New Way Forward?

[Shacopate]

Sounds like something that a "six year-old' might come up with. I am sick of this
azzhole. The little Jr. Bush needs to realize that if he was CEO of a company that called itself the United States of America, he'd be long gone by now.

I find it offensive, that he did everything possible to get out of serving in a war, both he and Dick. But they gladly put war (now) as a first option. This family fued will cost most of us our social security.

His legacy will be well earned. And it doesn't look pretty.

[singunner]

Social Security for anyone under 30 was gone before we were born. It's how the system was designed, not the fault of horrible budgeting. The deficit is the fault of horrible budgeting.

It'll be interesting when taxes have to start being significantly raised to pay for social security. I could be wrong, but I believe that money currently being taken out of your checks for social security is being given directly to those currently receiving it. It's structured precisely like a pyramid scheme when the reserve is gone. I see it as the most likely catalyst for the end of the USA. To solve it, you either have huge tax increases or you cut it off and have lots of old dying people. Since the old people vote, it'll be the taxes, and I think we all remember our shoddy excuse for forming this country in the first place. (taxation without representation for those who don't remember)

[kenwoodallpromos]

I call his speech "The Kitchen Sink Speech". LOL!

[chickenhead]

nice post sg. everyone can see that the tracks end up ahead...but no one wants to talk about it. and its not just SS, its medicare and medicaid. Things are going to get very very ugly.

[46zilzal]

from a newspaper in Australia:
U.S. President George W. Bush mingled with soldiers yesterday as he began selling his high-risk gamble to send an additional 21,500 troops to the bloody streets of Iraq.
The choreographed sales pitch came as Mr Bush faced escalating criticism in Washington over his plan, including condemnation from within his own ranks.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and Bush critic, was among the strongest detractors.

"I think the speech given last night by this President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam - if it is carried out," he said. The volley of harsh words from other Republicans and Democrats was delivered as the Bush Administration conceded it had no idea how long U.S. troops would stay in the chaotic war zone.

[Show Me the Wire]

Darn that bipartisan report. Listed as an option the biggest military blunder since LBJ lied to escalate a war on peaceful people.

[Shacopate]

When Bush ran in 2000, he pledged to use 1 of the 3 trillion dollar surplus he had to work with to protect social security into the year 2060.

[46zilzal]

When Bush ran in 2000, he pledged to use 1 of the 3 trillion dollar surplus he had to work with to protect social security into the year 2060.
now a large part of that has been plundered.

[Secretariat]

Darn that bipartisan report. Listed as an option the biggest military blunder since LBJ lied to escalate a war on peaceful people.

Seems the biparitsan study goup recommendations by Baker and company were ignored. There was no recommendation for an escaltion in that report. This is the biggest miltiary blundersince LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin crap, no matter what party you are affiliated with. LBJ, a Democrat, blundered then. Considering both of them, really, it seems to be a Texas thing mroe than a party thing. ...Relax, Isbets, just a joke.

[Secretariat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Study_Group#Recommendations

"Recommendations
Main article: Iraq Study Group Report

Although the final report was not released until December 6, media reports ahead of that date described some possible recommendations by the panel. Among them were the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq and direct US dialogue with Syria and Iran over Iraq and the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group also found that the Pentagon has underreported significantly the extent of the violence in Iraq and that officials have obtained little information regarding the source of these attacks. The group further described the situation in Afghanistan as so disastrous that they may need to divert troops from Iraq in order to help stabilize the country. After these reports began surfacing, co-chair James Baker warned that the group should not be expected to produce a "magic bullet" to resolve the Iraqi conflict.[11]

According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report was released December 6, 2006, included 79 recommendations, and was 160 pages in length.[12]"


Despite this recommendation troops are going to be pulled from Afghanistan to support the GW escalation in Iraq.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The Baker stuff was halfway measures; one thing I learned from being alive during Vietnam is you either go all out or leave. I am for cutting and running but 1 last stab at escalation is the 2nd best option and if we do not leave Bahgdad to just go to hell.

