WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush told reporters Thursday that he respected the results of this week's elections that propelled Democrats to power and said he was "open to any idea or suggestion" that will help the U.S. achieve its goals in Iraq.



Bush said he was looking forward to discussing with Democrats "the way forward for our country" and outlined some issues he'd like to see Congress address before year's end.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/election.main/index.html


In words and tone, Bush conveyed an unfamiliar flexibility and rare willingness to work with his political adversaries Wednesday on his war strategy. Just last week, Bush said Rumsfeld was doing a "fantastic'' job and would remain in his administration through the end of his presidency.

ANALYSIS: An immediate and dramatic change in Bush's tone (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/09/MNG1LM8VRV1.DTL)



My, how his attitude has changed now that he is a double lame duck and sank his party.

I think he has been Bush'd whipped!

It's about time he listens to fresh ideas. :D

His "staying the course" finally hit a brick wall! (the american public)

He started out his Presidency like this. It was the Democrats who through that good will into his face. Need I remind you of "No Child Left Behind" that was written along side Ted Kennedy?

And he also made comments similar to that after EVERY election since 2000.

History didn't start yesterday, perhaps some of you guys should read up and acquire a background in this stuff before posting so much.

History didn't start yesterday, perhaps some of you guys should read up and acquire a background in this stuff before posting so much.

Don't hold your breath. Remember, some of these guys still think Rove was the leaker, all proof to the contrary.

Hey fossten is that your pic on the resume payday website?

Hey fossten is that your pic on the resume payday website?

Yep.

************************************************** *****
Here's an idea - send in the 1st Armored Division and 200,000 more troops and lock up the Syrian and Iranian borders. Send a CG into the Strait of Hormuz and tell the Iranians if they so much as turn on a fire control radar we'll take over all their oil fields. Then lock down Baghdad and the other problem cities with overwhelming force and martial law. Declare all mosques fair game for bombing with the promise that they will be rebuilt when the US leaves.

The war would be over in 6 months.

Who's with me?

Im with ya Fossten. Sounds like a good plan.

Bush 'open to any idea' on Iraq


Here's a suggeston, Mr. President; nuke the country, then salt the Earth it once stood on...

Didn't Bush'd get the past secretary of states together for a "think tank" on Iraq? From Weinberger to Powell, wasn't there any bright idea to have come out of this meeting, or was its just for show?

BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition. And I say that in a nice way. :)

Didn't Bush'd get the past secretary of states together for a "think tank" on Iraq? From Weinberger to Powell, wasn't there any bright idea to have come out of this meeting, or was its just for show?

IMHO, won't bring anything of substance. Bush's flaw is he's too worried about looking mean and nasty, so he's fighting the war in a politically correct, minimalist fashion. If I was in charge we'd have been done a year ago. And I don't mean that in an egotistical way, I just know that I would have treated this like a war, not like a skirmish.

BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition. And I say that in a nice way. :)
That's very kind of you. We should all post pics of ourselves and then maybe we'll all lighten up a bit.

"BTW Fossten, your too goodlooking of a man to have such a powerfully nasty disposition."

Why do you think guys like me, Fossten and Calabrio are on the Right! We prefer to leave the lights on.

And this is what I think of the new bi-partisanship btw!

And this is what I think of the new bi-partisanship btw!

LOL

Yep.

************************************************** *****
Here's an idea - send in the 1st Armored Division and 200,000 more troops and lock up the Syrian and Iranian borders. Send a CG into the Strait of Hormuz and tell the Iranians if they so much as turn on a fire control radar we'll take over all their oil fields. Then lock down Baghdad and the other problem cities with overwhelming force and martial law. Declare all mosques fair game for bombing with the promise that they will be rebuilt when the US leaves.

The war would be over in 6 months.

Who's with me?


