If this guy gets in

This thread has gone from gutting the military and defense to why Iraq was a mistake. If we just pull all our military out of Iraq....and all the other countries we are protecting....lay them off and stop making bullets...our budget would be in surplus and we could have "free" healthcare, give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor in America and live happily ever after.
 
Bdaves-

Typical. Can you share some thoughts that led you to your "logical" opinion

Logic does tend to require a few inexorable facts.



This thread has gone from gutting the military and defense to why Iraq was a mistake. If we just pull all our military out of Iraq....and all the other countries we are protecting....lay them off and stop making bullets...our budget would be in surplus and we could have "free" healthcare, give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor in America and live happily ever after.

Koombya my Lord koombya...:p

-D
 
I have read this thread for the last few days and what seems to be missing here is that we did not go into Iraq for terrorists. We went into Iraq over WMD's. Hussein would not come out and say hey I dont have any, he continued on the path of trying to mislead the world that he "might" have them. Intelegence from our operatives and other countries suggested that he had WMD's. He also proved in the past that he would use WMD's ie gassing the kurds. The terrorists and actions by them came after we invaded. The thing is that when we went in the majority of the country supported it. What did people expect? We helped Korea in the 50's when the north invaded and guess what were still there! We rebuilt Germany after WWII and guess what were still there! We will still be in Iraq years from now. Whether you agree with what we did or not the fact remains were there. the political climate there is not going to allow us to just pull out. If we just up and leave that country is going to collapse and then we will have far worse problems than we have now.
 
Bdaves-

Typical. Can you share some thoughts that led you to your "logical" opinion

Logic does tend to require a few inexorable facts.



This thread has gone from gutting the military and defense to why Iraq was a mistake. If we just pull all our military out of Iraq....and all the other countries we are protecting....lay them off and stop making bullets...our budget would be in surplus and we could have "free" healthcare, give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor in America and live happily ever after.

Koombya my Lord koombya...:p

-D


Dave,

"Typical" of what? I'm sure you're gonna start the name-calling by insinuating that I'm a freako liberal and a war-hating/peace-loving wuss that want's to hold hands and be friends with everyone. And you'd be seriously wrong.

If I wanted to be buddies with everyone why would I argue about this on a website about a hobby with a known conservative bent? I'm just trying to wake you guys up and give you another point of view for a change. I don't think it will probably ever work, but since I think ignorance is almost as bad as faulty government and terrorism, I figured it was worth a try. If for nothing else than to make everyone think a little about why they have the opinions they do. And for most of you it has nothing to do with "facts".
 
This thread has gone from gutting the military and defense to why Iraq was a mistake. If we just pull all our military out of Iraq....and all the other countries we are protecting....lay them off and stop making bullets...our budget would be in surplus and we could have "free" healthcare, give everyone a million dollars so no one would be poor in America and live happily ever after.


The potential for gutting the military and why Iraq was a mistake are related issues.

First off let me state that I'm glad to have seen the clip about Obama and his position on military cutbacks. That certainly makes him too much of a pacifist in my view. Especially the part about eliminating nucs. BAD idea. But I don't think it's fair to say downsizing the military is bad just because some people are gonna lose jobs. Boo Hoo. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances. Get a job in a civilian industry if you don't like the potential political ramifications for a move away from military overspending.

And since $0.42 of every tax dollar in the U.S. goes to the military, yes I do think we're overspending. And that doesn't even take into account the huge bill we have yet to pay for our war in Iraq. We're already at over $3trillion, and charging another billion every few days. However, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PULL OUT OF IRAQ, at least not until it's much more stabilized which will probably take several more years.

I certainly understand that our obligations to help/protect foreign countries has more to do with preventing anarchy than making true friends, and I think we need to continue the carrot/stick approach, but with a more refined policy. We're spending too much and doing too much to assist countries that continually prove they hate us (Saudi Arabia anyone?) and yet we think we're solving the worldwide terrorist problem by our war in Iraq. Pretty convenient thinking. Also pretty naive. We can't protect everyone and we shouldn't be the watchdog for the world if it's all on our own dime.

Maybe we could start funding future military actions by taking donations then I'll at least have a chance to opt-out for rediculousness like Iraq. If enough guys like Jay and Hitch feel it's so important that they want to pony up their own money I'm fine with that, just as long as I'm not wasting mine. I'd be happy to donate to send some troops into Pakistan, though, so we could actually stop some real terrorists.
 