[46zilzal]

Despite this recommendation troops are going to be pulled from Afghanistan to support the GW escalation in Iraq.
isn't that where the "bad" guys intially were located? It is of course too late now to do anything about that.

[lsbets]

So Sec, do you support the recommendations made by Saudi Arabias's highest paid lobbyist, James Baker?

[betchatoo]

The Baker stuff was halfway measures; one thing I learned from being alive during Vietnam is you either go all out or leave. I am for cutting and running but 1 last stab at escalation is the 2nd best option and if we do not leave Bahgdad to just go to hell.

I'm all for escalating if we are going to really do something to stabilize the country. As much as I opposed the war, it is now a fact. We brought chaos to a country and it would be fitting if we undid the mess we made before we left. But frankly, if we are going to do that I don't think 20,000 troops are enough. Maybe a hundred thousand.

And, if we are just going to do the same things we've been doing, then get the troops out of there today!

[lsbets]

I'm all for escalating if we are going to really do something to stabilize the country. As much as I opposed the war, it is now a fact. We brought chaos to a country and it would be fitting if we undid the mess we made before we left. But frankly, if we are going to do that I don't think 20,000 troops are enough. Maybe a hundred thousand.

And, if we are just going to do the same things we've been doing, then get the troops out of there today!

While I agree with much of what you just said - either do it or leave, I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that 20,000 troops is not enough.

[chickenhead]

ls, I was wondering about this last night.

Do you know how many troops we have in Baghdad? And how many of these 20K would be going into Baghdad?

I heard something the other day that the generals book on counter-insurgency said you needed 25 troops per 1000 residents. I have no idea whether thats true, but it got me wondering what the ratios are right now.

[46zilzal]

"Security is the essential roadblock(?) to achieving the road map to peace."
--George W. Bush, July 25, 2003

[lsbets]

ls, I was wondering about this last night.

Do you know how many troops we have in Baghdad? And how many of these 20K would be going into Baghdad?

I heard something the other day that the generals book on counter-insurgency said you needed 25 troops per 1000 residents. I have no idea whether thats true, but it got me wondering what the ratios are right now.

We have about 11,000 troops in Baghdad. Almost all of the 20K would be headed there, and are supposed to be augmented by a large increase in Iraqi troops. Unfortunately, I don't trust the Iraqi troops.

As far as the book on counter-insurgency goes, our doctrine was just rewritten. The principal author of our counter insurgency doctrine is Gen Petraeus. Supposedly, this is the force package that he asked for. Since he "wrote the book", I'll assume he feels that this number is adequate. He has proven to be the best general that we have had in a long time, and I hope he continues to be as succesful as he has been in the past.

[betchatoo]

While I agree with much of what you just said - either do it or leave, I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that 20,000 troops is not enough.

The number came from, something I read (and that you just reiterated in a new post), that most or all of the 20,000 troops would be needed to secure Baghdad. There are problems with the rest of the country, too. I know McCain among others believes a greater number of troops are needed. If we are going to do this, I just want it done right.

And then, of course there is the other problem. Will Iraq live up to its part of the bargain this time and really gear up to police themselves?

[46zilzal]

even if one supported this war, didn't General Shinseki's more accurate prediction of required troop strength more closely hit the mark? Hire an expert to advise you, then don't listen: fairly good definition of stupidity.

[chickenhead]

lets hope by the time I finish reading this we are out of Iraq, but at least I found it:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm all for escalating if we are going to really do something to stabilize the country. As much as I opposed the war, it is now a fact. We brought chaos to a country and it would be fitting if we undid the mess we made before we left. But frankly, if we are going to do that I don't think 20,000 troops are enough. Maybe a hundred thousand.

And, if we are just going to do the same things we've been doing, then get the troops out of there today!

We did not bring chaos, we allowed it. By allowing Iraqis to legally own assault rifles. I heard no plans for a gun buyback program in Iraq. But i did hear BS about we will get tough with Iran- but they better bring in 2 more carriers and use the firepower on them around the Iran-Syria borders!