As a Navy Veteran (Iran hostage crisis), I have to agree with you on this. We needed to have had a quick strike, with minimal loss of life to either side. I cry a little inside everytime I hear or read of another of our active forces is lost to this mess we are in. :( I'm not for "cutting and running", but a solution for a way out that ends the blood bath.:mad:

As a Navy Veteran (Iran hostage crisis), I have to agree with you on this. We needed to have had a quick strike, with minimal loss of life to either side. I cry a little inside everytime I hear or read of another of our active forces is lost to this mess we are in. :( I'm not for "cutting and running", but a solution for a way out that ends the blood bath.:mad:


Ive been convinced since the beginning, the answer is more troops. Lots of them. Another 100k - 150k at least -

The first Iraq war was simple. Put enough troops in that there is no question it can be handled decisively regardless of what happens.

That is the attitude that should have happened here. It wasnt. I dont know why precisely, but I suspect GW feared he would get too much flack for sending 300k+ troops. But I believe it would have got the job done much smoother. We cant protect our flanks there, or the borders. We just move around putting out fires to have them rekindle when we move on to the next hotspot.

Why do you think guys like me, Fossten and Calabrio are on the Right! We prefer to leave the lights on.

To make sure your getting screwed by the "right" party? LOL, Your too funny!

Love the pics.:p

Ive been convinced since the beginning, the answer is more troops. Lots of them. Another 100k - 150k at least -

The first Iraq war was simple. Put enough troops in that there is no question it can be handled decisively regardless of what happens.

That is the attitude that should have happened here. It wasnt. I dont know why precisely, but I suspect GW feared he would get too much flack for sending 300k+ troops. But I believe it would have got the job done much smoother. We cant protect our flanks there, or the borders. We just move around putting out fires to have them rekindle when we move on to the next hotspot.

Well put! GW was afraid to put too many troops in there, because he spoke of being the "Great Crusader". He used those words at the beginning of the "invasion" and the Arabs don't like those words. More troops at that time would have cause the Arabs to unit against us. But now is a perfect time to bring them in. Flex a little muscle!

Well put! GW was afraid to put too many troops in there, because he spoke of being the "Great Crusader". He used those words at the beginning of the "invasion" and the Arabs don't like those words. More troops at that time would have cause the Arabs to unit against us. But now is a perfect time to bring them in. Flex a little muscle!

I think we should hav ebeen decisive from the get go. Arab countries wouldnt have done anything but maybe bitch a little, because they want to sell their oil.

We had a good rep ant the end of the first Iraq war. We went in very strong, kicked ass, and got the hell out. The arab countries should have seen something like that again. The only real, long lasting "Shock and Awe" was that we didnt roll in heavy. The same issue is in Afgahnistan. The Taliban got away cause we didnt go in strong enough. Numbers ensure victory.

Ok, so here we are. That is still the only answer as far as I can see. Just dump troops everywhere. Make the other countries in the region realize, we have the strength and are willing to use it. Lets see how Iran responds to us having 300k troops on on border and 50k on the other.

I think we should hav ebeen decisive from the get go. Arab countries wouldnt have done anything but maybe bitch a little, because they want to sell their oil.

I agree. However, if Bush had gone after the mosques, the Arabs would have taken advantage of our media's penchant for criticizing the President and complained loudly. The media would have accused Bush of religious profiling, and of indiscriminately attacking muslims and their religious beliefs. They would have trotted out masses of civilians (which they would have made sure were locked in the mosques) and called Bush a butcher. He knew this and I have no doubt his spirit buckled at the thought.

Well put! GW was afraid to put too many troops in there, because he spoke of being the "Great Crusader". He used those words at the beginning of the "invasion" and the Arabs don't like those words. More troops at that time would have cause the Arabs to unit against us. But now is a perfect time to bring them in. Flex a little muscle!

Show me the quote or link where he said he was the "Great Crusader." Just curious.

I agree. However, if Bush had gone after the mosques, the Arabs would have taken advantage of our media's penchant for criticizing the President and complained loudly. The media would have accused Bush of religious profiling, and of indiscriminately attacking muslims and their religious beliefs. They would have trotted out masses of civilians (which they would have made sure were locked in the mosques) and called Bush a butcher. He knew this and I have no doubt his spirit buckled at the thought.