Did you wear out your shovel yet B?


Unlike you I'm not trying to tell everyone what they want to hear just to make "buddies".
BTW- your man Bush just hit the record for highest disapproval rating in modern history. Good luck with your shovel with anyone besides your duckboats buddies.
 
Did you wear out your shovel yet B?


Unlike you I'm not trying to tell everyone what they want to hear just to make "buddies".
BTW- your man Bush just hit the record for highest disapproval rating in modern history. Good luck with your shovel with anyone besides your duckboats buddies.
Unlike Congress who also was just rated the lowest ever - lower than Bush. Who is it that is trying to discredit Bush again? Their approval rating is at 20%. and by the way, it is no where near 46% of all spending going towards the military - it is much closer to 20% of all spending is going that way. You should check your facts.

Mark W
 
Mark, he doesn't need facts.

BDaves....never started any name calling. Your response is typical of people who share your opinion. You can give yourself whatever title you want.

I still don't know where you've come up with your ideas, but you obviously have a few self confidence problems since you're assuming I'm going to group you with "freako-liberals"

If you want to wake us up, give us some facts to work with here. All I've seen so far is your belief, based on God knows what other than feelings about us spending too much....etc.

I think a quote from Bill's link says it best ".....And they showed confidence that the ideas they contained, when reduced to print on a page, could retain potency and withstand scrutiny over time, unlike arguments that derive their force from the personality of the advocate."

I'm not here for buddies, but it is comforting to find guys of like mind. I have based my opinions of Iraq on regional history, expert's theories on Jihad, Islamic Fascism, and a general belief in the responsibility of the US to help those in need and keep freedom and democracy safe.

If you want to bitch about spending, start looking at what our government wastes here, and gives to nations across the globe.

-D
 
Last edited:
Can't let this one die.

BDaves...got this in an e-mail so it has some ?'s added to it for some reason, but thought you might like to see how much $ we spend here on stupid programs.

What's more important? Your safety and freedom or medical care for illegal aliens?

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. �$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs�such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. �$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. �$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary�school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
verify at: &#65533;http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html</F
ONT>

5. &#65533;$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for&#65533;the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. &#65533;$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. &#65533;30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. &#65533;$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for&#65533;Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html </DI
V>

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are&#65533;caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. &#65533;The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's&#65533;two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,&#65533;their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem&#65533;in the US.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border; also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. &#65533;Millions of pounds of&#65533;drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S&nbs p;from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: &#65533;http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. &#65533;The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of &#65533;between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period."
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. &#65533;In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht. htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <


-D
 
As much as I would like to go into Pakistan and whoop some ass big time I think that it would probably make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a June picnic in rural Kansas. I'm telling you what...you want to stir up the ultimate hornets nest and piss off a shit-ton of whacko jihadists....come out of the dark in Pakistan(undoubtedly allied and US special ops are entrenched in Pakistan and have been for years). Not to mention...it's a nuclear theater...don't forget that. Obama had mentioned this was something to consider-going into Pakistan. It just blows my freakin' mind that the same guy who says he'd pull our troops out of Iraq would even consider entering the mother of all shitstorms to get Osama. Talk about STOOPID! The closest he'd get to Pakistan is to send a Secret Service agent to a coffee house in Toronto while he was visiting Canada.

As far as Iran goes...the difference between Iran and all the other countries is that we have the population on our side. And, unlike Iraq where the people were terribly repressed and Afghanistan that was basically a few centuries behind...Iran's population is educated, modernized and in many regions very westernized. I say if you want to waste your hard earned dollars on a war go to the puppet master....Iran.
 
Last edited:
Did you wear out your shovel yet B?


Unlike you I'm not trying to tell everyone what they want to hear just to make "buddies".
BTW- your man Bush just hit the record for highest disapproval rating in modern history. Good luck with your shovel with anyone besides your duckboats buddies.
Unlike Congress who also was just rated the lowest ever - lower than Bush. Who is it that is trying to discredit Bush again? Their approval rating is at 20%. and by the way, it is no where near 46% of all spending going towards the military - it is much closer to 20% of all spending is going that way. You should check your facts.

Mark W


Mark, whoever said I thought congress was doing a good job? Wow, talk about making ASSumptions. Typical conservative whacko thinking that if I don't like Bush I must be some tree-huggin' lib.

