|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Democracts are being such fools. They say the send more troops strategy already failed. How do they know? IT HASNT even been tried yet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush's new strategy: Stay the course
Yes, we did surge more troops in the fall. How did that go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Democracts are being such fools. They say the send more troops strategy already failed. How do they know? IT HASNT even been tried yet! |
I think they're refering to the "surging" of troops into baghdad.
Anyway, I agree with McCain- again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Screw Bush.
He was never given a mandate to invade Iraq in the first place. When he first ran for president, he never told the US public the principal campaign for his administration would be to invade a fairly sizeable, unstable Middle East country. If he had had a well-thought-out exit plan when he started this whole mess, the US would be out of Iraq by now. He played God with US financial resources and the lives of US soldiers, with no thought beyond doing something bigger than what Daddy had done.
The Democrats should be applauded for standing up to the Kim Jong-Il of North America and telling him, "Sorry, you're cut off." If he hasn't fixed Iraq by now, screw him. He's had more than enough time and resources to do so.
The only reason why he wants more troops now is that he's afraid Iraq will collapse; he's afraid he'll turn out to be Daddy's failure and a f***up in the history books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
There's been a good 3+ years to monkey around with the formula in Iraq. Plenty of time to try surges instead of obstinately insisting that we will stay the course.
Of course, another problem with a temporary surge is that it's plastered all over the TV and Internet. How seriously are insurgents going to take an increase in hostlities if they know its temporary?
So, in this sense, I agree with McCain: if it's not sustained, then don't do it.
Ergo, don't do it.
Furthermore, were the Democrats running on a 'troop surge' platform in November? No. So again. Don't do it.
Make a time table for withdrawal and shore things up as best as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Screw Bush.
He was never given a mandate to invade Iraq in the first place. When he first ran for president, he never told the US public the principal campaign for his administration would be to invade a fairly sizeable, unstable Middle East country. If he had had a well-thought-out exit plan when he started this whole mess, the US would be out of Iraq by now. He played God with US financial resources and the lives of US soldiers, with no thought beyond doing something bigger than what Daddy had done.
The Democrats should be applauded for standing up to the Kim Jong-Il of North America and telling him, "Sorry, you're cut off." If he hasn't fixed Iraq by now, screw him. He's had more than enough time and resources to do so.
The only reason why he wants more troops now is that he's afraid Iraq will collapse; he's afraid he'll turn out to be Daddy's failure and a f***up in the history books. |
You don't even know what your talking about. Were up against a resistance driven by beliefs resting in Islamic extremism who've been fighting the world over for thousands of years and your saying we should have beat them by now?
Furthermore the President did have a mandate. Congress voted to give Bush the authoirty to use force against Iraq. Even the dems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Were up against a resistance driven by beliefs resting in Islamic extremism who've been fighting the world over for thousands of years and your saying we should have beat them by now? |
That's a good point many overlook.
Any timetable for withdrawal should be realistic. Get the troops home by, say, 2115. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Screw Bush.
He was never given a mandate to invade Iraq in the first place. When he first ran for president, he never told the US public the principal campaign for his administration would be to invade a fairly sizeable, unstable Middle East country. If he had had a well-thought-out exit plan when he started this whole mess, the US would be out of Iraq by now. He played God with US financial resources and the lives of US soldiers, with no thought beyond doing something bigger than what Daddy had done.
The Democrats should be applauded for standing up to the Kim Jong-Il of North America and telling him, "Sorry, you're cut off." If he hasn't fixed Iraq by now, screw him. He's had more than enough time and resources to do so.
The only reason why he wants more troops now is that he's afraid Iraq will collapse; he's afraid he'll turn out to be Daddy's failure and a f***up in the history books. |
You don't even know what your talking about. Were up against a resistance driven by beliefs resting in Islamic extremism who've been fighting the world over for thousands of years and your saying we should have beat them by now?
Furthermore the President did have a mandate. Congress voted to give Bush the authoirty to use force against Iraq. Even the dems. |
No, he didn't have a mandate. He didn't tell the US electorate he planned to invade Iraq and commit hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives in a fool's errand. He lied to the American public. It was his goal all along, and he deliberately misled the American public by saying nothing about it, before he was elected. The US public was never given a choice as to whether they wanted to be stuck in Iraq.