Maybe - but thats where I would want the tough talking cowboy to be our president. Thats where you say:

We wont intentionally attack the Mosques PROVIDING they are not used as shelter for combatants or weapons. If they are used as such, or we have cause to believe a Mosque is being used as such a shelter, they also will be attacked. But as long as they remain non combatant, then we will not intentionally harm them.

Maybe - but thats where I would want the tough talking cowboy to be our president. Thats where you say:

We wont intentionally attack the Mosques PROVIDING they are not used as shelter for combatants or weapons. If they are used as such, or we have cause to believe a Mosque is being used as such a shelter, they also will be attacked. But as long as they remain non combatant, then we will not intentionally harm them.

Yeah, that's what we do now. Except we don't DESTROY those mosques. I think we should flatten any of them if there's a terrorist taking potshots at our guys from there. As of now we're only allowed to shoot back with bullets and then only AT the terrorist. We still can't touch the mosques.

Yeah, that's what we do now. Except we don't DESTROY those mosques. I think we should flatten any of them if there's a terrorist taking potshots at our guys from there. As of now we're only allowed to shoot back with bullets and then only AT the terrorist. We still can't touch the mosques.


On this one, we agree. Once they are used as a shelter or base, they should be treated like a machine gun pillbox...

On this one, we agree. Once they are used as a shelter or base, they should be treated like a machine gun pillbox...

This is true.... you can't hide behind the church...

Show me the quote or link where he said he was the "Great Crusader." Just curious.

I'm sorry I misquoted him from memory. I remember his smirk at the podium and saying somthing about great crusaders. What he said was on 9/16/01:" This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. "

I think we should hav ebeen decisive from the get go. Arab countries wouldnt have done anything but maybe bitch a little, because they want to sell their oil.

We had a good rep ant the end of the first Iraq war. We went in very strong, kicked ass, and got the hell out. The arab countries should have seen something like that again. The only real, long lasting "Shock and Awe" was that we didnt roll in heavy. The same issue is in Afgahnistan. The Taliban got away cause we didnt go in strong enough. Numbers ensure victory.

Ok, so here we are. That is still the only answer as far as I can see. Just dump troops everywhere. Make the other countries in the region realize, we have the strength and are willing to use it. Lets see how Iran responds to us having 300k troops on on border and 50k on the other.

My take on this, we needed to finish our job in Afghanistan FIRST and CRUSH the Taliban / Al-Quida and maybe we'd get lucky to capture/kill Osama before we even entertained the idea of going after Saddam. We did a half-assed job in Afghanistan due to not enough troops. If we can target a fly on the lapel of a captain of a ship from 200 miles away (or so the Navy would like us to believe from their commercials), there's no excuse for letting Osama Bin Ladin escape into the mountains of Tora Bora. Once that mission was completed, then we could've put our full focus AND resources (troops) onto Saddam and that mission, and not have to worry about a "resurgent Taliban" or "Al-Quida in Iraq". The way its played out, BuSh, Cheney and Rummy has spread our troops too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan and the result is a half-assed job of both. I'm not sure if we even HAVE enough troops now that we could deploy in those kind of numbers into Iraq considering most are on their 2nd or 3rd deployment and we've tapped heavily into our reserves. This is an oversimplification, but anyone who's played RISK knows if you want to make progress against your enemy you can't spread your troops too thin, or you'll get walked right over. After 3+ years, all BuSh and co. have done was to reinforce any "Paper Tiger" opinion the world has of us by fighting these two wars like panseys. And I'm not buying the excuse that BuSh and co were trying to be "politically palitable" by advertising these wars as being easy and not sending in enough troops and resources to begin with. 3 years ago BuSh and co. had all the "mandate" and support of both sides of the aisle that he could've dreamed for and gone in with anything he pleased. Too bad he's squandered that too.

I really enjoy playing Risk.

