Re: What no comments on Bush's new iraq Plan?

"ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168553261.961625.76940@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
> being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
> and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
> control.
> Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
> Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we should
> support this last effort.
>
> They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
> insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
> enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
> thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
> so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
> these millitias for protection.
>[/color]


The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean *ALL*.

The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
Nobody trusts them.

Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with kids.
That's over.

We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.

Got a plan?

In article <ICyph.380$B25.82@news01.roc.ny>
[email]dishborealis@yahoo.com[/email] "JoeSpareBedroom" writes:
[color=blue]
> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the
> country.[/color]

You could have included words to the effect "kind of Iraqi ally".
OTOH, the US's non-Iraqi allies are so easy to overlook. And, if
they too get pissed off, whattheheck. Overlooking foreigners and
their feelings can become an expensive habit. A wee thought. ;-)
--
Andrew Stephenson

" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-2D395F.17262111012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <ICyph.380$B25.82@news01.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168553261.961625.76940@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[color=darkred]
>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>> > control.
>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we should
>> > support this last effort.
>> >
>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
>> > these millitias for protection.
>> >[/color]
>>
>>
>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>> *ALL*.
>>
>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>> Nobody trusts them.
>>
>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>> kids.
>> That's over.
>>
>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>
>> Got a plan?[/color]
>
> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.[/color]

Or to not get embroiled in
less-than-well-thought-out-missions-which-are-virtually-guaranteed-to-turn-into-disasters
to begin with.

Cathy

dbu, wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.[/color]

22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.

The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
an unjustified war.

dbu, wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> in.[/color]

22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.

The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
an unjustified war.

In article <1168560121.241712.317560@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> dbu, wrote:
>[color=green]
> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
> > in.[/color]
>
> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>
> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> an unjustified war.[/color]

The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
of the rest. Watch and see.

The other nations don't get it enough yet. Let them have more terrorist
attacks and they will get the message, maybe.
--

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cOzph.410$ya1.208@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
>" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
>news:Demsonhotseatnow-2D395F.17262111012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
>> In article <ICyph.380$B25.82@news01.roc.ny>,
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1168553261.961625.76940@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>>> > control.
>>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
>>> > should
>>> > support this last effort.
>>> >
>>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase the
>>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The other
>>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the infrustructure,
>>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to join
>>> > these millitias for protection.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>>> *ALL*.
>>>
>>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>>> Nobody trusts them.
>>>
>>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded with
>>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>>> kids.
>>> That's over.
>>>
>>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>>
>>> Got a plan?[/color]
>>
>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>> in.[/color]
>
>
> Considering that after 9/11, other terrorist attacks have been in London,
> Spain and Indonesia, I think it's not worth a try. We've already seen that
> our presence in Iraq does not necessarily stop terrorist attacks.
>[/color]

I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. While the exact
words you spout here are accurate, I can't help but wonder if you understand
what they mean.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.

The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever. If you
really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in a
dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The very
best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to respond
better to any attack once it has happened.

While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to more
attacks.

"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1168559741.959000.185870@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
>
> dbu, wrote:
>[color=green]
>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>> in.[/color]
>
> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>
> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> an unjustified war.
>[/color]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:16:28 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:1168559741.959000.185870@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>>
>> dbu, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.[/color]
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.
>>[/color]
>
>I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
>knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.
>[/color]
For sure!

Moe will be singing a different tune when a terrorist attack occurs in
his neighborhood....



--

Scott in Florida

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:mpAph.4998$Cn3.448@trnddc02...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:cOzph.410$ya1.208@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>>" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
>>news:Demsonhotseatnow-2D395F.17262111012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>>> In article <ICyph.380$B25.82@news01.roc.ny>,
>>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ToMh" <tlhumm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1168553261.961625.76940@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > I'm supporting the Pres this time. First time I felt that they are
>>>> > being upfront about things and are finally willing to admit mistakes
>>>> > and change the course. We can't let Iraq slip into Iranian and Syrian
>>>> > control.
>>>> > Having Iran control the 2nd largest oil reserve would be devastating.
>>>> > Even though I feel they probably screwed it up beyond repair, we
>>>> > should
>>>> > support this last effort.
>>>> >
>>>> > They need to have more troops to be able to actually keep the
>>>> > insurgents out. The way it's been is just like VietNam. They chase
>>>> > the
>>>> > enemy away, then move on, only to have them come right back. The
>>>> > other
>>>> > thing they need to do is to actually build back up the
>>>> > infrustructure,
>>>> > so that people can have services, safety and not feel the need to
>>>> > join
>>>> > these millitias for protection.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Iraqi army is a disaster, according to all sources, and I do mean
>>>> *ALL*.
>>>>
>>>> The Iraqi police have been infiltrated by every form of rat imaginable.
>>>> Nobody trusts them.
>>>>
>>>> Insurgents seem to have found a new weapon: 13 year old kids loaded
>>>> with
>>>> explosives. No more pictures of American soldiers being friendly with
>>>> kids.
>>>> That's over.
>>>>
>>>> We just pissed off the Kurds, our only sorta kinda ally in the country.
>>>>
>>>> Got a plan?
>>>
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Considering that after 9/11, other terrorist attacks have been in London,
>> Spain and Indonesia, I think it's not worth a try. We've already seen
>> that our presence in Iraq does not necessarily stop terrorist attacks.
>>[/color]
>
> I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. While the exact
> words you spout here are accurate, I can't help but wonder if you
> understand what they mean.
>
> IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
> HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.
>
> The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
> happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever. If
> you really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in
> a dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The
> very best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to
> respond better to any attack once it has happened.
>
> While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
> every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to
> more attacks.[/color]


