said not to do it again. The blowjob was a political football.

minkey said:
of course it does.

you're either with us, or against us.

everything is black and white.

and morally unambiguous.

we're right. they're wrong.

and, of course, they're a bunch of pussies.

right?
atta boy...
 
BeardofPants said:
'Course not. He had the gumption to get a blowjob.

Brief history lesson: The whole "blowjob" thing was originally brought up during the court trial in which Paula Jones was suing Clinton for sexual harassment. Jones' lawyers brought up the Monica Lewinsky situation as part of establishing a pattern of behavior. He denied the whole thing in court, under oath, under penalty of perjury.

Had he admitted to getting a BJ during the trial, a few people might have called for his head, but it certainly wouldn't have gotten to the level it did, and there would have been no sex-related "high crimes and misdemeanors" to impeach him on. Of course, then he would have surely lost the lawsuit, and we can't stop thinking about right now, now can we?
 
Gato_Solo said:
But they didn't join those six, either. That's the point I'm making, while all you're doing is trying to prop up a rather shakey argument by a person who has no interest other than sniping at a person because it looks like he's down...

i realize you were responding to flav, but...

for me, at least, it's not the timing. i've been predicting almost exactly what has gone not exactly as planned by folks in the bush admin since before that evening three years ago when i sat in a shitty chinese restaurant in portland, watching those first "opportunity" air strikes against where they thought saddam was.

see, the thing is, i know a little bit about the middle east. let's see. i've read a few - say, three - books on the islamic world and a couple more on islam itself. i've had a course in urban conflict taught by a woman who spent several years in lebanon. and there's about six arab guys i got to know well enough to talk politics with, without anyone getting punched. so, more or less... i know a little bit about the middle east, but not what i'd call "a lot."

and i saw what has happened coming.

it pains me to think that the idiots giving the orders, either
a) knew/know LESS about that area that I do(!)
b) knew, but disregarded that knowledge and just let the people on the ground i.e. YOU deal with the really fun stuff.

that makes rummy and his buddies
a) ignorant, or,
b) assholes, or, perhaps...
c) kinda both

maybe you think it's all about six guys talking now, but for some of us, there's a bigger, longer picture that's much older than the emergence of the retired generals. so i don't really care about their motivation, whether it's opportunistic because of rummy's weakness or because they've realized that now people are willing to listen to alternatives instead of embracing some harebrained orthodoxy. or, maybe, c) kinda both.
 
Back
Top