[Tom]

Let's give them ALL guns and then back off and see who wins.
The more they kill each other, the better of we will be.

[Tom]

So Sec, do you support the recommendations made by Saudi Arabias's highest paid lobbyist, James Baker?

That report was the most stupid thing I ever read. It ranks right down there with, uh, Bush's startegy for Iraq. Ands SS. And medicade. And homeland secuirity. And securing the borders. And guest workers. And............
Dumb and Dumber.
Cream rises to the top - so does pond scum.

[Secretariat]

So Sec, do you support the recommendations made by Saudi Arabias's highest paid lobbyist, James Baker?

I thought the recommendations were not by one man, but a bipartisan committee. I know you like when the King only decides, but I prefer to listen to mutiple viewpoints. And btw...I do support the Iraq Study Group recommendations...although I beleive in a defined timetable for takeover. Personally, I think Maliki would be happier with that than massive violence upcoming in Baghdad.

......

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

- George Bush Sr.

[Secretariat]

Let's give them ALL guns and then back off and see who wins.
The more they kill each other, the better of we will be.

tom,

They've got guns, but this is one of your more intelligent posts. Unfortunately, that is not what is going to happen.

[lsbets]

Glad to see you side with the Saudis Sec. You independent thinker you!

[singunner]

We already gave them all guns. It's what we've been doing for 20 years. If you recall, we gave Sadam guns, and then you called him the most violent dictator and evil incarnate and the Devil's ass-puppet or whatever. If we "liberated" the Iraqis from Sadam, it's because we conquered them with him. Isn't it about time to leave these people alone?

[Light]

Bush is simply buying time with the troop increase. He's like a racehorse desperately trying to hold on to the lead but the pack is closing in. The wire is the end of his term and the pack closing in is reality. Looking at the toteboard,Bush is a longshot.

[46zilzal]

Isn't it about time to leave these people alone?
yes

[Tom]

We already gave them all guns. It's what we've been doing for 20 years. If you recall, we gave Sadam guns, and then you called him the most violent dictator and evil incarnate and the Devil's ass-puppet or whatever. If we "liberated" the Iraqis from Sadam, it's because we conquered them with him. Isn't it about time to leave these people alone?

Leave them alone?????
then talk to the ones doing the killing - and it sure as hell ain't us.
Talk to Iran.
Talk to Al Qeda.

Leave them alone?

WE are the ones keeping most of them alive.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

You may find some insight if you read post 64 in the pays to be supertious thread.

[Tom]

Insights?
Yeah, I can tell the difference bewtween nuts and gravel rather quickley.
Not much effort pegging this one.
Like sands through the hourglass, so go the dazed of our lives.

[Secretariat]

Leave them alone?????
then talk to the ones doing the killing - and it sure as hell ain't us.
Talk to Iran.
Talk to Al Qeda.

Leave them alone?

WE are the ones keeping most of them alive.

And yet if we are the ones keeping them alive, ta great majority of Iraqis according to polls still want us out of the country and see us as occupiers? Strange isn't it?

And Isbets, if the Saudis agree with the bipartisan Iraqi Study Group more power to them, a step in the right direction.

[JustRalph]

They don't deserve to be left alone. They must earn it. and they haven't.

[singunner]

The statements in this thread that infuriate me do so due to their complete lack of a basis in logic.

Do the people who make those statements hate mine because they are so well founded on logical thought?

That is, if we take the logic that you are better than the Iraqis to be true, I'll go ahead and further postulate that I am better than you. It's actually an easier thing to accept.

[acorn54]

as far as saving social security i heard a bush representative on fox tv say that turning a blind eye to the influx of illegal immigrants was due to the fact that we need more workers in this country to fund social security.
the idea being that in the near future the illegal immigrants will somehow be working on the books paying social security taxes either through amnesty and becoming u.s. citizens or in a legal guest worker program.

[Shacopate]

Not naming names, but someone sounds like an arrogant prick. Damn, I feel better already.