My take on this, we needed to finish our job in Afghanistan FIRST and CRUSH the Taliban / Al-Quida
Perhaps you could define what "crushing" an international terrorism network means, exactly. And since Al Queda did have relations with Iraq and Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, didn't you just contradict yourself?

Are you saying that nothing else should have been done until Afghanistan was completely rebuilt- a task we have in large part turned over to Nato. Do you not think the international community is capable of doing such a thing?

and maybe we'd get lucky to capture/kill Osama before we even entertained the idea of going after Saddam.
Since Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, what's your point? Would you like to send U.S. forces in Pakistan? What about the inevitable instability within that country that would result and the consequences of Mussarif being overthrown? I certainly would hope that Islamic radicals wouldn't take control of that nuclear power. I'm sure you've considered that though.

We did a half-assed job in Afghanistan due to not enough troops. If we can target a fly on the lapel of a captain of a ship from 200 miles away (or so the Navy would like us to believe from their commercials), there's no excuse for letting Osama Bin Ladin escape into the mountains of Tora Bora.
See, that's sort of the bitch, we DO NOT haev the technology to target a fly on the lapel of a captain of ship IF THAT SHIP IS HIDING and moving through the intricate cave system of a remote, rural section of the world that resembles hell.

Once that mission was completed, then we could've put our full focus AND resources (troops) onto Saddam and that mission
Completed what? Rebuilt that crap hole country? Turned it into a thriving free-market democracy? How long do you think that could have been done? Perhaps you know of a way to bring foreign investment into a country with no infrastructure, no education, and security challenges?

So what "mission" do you think we could have achieved within a year or two? Because apparently overthrowing one government, establishing a democratic government and a constitution, holding elections, and then turning over the "peace building" to the Europeans doesn't qualify in your mind.

and not have to worry about a "resurgent Taliban" or "Al-Quida in Iraq".
I think I've demonstrated that you're premise is horribly flawed. How do you eliminate any "resurgent Taliban"- genocide? And "Al-Quida in Iraq"- are you so confused that you think Al-Queda is from Afghanistan, or that all their operations are based from that country? They are a terrorist network. The Taliban and Afghanistan were really just a host country. The Taliban had as much to do with 9-11 as any other country friendly to terror.

The way its played out, BuSh, Cheney and Rummy has spread our troops too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan and the result is a half-assed job of both.
This is a sad gross oversimplification that is neither truthful or accurate. But just by glancing at your above post, you've demonstrated how limited your understanding of the situation really is.


I'm not sure if we even HAVE enough troops now that we could deploy in those kind of numbers into Iraq considering most are on their 2nd or 3rd deployment and we've tapped heavily into our reserves.
Let's examine this-
Sending in more troops means more fighting. The mere presence of troops doesn't deter violence, especially when it's recognized that they aren't able to use aggressive force. Are you saying that you would support an, arguably brutal at times, war effort to crush any remnant of insurgency or instability in that region? To send in greater numbers, for any other reasons, simply means MORE TARGETS.

Are you one of the people who fixated on the Abu Ghraib story. Who oppose water boarding. And who sides against the U.S. every time there is a story of U.S. abuse of power or Iraqi casualties?

Because, what you're advocating is an intensification of violence. It's a valid position, but it seems contradictory coming from you. You might want to clarify.

This is an oversimplification, but anyone who's played RISK knows if you want to make progress against your enemy you can't spread your troops too thin, or you'll get walked right over.
I'm glad you recognize the oversimplification, but equating this situation to a game of RISK demonstrates your naivety.

RISK is based on 19th century warfare, with battling nations. The challenge here is due to the non-state actors and the asymetric warfare taking place. In terms of "size" one B-52 can't even be compared to a guy with a remote controlled bomb.

After 3+ years, all BuSh and co. have done was to reinforce any "Paper Tiger" opinion the world has of us by fighting these two wars like panseys.
So, you think we need to fight more aggressively.

