- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The reality is that at least he is trying. His original projections for pulling out may have been far too aggressive for the reality of the situation, but he is working towards that goal in earnest. And that is what is important. He's trying to get us out of there as quickly and responsibly as he can.
Nobody is making any case of importance over whether or not he actually makes his 18 month time line. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
What substance and facts am I confusing?
HAA!~! :rofl
Sorry, but from just the brief time I've been here, the "blatant partisan" in this exchange is obvious.
And it ain't Lerxst, my friend.
I don't think he is "working" any harder on it than Bush was in the end. Do you?
I do.
1 through 10.
Now then... tell me how it is that The Obama deserves the pass Lerxst gives Him, based on the idea that "no plan survives contact with the enemy', whereas GWB does not.
Ten character limit thing.Huh? :lol:
Obama is trying to accelerate the timeline and reduce our role in that nation, which would bring more of our troops home. He's realized we will be unable to completely withdrawal for many years. Given our history in Korea, Japan, Germany...probably never.Bush had already started the withdrawal, no? Has obama done anything different? if so what?
The difference is, and I know you will never get this, is that Bush's plan was both a horrific **** up and absolutely unnecessary.
The devil is in the details. Bush and his administration willfully rejected the advice of the generals who were charged with executing the campaign. They exacerbated the situation by continuing to implement strategies that had little chance of success. This Bush plan didn't survive contact with it's own generals let alone the enemy.
Obama on the other hand made a campaign promise to have our troops out within 18 months. It's now become obvious that his plans were somewhat aggressive and the reality is that it will be longer than 18 months.
If you don't see the stark contrast between the two example then you are blind. Bush doesn't get a pass because the situation doesn't warrant one. He got thousands of our men and women killed by invading and occupying a country unnecessarily. It was a war of choice, and it was horribly planned and executed.
No you have gone from lacking substance to being deliberately obtuse; did you not make the following comment?
Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.
If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.
I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.
But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?
:roll:
Ten character limit thing.
Obama is trying to accelerate the timeline and reduce our role in that nation, which would bring more of our troops home. He's realized we will be unable to completely withdrawal for many years. Given our history in Korea, Japan, Germany...probably never.
And you obviously lack the knowledge of the subject matter to understand where he is going with his comment. Bush knew there was a very high probability of an insurgency and sectarian violence, yet he ignored it in favor of trying to recreate the 1991 Gulf War success. Which he did, but he failed on the follow through. His piss poor planning landed our military right where it wasn't prepared to be. If you know anything about George W. Bush you will know that his faith in God played a pivotal role in how made decisions.
No you have gone from lacking substance to being deliberately obtuse; did you not make the following comment?
Originally Posted by Gibberish
Because Bush's admin planned for the invasion to end with the troops dodging flowers and hugs from the Iraqi's in Baghdad. Not IEDs and rocket launchers.
If Bush would have went into this expecting the unstable country to not fully embrace Democracy as the next coming of Christ the outcome may have been different.
I think it is pretty obvious what is lacking substance in that claim.....I bolded it for you to make it easier for you.
But of course you will now argue that you were in all the meetings and can read George Bush's mind and divine all his intents right?
:roll:
I don't need to read Bush's mind. He and his admin freely expressed how easily the invasion of Iraq and reformation of a Democracy would go. There is nothing obtuse about it.
Bush approved the plans that were butchered by Rumsfeld and Company. It was Bush's decision ultimately to invade with a plan that his administration had been fully advised was not up to par. Powell cautioned the administration about what they were doing. It was well known they didn't have enough troops or enough training to pull this off successfully.Two things; (1) Do you REALLY think that Bush made these plans?
And this is where you betray your own ignorance of the subject matter. General Tommy Franks presented an off the shelf plan for the invasion of Iraq that had been developed after Desert Storm and updated over the course of the following decade by military and civilian planners. It called for an estimated 400,000 troops with much of the emphasis being placed on the difficulties of the post invasion occupation and potential insurgency (thus the high troops levels). Rumsfeld rejected it because there wasn't time to raise the necessary troop numbers or resources and still meet their desired invasion time line. The occupation force levels were reduced substantially. Rumsfeld was highly criticized for this later. What did he have to say? I think his famous "you go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time" sums it up pretty good. The only problem is he knew full well we didn't need to invade at that time. It was the administrations desire to meet their time line of choice that led to this debacle. Not the military's failure to develop a plan. The Pentagon had a plan, the Bush administration rejected it and opted for their own version.and (2); do you really think that Generals plans are infallible and take into account ALL possible outcomes?
You were saying? Get a pen out, I'll give you a list, head to Books-A-Million. You've got some reading to do.In BOTH cases you are definitely speaking from ignorance if you answer either in the affirmative. :roll:
I am curious; why is it that Liberals never railed about bringing our troops home from Germany, or Japan, or any of the other hundreds of places you will find our troops?
Why does it have to be Iraq? Does this same "bring them home now" rule apply to Afghanistan, and if not, why not?
Really; so you would have a source to these statements about how easily it would go?
Factcheck.org...WASHINGTON -- Armchair generals and media critics aren't the only people whose comments are giving heartburn to administration officials defending the progress of the war with Iraq. The officials also face questions about their own remarks made before the fighting began.
Then, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke optimistically in interviews and at briefings about the prospects that the war would be short, Iraqi resistance limited and Iraqi citizens welcoming.
Now, the president has pounded the podium when asked how long the war will last -- "However long it takes," he replied Thursday with open annoyance -- and Myers said Sunday, "Nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be a quick and easy victory."
Four weeks ago, it was Myers who spoke with reporters about "a short, short conflict" against an Iraqi force that was "much weaker" than it was in the 1991 Gulf War.
Cheney, March 16, 2003: I'm confident that our troops will be successful, and I think it'll go relatively quickly, but we can't...
Q: Weeks?
Cheney: ...we can't count on that.
Q: Months?
Cheney: Weeks rather than months. There's always the possibility of--of complications that you can't anticipate, but I'm--I have great confidence in our troops. The men and women who serve in our military today are superb. Our capabilities as a force are the finest the world has ever known. They're very ably led by General Tommy Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld. And so I have great confidence in the conduct of the military campaign. The really challenging part of it to some extent may come in the--in the aftermath once the military segment is over and we move to try and stand up a new government and--and turn over to the Iraqi people the responsibilities to their nation.
Assorted Quotes said:"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02
"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03
Really; so you would have a source to these statements about how easily it would go?
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?hey do me a big favor don't use any refererance to the Nazi's when talking about the Republican Party or as a matter of fact any Political Party.
I'm sure you can find something else to use.
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?
As long as people like Jallman will use epithets like "dear leader" when referring to Obama or any of the myriad of disparaging names the bullies use, I will make sure that you and yours know how it feels. Obviously it bothers you. How do you like it?
When did I ever use the term "Dear Leader" to reference Obama?
You wouldn't be lying again, would you?
jallman said:Our Dear Leader is planning to close....
:lol: You mean this one? :rofl
You're a good sport.Oh, hell. I guess I did. Once. Somewhere.
I usually just refer to him as the Comrade, actually.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?