But the fact is that congress has only had a year under it's current leadership, Bush has had 7.5 years and has only made things worse (as per my opinion and the opinion of the majority of the country). I'd expect after nearly 8 years he could at least make things BETTER. So I fault Bush far more than congress for the current state of affairs.
 
Did you wear out your shovel yet B?


Unlike you I'm not trying to tell everyone what they want to hear just to make "buddies".
BTW- your man Bush just hit the record for highest disapproval rating in modern history. Good luck with your shovel with anyone besides your duckboats buddies.
Unlike Congress who also was just rated the lowest ever - lower than Bush. Who is it that is trying to discredit Bush again? Their approval rating is at 20%. and by the way, it is no where near 46% of all spending going towards the military - it is much closer to 20% of all spending is going that way. You should check your facts.

Mark W


Mark, please check YOUR facts and do a little research. 42% of every fed tax dollar is spent on the military. I could give you the links, but I think it'll be a little more "objective" if you find them on your own.
 
Mark, he doesn't need facts.

BDaves....never started any name calling. Your response is typical of people who share your opinion. You can give yourself whatever title you want.

I still don't know where you've come up with your ideas, but you're obviously a little self confident since you're assuming I'm going to group you with "freako-liberals"

If you want to wake us up, give us some facts to work with here. All I've seen so far is your belief, based on God knows what other than feelings about us spending too much....etc.

I think a quote from Bill's link says it best ".....And they showed confidence that the ideas they contained, when reduced to print on a page, could retain potency and withstand scrutiny over time, unlike arguments that derive their force from the personality of the advocate."

I'm not here for buddies, but it is comforting to find guys of like mind. I have based my opinions of Iraq on regional history, expert's theories on Jihad, Islamic Fascism, and a general belief in the responsibility of the US to help those in need and keep freedom and democracy safe.

If you want to bitch about spending, start looking at what our government wastes here, and gives to nations across the globe.

-D


OK, Dave. Please tell me what we have received in return for our $3T and 3000 lost lives in Iraq? And PLEASE don't say we've contained terrrorism. How do you prove a negative?

Until 9/11 we'd only ever had ONE other act of international terrorism on U.S. soil (the first twin towers bombing), so it's incredibly naive to give the war in Iraq credit for stopping attacks on U.S. soil.
 
As much as I would like to go into Pakistan and whoop some ass big time I think that it would probably make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a June picnic in rural Kansas. I'm telling you what...you want to stir up the ultimate hornets nest and piss off a shit-ton of whacko jihadists....come out of the dark in Pakistan(undoubtedly allied and US special ops are entrenched in Pakistan and have been for years). Not to mention...it's a nuclear theater...don't forget that. Obama had mentioned this was something to consider-going into Pakistan. It just blows my freakin' mind that the same guy who says he'd pull our troops out of Iraq would even consider entering the mother of all shitstorms to get Osama. Talk about STOOPID! The closest he'd get to Pakistan is to send a Secret Service agent to a coffee house in Toronto while he was visiting Canada.

As far as Iran goes...the difference between Iran and all the other countries is that we have the population on our side. And, unlike Iraq where the people were terribly repressed and Afghanistan that was basically a few centuries behind...Iran's population is educated, modernized and in many regions very westernized. I say if you want to waste your hard earned dollars on a war go to the puppet master....Iran.


Unfreakinbelievable! So it's OK to blow a lot of money and lives whooping ass on an impotent dictator that has no nucs and no official terrorist program, but it's not OK to go after the real terrorists and terrorist-harboring countries if they have nucs? All because it might "piss off a shit-ton of whacko jihadists"? WTF? Now who's being the sissy? Obama CAUSED 9/11, not Saddam. There goes your lynchmob mentality again-if we can't get the REAL bad guy, then let's get some sadistic SOB that we can say was involved- somebody's gotta pay dammit! (but we don't really wanna stir up anything dangerous! Lions, tigers and hornets-OH MY!)

And another case of WTF- I NEVER SAID I'D PULL OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, sheesh go back and read all of my posts. I emphasized the point that I'm not in favor of pulling them out until the country is stabilized. Apparently going too far to the right causes reading and/or comprehension problems.

I do agree with your position on Iran, but I still firmly believe Pakistan is harboring the biggest bunch of bad guys. Iran is just a terrorism "instigator", but Pakistan is the heart of the problem.

So you're saying that you're not in favor of going after terrorists, unless we can do it without creating any real danger to the U.S. (especially if we can make it sound like our country is really in EXTREME danger)? Hmm...sounds like the same BS that was thrown around before we entered Iraq.
 