And, given that he has/had more financial, military and planning resources than any other world leader in history, yes he has had more than enough time and resources to plan both an invasion and an exit strategy. If he knew what he was doing. Nobody ever gave him a blank cheque, and kudos to the Democrats for reminding him so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
It was his goal all along, and he deliberately misled the American public by saying nothing about it, before he was elected. |
Quite so. The neocons had a website in the late 90s outlining their intentions to invade Iraq - and of course WMD and terrorism were not given as reasons at that time.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.
The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.
"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.
The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.
"But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even Pat Buchanan admits in his book that neocons were foaming at the mouth to invade Iraq before Bush entered office. When 9/11 happened, they used that as an excuse to invade Iraq.
| Quote: |
"Thus it was the neoconservative who had plotted, planned and agitated for a war on Iraq for decades got their war."
In 1996, Irving Kristol had written: "With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our metttle, one that can unit us in opposition." (my emphasis added) |
Buchanan isn't as crazy as people make him out to be.
I strongly recommend reading Buchanan's book, Where The Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency
Maybe they are specifically talking about troop surges in Baghdad (if so I stand corrected), but I believe I did hear on the news there was an overall surge in troops in Iraq in the fall.
Someone pointed out that the troop surges will be well publicized (which is a good point to bring up). The only thing they won't know is when and where those surges happen. I'm sure it won't be that hard to guess, even for insurgents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alffy
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ...He didn't tell the US electorate he planned to invade Iraq and commit hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives in a fool's errand. He lied to the American public. It was his goal all along, and he deliberately misled the American public by saying nothing about it, before he was elected. The US public was never given a choice as to whether they wanted to be stuck in Iraq. |
Manner, I like you and all, despite the fact you look nothing like Morgan Freeman...
But, I think you cast aspersions to readily here...You are clearly insinuating, nay, stating, that W conspired to mislead the public into Iraq based on a well thoughtout and executed subterfuge that he had been planning for a considerable time.
Do you really believe this? I just can't give the man enough credit in this...I find it hard to imagine W had thoroughly thought ANYTHING this elaborate prior, during, or after the election.
I just keep picturing W, following the 2000 election, in the Robert Redford role at the end of the film The Candidate: "What now?"
Cheney and the neocons, yes; W, I just can't believe it.
I don't think W spent more than a few minutes thinking about Iraq at ANY point in the process until well AFTER we invaded. I guess you just must think more highly of W's mental faculties than I do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
alffy, my friend, with all due respect...oh come ON. 
Obviously Dubya only wanted to invade Iraq to trump Daddy. He wanted to do something that Daddy didn't accomplish, or didn't finish, whatever, and wanted to do so for a long time. He wanted to conquer and overthrow Hussein, and the career sycophants around him fleshed out the details, but beyond that he didn't give a moment's thought as to how much it would cost, in terms of money, lives, or credibility to US prestige.
He has ALWAYS left the "details" to somebody else: Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Turd Blossom, whomever. He COULD have started a war with China, but he wanted a nice, neat, clean little "war" that wouldn't cost so much in terms of casualities. He picked a decrepit, third-world dictatorship crippled by twelve years of UN sanctions. He miscalculated because he never thought ahead in the first place, and now he's got a mess on his hands.
The US occupation of Iraq has gone on longer than US participation in World War II. He's spent the equivalent of the GNP of several developed nations trying to stabilize Iraq, and he's got nothing to show for it. In the same time period Roosevelt and Truman defeated Germany, Italy and Japan with fewer resources and technology. Because he's a putz. The fact that he invaded Iraq in the first place SHOWS he's a putz.
Now he wants more time, more money, and more US lives. Screw him. If he's such an effing genius, he can accomplish what he wants with the resources he has now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, he conspired to mislead the US public and the world community, but the only well-thought-out-and-executed part was how he mislead the average American. The "war" and "occupation" parts were not well-thought-out and executed at all. Hence the mess he's got on his hands.
| Quote: |
| I don't think W spent more than a few minutes thinking about Iraq at ANY point in the process until well AFTER we invaded. |
On this we can agree. But let's face it: stupid people can be liars too. He had the notion in his head to do something "big"...it just happened to be Iraq, if there was something else easier (in his own mind) he could have done, he would have chosen it instead.
Zimbabwe would have been easier, but Zimbabwe is hard to pronounce, doesn't have any oil, and has too many Negroes. Doesn't look good for a white Christian president to invade a black Christian country.
But Iraq? Buncha sand n***gers who aren't even Christian...well, the optics are just easier all around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