No more complaining when a mosque is destroyed? No more complaining if "the wrong person was killed?" No more of that stuff?

See if you, and your ilk, took that tone at the launch of the war, perhaps things would have been different. But now you're advocating a much more intense warfare, with a spike in causalities on both sides.

I'm not arguing the position, I'm trying to define yours. Am I incorrect?

See if you, and your ilk, took that tone at the launch of the war, perhaps things would have been different.Just wait and see how the DriveByMedia starts to paint a different picture of the war in Iraq after January's swearing in of the Dimwits. It will be the biggest flip-flop in American history.

See if you, and your ilk, took that tone at the launch of the war, perhaps things would have been different.


You shouldn't use such big words. It confuses him. :D

Great response Calabrio! It completely negated any reason for me to respond. It was beautiful :)

I mean...c'mon Johnny...you compared the most complicated global conflict in history to a child's friggin board game???

I mean...c'mon Johnny...you compared the most complicated global conflict in history to a child's friggin board game???

What??? You don't think the Dimwits Pelosi and Reid are playing a game of Risk right now trying to figure out their new foreign policy plans? Don't put it past them brother....

Actually, I think the current conflict more closely resembles "Stratego."

My take on this, we needed to finish our job in Afghanistan FIRST and CRUSH the Taliban / Al-Quida and maybe we'd get lucky to capture/kill Osama before we even entertained the idea of going after Saddam. We did a half-assed job in Afghanistan due to not enough troops...

Gee, Johnny, I guess you haven't heard. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, Afghanistan has SUDDENLY turned around and is hopeful again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-09-afghanistan-survey_x.htm

Ya, take a look. 44% of Afgans and 47% of Iraqis think their country is going in the right direction. Compare those numbers to the morons in this country that decided we needed a 'change'.

Grab your ankles boys. We are in for a 'thumping'.

Afghan and U.S. forces arrest key al-Qaeda member in southeast Afghanistan

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-13-al-qaeda-arrest_x.htm
Updated 11/13/2006 9:42 AM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. and Afghan forces have arrested a senior al-Qaeda member in southeastern Afghanistan, a provincial police chief said Monday, confirming a report last week by coalition officials.
The troops detained four Afghans, an Arab and a Pakistani on Thursday in the city of Khost, said Mohammad Ayub, the provincial police chief.

Ayub said he could not confirm a report in the Pakistani daily, The News, that one of the detainees was Abu Nasir al-Qahtani, one of four Arab al-Qaeda operatives who escaped from the U.S. prison in Bagram in July 2005.

"What I can tell you is that he is an important al-Qaeda member," Ayub said.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Paul Fitzpatrick on Monday declined to identify or confirm the name of the detainee.

Coalition forces in Afghanistan last week said that a "known al-Qaeda terrorist" and five other extremists were arrested on Nov. 6 near Khost. It said the detainee has "known ties to al-Qaeda leadership," and was detained with Saudi and Pakistani nationals.

Four al-Qaeda operatives last year broke out of the detention facility in Bagram, the main U.S. base in Afghanistan, fleeing through barbed wire stockades in the first escape from the compound since the American military took over the former Soviet air base.

Afghan police had identified the four as Abdullah from Syria, Mohammed al-Qatari from Saudi Arabia, Mahmood Ahmad from Kuwait, and Abulbakar Mohammed Hassan from Libya. Some of these names were aliases.

The Pentagon later identified one of the four fugitives as Omar al-Farouq — one of Osama bin Laden's lieutenants in Southeast Asia.


Gee, Johnny, you're right, Afghanistan sucks. </sarcasm>

Gee, Johnny, I guess you haven't heard. Now that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, Afghanistan has SUDDENLY turned around and is hopeful again.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-09-afghanistan-survey_x.htm

For someone most skeptical of polls, I'm suprised you missed this....

87% said they trusted the Afghan National Army, and 86% said they trusted the Afghan National Police. The police, in particular, have been widely criticized for being corrupt, brutal and beholden to local warlords. A report released this month by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based non-profit group devoted to conflict prevention, called the Afghan police "little more than private militias ... regarded in nearly every district more as a source of insecurity than protection."