Wow. Wow. Uh, wow...you are dense as hell. I never called you a lib Bret. Achmadinajod(phonetically spelled)is impotent you say? Seeing as he's been funneling weapons and money into Iraq and killing our soldiers and has been since the beginning I'd say that's a moronic statement. And allow me to inform you that Iran is striving for nuclear weapons and have some serious allies in that pursuit(Korea...possibly Russia etc)-and don't even start with the UN etal...that's a toothless dog and pony show of inept and corrupt scum(well almost all of them). If you want to scream about wasted money and lives why don't you start pissing on the UN...the ultimate reason we are in Iraq is because they failed to follow through because of their corrupt leaders and apathy. And while were at it...how much do you and I spend on the UN and their heinous diplomatic immunity. I'm thinking that hookers and $1000 meals aren't really in our budget right now...what say you? How about all the children being raped all over the world by UN soldiers(from Pakistan etc).

But back to the show....I'm not saying we just go attack Iran over nothing-certainly not in the prosecution of the war on terrorism(though I've always suspected that they have assisted Bin Laden since 9/11 and possibly are even harboring him, using communications and rumors to perpetuate the idea that he's in the hinterlands of Pakistan-I won't bother you with the facts and the reading that lead me to that conclusion. And furthermore...he is a fkn terrorist because he was one of the bastards that kept watch over the US hostages about 30 years ago...one of the leaders-look it up) .....what I'm saying is that if you're going to start a "war" right now you'd be much more effective, its more feasible and certainly more advantageous taking Iran on and not Pakistan. If you're justifying using tax dollars to go and kill people and loose our sons and daughters then Pakistan is not a good option at all.

The reasons we haven't gone into Pakistan goes much deeper than stroking Musharaf...the hated leader of Pakistan. We are and have been in Pakistan guaranteed...right now we have boots on the ground and they are tunneled into some rathole with all manner of top secret imagery and weaponry at their disposal waiting for the right moment to take UBL out. The reason you don't know about it is because we are playing our cards very carefully and making sure we don't stir up that hornets nest(good strategy). Some "wars" should be fought in the shadows. I wouldn't be surprised if they know exactly where Bin Laden is and have been using him to backtrack to the real threat...terrorism cells around the world-but that's just another educated opinion.

So, allow me to pontificate on some basic war planning stategery:)o): I'll use the term "ally" loosely.

1)Iran is bordered in the west by Iraq(ally) and Turkey(ally) and in the east by Afghanistan(ally) and Pakistan(ally) To the north are the "stans"...countries that were formerly in the Soviet Union and by and large are steadfast allies of the US.

2)By far and away Iran's population is the most educated of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. The population is by and large westernized. The countries infrastructure is better than other countries in the region as well. Iran also had the longest coastline in the region.

3)The populations of these countries are:
a) Iraq 30 million est.
b) Afghanistan 24 million est
c) Iran 75 million est
d) Pakistan 165 million est

4) "Connecting the dots....the wild west of Iraq and the middle ages of Afghanistan makes good sense when the country in the middle is like us in a lot of ways-with the exception of the government of course!

5) Pakistan is bordered by China and India as well...all three are nuclear powers. Iran's obvious intent is to also become a nuclear power and destroy Israel(strong ally). More than likely Israel will attack Iran in the near future and our hand will forced anyway...but that's another subject.

6) Creating a "stronghold" of stability in the region is probably for the good of the planet.

7)Iran is a huge oil producing country and yes, I think it's time we take some goldarn oil from somebody...I'd start with Iraq.

Attacking Pakistan with it's massive population...more than Iran, Iraq and Afghan. combined would bring an entirely new dimension to the current state of affairs. The population of Pakistan by and large hates the western ideal and especially the US, though they are highly influenced muslim extremist. This is what I would call "stirring up a hornets nest". Uneducated, extremist muslims with many of their children brainwashed in madrasas so there will be generations of America haters to enlist. Pakistan is the 800lb gorilla that just took a hit of PCP in the room.

There are so many reasons not to attack Pakistan to get one man that it's shocking. Comparing Pakistan, a nuclear power who's government is an ally of the US with Iraq, a country that was run by an insanely diobolical monster(thug as you put it)-that according to just about everybody at the time had WMD stockpiles and intent to use them(as he had before on his own people)is just plain ignorant.
 