[singunner]

I think I was stating that I was only better than you under the assumption that you were better than the Iraqis. And I was only "postulating" it, whereas you would have to accept as a solid fact that you were better than them to even get to my postulation. So who exactly is the arrogant prick in this equation? :bang:

Man you kids are easy. :lol:

[Shacopate]

You like that word: postulate. More than Stephen R. Covey. I guess I failed to "extrapolate" your intent. And yes, I am indeed an arrogant prick.

[Secretariat]

They don't deserve to be left alone. They must earn it. and they haven't.

So much for "liberating" them if they're not permitted to make their own self-determinations. They don't deserve to be left alone? We need to occupy them until they "earn" it? Sometimes....aw, forget it. :bang: :bang: :bang:

[singunner]

You like that word: postulate. More than Stephen R. Covey. I guess I failed to "extrapolate" your intent.
There are a number of words with which I am comfortable to the point that I use them with a greater frequency and confidence than others. It's how all humans work. I'm counscious of my own biases and sometimes attempt to vary my selections, but if I want to say something exact with the intent of my conversation partner understanding, I will usually rely on those words which I am most confident in.

And yes, I am indeed an arrogant prick.
I'm glad we could see eye to eye on this point. In our next session, we'll try and get you to admit your inferiority to me. :D

[JustRalph]

So much for "liberating" them if they're not permitted to make their own self-determinations. They don't deserve to be left alone? We need to occupy them until they "earn" it? Sometimes....aw, forget it. :bang: :bang: :bang:

finally you are starting to catch on...........

[Tom]

There are a number of words with which I am comfortable to the point that I use them with a greater frequency and confidence than others. It's how all humans work. I'm counscious of my own biases and sometimes attempt to vary my selections, but if I want to say something exact with the intent of my conversation partner understanding, I will usually rely on those words which I am most confident in, words like "the", "and", "but", "of."


I'm glad we could see eye to eye on this point. In our next session, we'll try and get you to admit my inferiority to you. :D

Can't wait!

[singunner]

Amazing, Tom. You can demonstrate your childish intellect, childish understanding and childish attitude in a single post. That's actually very adult of you.

And incidentally, it would be much more interesting for me to admit my inferiority to you, rather than have someone else admit my inferiority in my stead. But then, perhaps that's a nuance that's lost on you.

[singunner]

[Begin translation for Tom]

You act like you're 12 and suck at English. Also, you're a dumbass.

[End translation for Tom]

[Shacopate]

And the troll keeps trolling, my quess is that you're fishing without a license.

[singunner]

I think we already determined that I am only a troll if you are...

I'm not the one baiting by pretending to quote me but changing my quote, am I? Although, I suppose this is an instance of me feeding the trolls then, isn't it? Fortunately I've got all the patience and troll-food in the world.

[Shacopate]

Check your Webster; my friend, because you obviously didn't understand my single sentence.

One thing to remember as you blast your air of superiority around.

Tom is funny, you are not.

[singunner]

Perhaps you have not properly reviewed the thread. I am well aware of the irony of my posts whereas you seem to maintain your already-established nature as an arrogant prick.

I once read a study about how there were groups of people who simply could not manage to communicate with eachother due to a disparity between their perspectives. You and I are an excellent example.

If you find Tom amusing, I'm quite happy for you. You have him to keep you amused and I have you all.

[singunner]

Oh my... It just dawned on me that you may have meant "trawling", given your fishing reference and their being so close phonetically...

[Shacopate]

Oh yeah, I'm a dick.

There are three types of people in the world; Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes.

You seem like the latter, because assholes just want to "shit all over everything".

[singunner]

Well if you're a Dick, and we've already got a Tom, wouldn't I make a more likely Harry?

Then again, you just quoted Team America, which furthers my points on the difference in perspective. The funny thing is, while I can see it, you just seem to be rattling along in the dark. I'm just waiting for you to somehow relate me to a Nazi so I can invoke Godwin's law.

[Shacopate]

The simple fact is that you have a deep desire for acceptance and attention.