"I have never met one person, including the minister of the Interior, who trusted the Afghan National Police," Barnett Rubin, who studies Afghanistan at New York University's Center on International Cooperation, said in an e-mail. "I think this is not a very reliable survey."

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
My take on this, we needed to finish our job in Afghanistan FIRST and CRUSH the Taliban / Al-Quida

Perhaps you could define what "crushing" an international terrorism network means, exactly. And since Al Queda did have relations with Iraq and Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, didn't you just contradict yourself?

Are you saying that nothing else should have been done until Afghanistan was completely rebuilt- a task we have in large part turned over to Nato. Do you not think the international community is capable of doing such a thing?

I see your knee-jerk reactions are in fine tune too. In case you don’t remember, it was Al-Quida, inspired and financed by Osama Bin Ladin, who was responsible for 9/11 and they were being “harbored” by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It wasn’t until GW’s lame attempt at capturing OBL that he escaped into Pakistan. Certainly, while Al-Quida leaders may have had a beer or smoked a peace pipe w/ Saddam once or twice, they were not exactly BFFs and were NOT in cahoots on 9/11. Additionally, Al-Quida did not have the presence in Iraq then that they enjoy there today. YOU KNOW THAT, so quit trying to obfuscate the issue. And finally, I never said that we needed to wait until the last coat of fresh paint dries in Afghanistan before we continued our GWOT elsewhere. I piss on your ridiculous strawman. What I said was WE NEEDED TO CRUSH THE TALIBAN, and eliminate that safety net they provided to Al-Quida THERE. While that may not have eliminated the possibility of Al-Quida moving into Iraq from elsewhere, it certainly would’ve prevented the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan that IS OCCURING TODAY, and it certainly would’ve put a dent in Al-Quida’s recruitment capabilities. But due to the BuSh administration’s incompetence and “hard-on for Saddam”, we failed BOTH of those missions in Afghanistan.

Quote:
and maybe we'd get lucky to capture/kill Osama before we even entertained the idea of going after Saddam.

Since Bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan, what's your point? Would you like to send U.S. forces in Pakistan? What about the inevitable instability within that country that would result and the consequences of Mussarif being overthrown? I certainly would hope that Islamic radicals wouldn't take control of that nuclear power. I'm sure you've considered that though.

1st, you took my statement out of context (typical lame debating tactic), as I was speaking in retrospect, not of the present time. As I said above, OBL WAS in Afghanistan until we let him escape to the safety of Pakistan. We missed that great opportunity, THANKS TO BuSh and his “great military leaders”. It’s too late now to do anything “easy” in Pakistan, but then again, they are not yet one of our great nuclear allies now either, are they? I don’t think now is the time we need to do anything w/ Pakistan, but that day IS coming.

Quote:
We did a half-assed job in Afghanistan due to not enough troops. If we can target a fly on the lapel of a captain of a ship from 200 miles away (or so the Navy would like us to believe from their commercials), there's no excuse for letting Osama Bin Ladin escape into the mountains of Tora Bora.

See, that's sort of the bitch, we DO NOT haev the technology to target a fly on the lapel of a captain of ship IF THAT SHIP IS HIDING and moving through the intricate cave system of a remote, rural section of the world that resembles hell.

You are correct that kind of technology that can see through mountains doesn’t exist, but I’m sure we have some special-ops teams who are fully capable of such a mission to secretly locate and target OBL.

Quote:
Once that mission was completed, then we could've put our full focus AND resources (troops) onto Saddam and that mission

Completed what? Rebuilt that crap hole country? Turned it into a thriving free-market democracy? How long do you think that could have been done? Perhaps you know of a way to bring foreign investment into a country with no infrastructure, no education, and security challenges?