Wow. Wow. Uh, wow...you are dense as hell. I never called you a lib Bret. Achmadinajod(phonetically spelled)is impotent you say? Seeing as he's been funneling weapons and money into Iraq and killing our soldiers and has been since the beginning I'd say that's a moronic statement. And allow me to inform you that Iran is striving for nuclear weapons and have some serious allies in that pursuit(Korea...possibly Russia etc)-and don't even start with the UN etal...that's a toothless dog and pony show of inept and corrupt scum(well almost all of them). If you want to scream about wasted money and lives why don't you start pissing on the UN...the ultimate reason we are in Iraq is because they failed to follow through because of their corrupt leaders and apathy. And while were at it...how much do you and I spend on the UN and their heinous diplomatic immunity. I'm thinking that hookers and $1000 meals aren't really in our budget right now...what say you? How about all the children being raped all over the world by UN soldiers(from Pakistan etc).

But back to the show....I'm not saying we just go attack Iran over nothing-certainly not in the prosecution of the war on terrorism(though I've always suspected that they have assisted Bin Laden since 9/11 and possibly are even harboring him, using communications and rumors to perpetuate the idea that he's in the hinterlands of Pakistan-I won't bother you with the facts and the reading that lead me to that conclusion. And furthermore...he is a fkn terrorist because he was one of the bastards that kept watch over the US hostages about 30 years ago...one of the leaders-look it up) .....what I'm saying is that if you're going to start a "war" right now you'd be much more effective, its more feasible and certainly more advantageous taking Iran on and not Pakistan. If you're justifying using tax dollars to go and kill people and loose our sons and daughters then Pakistan is not a good option at all.

The reasons we haven't gone into Pakistan goes much deeper than stroking Musharaf...the hated leader of Pakistan. We are and have been in Pakistan guaranteed...right now we have boots on the ground and they are tunneled into some rathole with all manner of top secret imagery and weaponry at their disposal waiting for the right moment to take UBL out. The reason you don't know about it is because we are playing our cards very carefully and making sure we don't stir up that hornets nest(good strategy). Some "wars" should be fought in the shadows. I wouldn't be surprised if they know exactly where Bin Laden is and have been using him to backtrack to the real threat...terrorism cells around the world-but that's just another educated opinion.

So, allow me to pontificate on some basic war planning stategery:)o): I'll use the term "ally" loosely.

1)Iran is bordered in the west by Iraq(ally) and Turkey(ally) and in the east by Afghanistan(ally) and Pakistan(ally) To the north are the "stans"...countries that were formerly in the Soviet Union and by and large are steadfast allies of the US.

2)By far and away Iran's population is the most educated of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. The population is by and large westernized. The countries infrastructure is better than other countries in the region as well. Iran also had the longest coastline in the region.

3)The populations of these countries are:
a) Iraq 30 million est.
b) Afghanistan 24 million est
c) Iran 75 million est
d) Pakistan 165 million est

4) "Connecting the dots....the wild west of Iraq and the middle ages of Afghanistan makes good sense when the country in the middle is like us in a lot of ways-with the exception of the government of course!

5) Pakistan is bordered by China and India as well...all three are nuclear powers. Iran's obvious intent is to also become a nuclear power and destroy Israel(strong ally). More than likely Israel will attack Iran in the near future and our hand will forced anyway...but that's another subject.

6) Creating a "stronghold" of stability in the region is probably for the good of the planet.

7)Iran is a huge oil producing country and yes, I think it's time we take some goldarn oil from somebody...I'd start with Iraq.

Attacking Pakistan with it's massive population...more than Iran, Iraq and Afghan. combined would bring an entirely new dimension to the current state of affairs. The population of Pakistan by and large hates the western ideal and especially the US, though they are highly influenced muslim extremist. This is what I would call "stirring up a hornets nest". Uneducated, extremist muslims with many of their children brainwashed in madrasas so there will be generations of America haters to enlist. Pakistan is the 800lb gorilla that just took a hit of PCP in the room.

There are so many reasons not to attack Pakistan to get one man that it's shocking. Comparing Pakistan, a nuclear power who's government is an ally of the US with Iraq, a country that was run by an insanely diobolical monster(thug as you put it)-that according to just about everybody at the time had WMD stockpiles and intent to use them(as he had before on his own people)is just plain ignorant.


Man, talk about dense. The impotent dictator I was referring to was Saddam Hussein. I guess I can't just insinuate anything, I'll be exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with.

You say Pakistan is a "hornet's net of jihadists" but then assume the only terrorist worthy of hunting there is Osama? You're also an extreme fool if you think Pakistans leaders are "with us". I trust them about as far as I can p!ss on them from here.

You also use the word "pontificate" incorrectly. Unless you're giving us the point of view of the leader of the Catholic church. I didn't think so.

If you think I'm full of chit, please read the following:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

I think you'll find a lot of eye-opening information that didn't even come from me. It came from the U.S. military. See what they think. And I hold Bush as ultimately responsible for the same mistakes because he is, after all (unfortunately) Commander in Chief.
 


Man, talk about dense. The impotent dictator I was referring to was Saddam Hussein. I guess I can't just insinuate anything, I'll be exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with.

You say Pakistan is a "hornet's net of jihadists" but then assume the only terrorist worthy of hunting there is Osama? You're also an extreme fool if you think Pakistans leaders are "with us". I trust them about as far as I can p!ss on them from here.

You also use the word "pontificate" incorrectly. Unless you're giving us the point of view of the leader of the Catholic church. I didn't think so.

If you think I'm full of chit, please read the following:

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

I think you'll find a lot of eye-opening information that didn't even come from me. It came from the U.S. military. See what they think. And I hold Bush as ultimately responsible for the same mistakes because he is, after all (unfortunately) Commander in Chief.


I would agree that Pakistan is one root of the problem in the muslim world-it's just not feasible to attack them-which is what you suggested and said it was a better idea to spend money doing that than attack Iraq. And to say that Saddam was impotent at the time of attack is idiotic. Hind site is 20/20. When I went back and reread what you said I realized my mistake...though it was an easy mistake to make based on the topic. And by the way if you're going to start bashing me for silly details I should remind you that you referred to "Osama" as "Obama"...what a dumbass thing to say huh! That's racist...you must be a bigot! And "pontificate" was the exact fkn word I was looking for. Look up the definition smart guy...not the one about the "pontif". And by the way I never mentioned you saying we should pull the troops out of Iraq...I was making a point of analysis and using Obama's comments. I'll be more exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with. Touche!

"I'll be exact from now on, now that I know the level of intelligence I'm playing with." Now that's not a very nice thing to say is it? You aren't playing with me anyway Bret...you are making a fool of yourself(again). I take back what I said...above(way above)cause it's mean spirited.

"You say Pakistan is a "hornet's net of jihadists" but then assume the only terrorist worthy of hunting there is Osama? You're also an extreme fool if you think Pakistans leaders are "with us". I trust them about as far as I can p!ss on them from here."

I never said the only terrorist worthy of our attention in Pakistan was Osama...you said you would attack Pakistan and get Osama. I would go into Pakistan and whip that shithole into shape with some serious anhilation...do you have the stomach for that? I highly doubt it. It ain't feasible and if it did happen you could smell the rotting corpses from here. Except they wouldn't be rotting in the NW because I'd use a few tactical nukes to tidy that joint up...maybe start things over up there...like before the dinosaurs time line. You are the "extreme fool", Pakistan's leaders are with us...the president has a giant bullseye on his head because of it. You ever heard the term "strange bedfellows". And no, I don't trust them either. So here is your idea the way I understand it...Because Iraq is a huge waste of time and money(to get the impotent thug and his WMD)lets go attack a country because they are harboring terrorists(potentially tens of millions of them)and we piss on the leadership(from here)that has been termed "ally" in the war on terror. Now that is some seriously great planning. I'm sure that when the US personel death toll reaches into the 20 or 30 thousand range you'd probably figure out a way to blame W eh. And just think of how many other "strange bedfellows" would disappear in the future because we can't be trusted. Just think of the field day Amnesty International, The French, and CNN would have showing the bloated Paki kids laying around the playground while the women do that "loo loo loo loo loo" mourn thing. You have the stomach for that? You think our president's job approval rating is bad now! Yep, you should run for office buddy!
 
Last edited:
That's a great article...thanks for posting it. I guess I'm not surprised by any of it other than I was under the impression that we had started to prepare certain forces for insurgent warfare prior to this war and continue to ramp up that style of training now. Note, it appears to have been written in '07. The war we are engaged in now is definately different and as any good military would, we are adapting quickly. I don't see anything in that article that would raise the hackles on my neck about George Bush. If anything...he was too trusting of his military? And, it's not what "they" say, it's what "he" said. One general and it was a good read. What's your point then Bret?

War is Chaos
 
Back
Top