I really hope you are not advocating that the US leaves countries we enter (and not always with their “permission”) to remove terrorists in a shambles when we leave. But if you are, then that is very sad, as you’d be the epitome of why the US is hated by so many abroad and would only add justification for the terrorists’ motives.

So what "mission" do you think we could have achieved within a year or two? Because apparently overthrowing one government, establishing a democratic government and a constitution, holding elections, and then turning over the "peace building" to the Europeans doesn't qualify in your mind.

I assume you are referring to Iraq now. The “mission” I refer to is all of what you stated MINUS our troops being sitting ducks getting picked-off by insurgent snipers and IEDs. More troops on our side would mean we could’ve put forth a much more aggressive offensive against the insurgents and routed them out of their strongholds and provided much better security for the critical infrastructure rebuilding of that country. Do you really feel that we would’ve been more efficient or more successful with FEWER troops?? I hardly think you do.

If you were referring to Afghanistan, the "mission" I refer to is the crushing of the Taliban. Like w/ OBL, we had them on the run, then before we finished the job we turned our backs and moved to Iraq.

Quote:
and not have to worry about a "resurgent Taliban" or "Al-Quida in Iraq".

I think I've demonstrated that you're premise is horribly flawed. How do you eliminate any "resurgent Taliban"- genocide? And "Al-Quida in Iraq"- are you so confused that you think Al-Queda is from Afghanistan, or that all their operations are based from that country? They are a terrorist network. The Taliban and Afghanistan were really just a host country. The Taliban had as much to do with 9-11 as any other country friendly to terror.

Quit pussy-footing around this. Did we go into Afghanistan to put the Taliban out of power PERMANENTLY or NOT? If we DID, then we FAILED MISERABLY because they are on the comeback. But hey, at least GW got his buddy Karazai in power long enough to get that natural gas pipeline built. Or was that the REAL and ONLY reason we went into Afghanistan??? Or are you now claiming that "Hey, those Tally-Ban guys aren't so bad afterall"?? :rolleyes:

Quote:
The way its played out, BuSh, Cheney and Rummy has spread our troops too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan and the result is a half-assed job of both.

This is a sad gross oversimplification that is neither truthful or accurate. But just by glancing at your above post, you've demonstrated how limited your understanding of the situation really is.

Are you taking issue with “spreading our troops too thin” or the “half-assed job of both” part?? If it’s the latter, you are entitled to your own opinion. If it’s the “spreading of troops too thin” part, in the face of the facts that we have been digging deep into our reservists and a high percentage of our enlisted soldiers are serving their 2nd and 3rd tours of duty, what evidence do you offer to counter it? DO WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DEPLOY 150,000 MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ?? Simple question, YES or NO.

Quote:
I'm not sure if we even HAVE enough troops now that we could deploy in those kind of numbers into Iraq considering most are on their 2nd or 3rd deployment and we've tapped heavily into our reserves.

Let's examine this-
Sending in more troops means more fighting. The mere presence of troops doesn't deter violence, especially when it's recognized that they aren't able to use aggressive force. Are you saying that you would support an, arguably brutal at times, war effort to crush any remnant of insurgency or instability in that region? To send in greater numbers, for any other reasons, simply means MORE TARGETS.

Are you one of the people who fixated on the Abu Ghraib story. Who oppose water boarding. And who sides against the U.S. every time there is a story of U.S. abuse of power or Iraqi casualties?

Because, what you're advocating is an intensification of violence. It's a valid position, but it seems contradictory coming from you. You might want to clarify.

Lots of conjecture and speculation on your part there. 1st of all, what would be the point of sending in more troops just to have them stand around and evoke their “presence” upon Iraq?? And WHO says they can’t use “aggressive force”?? Did you just make that up? Or are you making an attempt to tangentially link the prison abuse scandals (which BTW HAS resulted in court marshals) to some illusionary restriction on our soldiers’ ability to “use aggressive force” on the battlefield?? I’m not advocating an “intensification of violence”, I’m advocating an “intensification of success”.

Quote:
This is an oversimplification, but anyone who's played RISK knows if you want to make progress against your enemy you can't spread your troops too thin, or you'll get walked right over.

I'm glad you recognize the oversimplification, but equating this situation to a game of RISK demonstrates your naivety.

RISK is based on 19th century warfare, with battling nations. The challenge here is due to the non-state actors and the asymetric warfare taking place. In terms of "size" one B-52 can't even be compared to a guy with a remote controlled bomb.

The current struggle between US troops and the insurgency in Iraq remains based on essentially door-to-door, hand-to-hand combat. Unless we are carpet-bombing Baghdad w/ B-52s (which we’re not) or nuking the whole city, NUMBERS RULE, and there is safety for our troops in numbers. If you think otherwise, then you are more clueless than I had thought.

Quote:
After 3+ years, all BuSh and co. have done was to reinforce any "Paper Tiger" opinion the world has of us by fighting these two wars like panseys.

So, you think we need to fight more aggressively.

No more complaining when a mosque is destroyed? No more complaining if "the wrong person was killed?" No more of that stuff?

See if you, and your ilk, took that tone at the launch of the war, perhaps things would have been different. But now you're advocating a much more intense warfare, with a spike in causalities on both sides.

I'm not arguing the position, I'm trying to define yours. Am I incorrect?

Did I personally EVER complain about mosques being bombed or of innocents being killed?? If so, please point this out as I don’t recall that I have. However, from your tone and your phrase “you, and your ilk”, I have to assume you are unfairly lumping me into the group of extreme left-wing anti-war types (big surprise coming from you, LOL). In any case, this entire country WAS united behind GW at the launch of the war in Iraq, certainly so at the launch of the GWOT in Afghanistan. It wasn’t until late ’04 and early ’05 that this country really started taking sides, when the search for WMDs came up empty. That is why I’m not buying the cop-out excuse now coming from the shrubbies that GW should’ve / would’ve / could’ve, been more aggressive “if it wasn’t for those doggone liberal democrats”. That is BS. As for your misguided illusion of me as an "anti-war" liberal, what I AM is "anti-stick-our-dicks-in-a-meatgrinder-until-we-die", which is what Iraq has turned into.

Here’s my postion for “winning” in Iraq: GET ‘ER DONE, if that means more troops sent in to crush the insurgency at the cost of a short-term spike in casualties, so be it. I’d contend that if we would’ve adopted such an approach 2+ years ago, we would’ve seen a spike of less than 1000 US casualties over 2-3 months, which is MUCH better than the 2000+ US casualties we’ve seen since then. However, I think a better approach would be to put pressure on the Iraqi government to step up their game by giving them a firm timetable: “Get your sectarian violence under control by March ’07 (for example) or we’re out of there and you are left on your own to sink or swim”. Then, come March ’07, we start pulling troops out to nearby boarders and see what happens. If the peace-loving Iraqi people and their government REALLY want us gone and can control their own destiny, then everyone wins. If they regress into chaos, we step back in w/ guns ablaze and finish it the hard way.

Here’s my postion for “winning” in Iraq: GET ‘ER DONE, if that means more troops sent in to crush the insurgency at the cost of a short-term spike in casualties, so be it.

Looks like you are at odds with the premature ejaculators now running your party...:rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13military.html?ei=5065&en=aaecf1f8312791fc&ex=1164085200&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print (the spunkers)

Time to place bets on how soon we'll be attacked here in the U.S. after Dems take office in January.

My bet is by June 2007, just in time to correspond with the withdrawal plans so the terrorists can show the attacks and the corresponding video of us pulling out.

Should really whip the 'ol islamic facists into a ' allahu akbar ' frenzy.

Go for it Bryan. You've been wrong on every other prediction.:rolleyes:

Go for it Bryan. You've been wrong on every other prediction.:rolleyes:

It's not groundhogs day. What are you doing crawling out of your hole?:shifty:

It's not groundhogs day. What are you doing crawling out of your hole?:shifty:

Just pointing out how wrong you've been. Can't wait for '08.