Which "every reason", Jeff? How many people does it take to carry out a
sophisticated attack? 5? 10? 15? We have not, and cannot seal the borders
or Iraq, nor have we tried. If a group wants out, they'll get out.
Hopefully, they will have a harder time getting INTO this country than OUT
of Iraq.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wrAph.5000$Cn3.1911@trnddc02...[color=blue]
>
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1168559741.959000.185870@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
>>
>> dbu, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>>> in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>>> then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>>> be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to pitch
>>> in.[/color]
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.
>>[/color]
>
> I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless
> George knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.[/color]


Jeff, the only reason that would be true is that he's got a little bit of a
head start with CERTAIN kinds of knowledge - the kind you get from
professional advisors, like generals. However, according to his own
admissions, he was way behind some of us on day #1 of his presidency. He
explicitly stated that he doesn't read much, and that is why he is failing
now. That saying about being doomed to repeat history if you are ignorant of
it - it's true, and he is demonstrating that right now.

" dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-0ADC5F.18121011012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <1168560121.241712.317560@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> dbu, wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
>> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
>> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
>> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to
>> > pitch
>> > in.[/color]
>>
>> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
>> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
>> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
>> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
>> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
>> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
>>
>> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
>> an unjustified war.[/color]
>
> The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> of the rest. Watch and see.[/color]


Do you know why, in the past, our troops did not remain in Sadr City?

Jeff Strickland wrote:
[color=blue]
> IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STOP ANY AND ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS FROM EVER
> HAPPENING. Not possible. Ever. At all.[/color]

"Any and all" or just "all"? Because what you wrote means that every
attack will succeed, which hasn't been the track record.
[color=blue]
> The reason is, to stop any and all terrorists attacks that might ever
> happen, we have to be 100% right every minute of every day, forever.[/color]

Or just be perceived as too risky a target for the terrorists, as the
US has been since 9/11.
[color=blue]
> If you really want to be free of any terrorist attack, then you are living in a
> dream world. It is impossible to protect against terrorist atttack. The very
> best we can hope for is to derail a few attacks on occasion, and to respond
> better to any attack once it has happened.
>
> While our presence in Iraq might not foil all terrorist attacks, there is
> every reason to believe that our absence from Iraq would likely lead to more
> attacks.[/color]

But we'd be even safer if we had never invaded Iraq because there
wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq (except in the north, where our
"friends" the Kurds are in control), Iran would have a formidable enemy
next door, and every one of our enemies would still be in awe of our
invasion of Afghanistan.

In article <1168565828.003544.256870@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168559741.959000.185870@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> > > positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> > > about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> > > an unjustified war.[/color]
> >
> > I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm pretty sure that Clueless George
> > knows more about war than you will ever know. That's E-V-E-R.[/color]
>
> Everybody knows more about the war than GW Bush does, even newborn
> squirrels.[/color]

Only in your own mind.
--

In article <NsBph.425$ya1.414@news02.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> " dbu," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
> news:Demsonhotseatnow-0ADC5F.18121011012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <1168560121.241712.317560@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> dbu, wrote:
> >>
> >> > This is worth a try. Let's see what happens. If results don't happen
> >> > in some months then time to pull up stakes and hunker down in the U.S.
> >> > then let the rest of the world take care of itself. This perhaps will
> >> > be a wakeup call for the rest of those lazy nations not willing to
> >> > pitch
> >> > in.
> >>
> >> 22,000 extra soldiers just isn't nearly enough to accomplish anything
> >> positive in Iraq, especially with a commander-in-chief who's clueless
> >> about war and who doesn't want to do what's really needed to win. This
> >> war was lost when we fired the Iraqi army and police, and I say that
> >> because I'm an optimist -- the realists said it was lost the moment we
> >> invaded with only 150,000 soldiers.
> >>
> >> The other nations aren't lazy; they just weren't stupid enough to start
> >> an unjustified war.[/color]
> >
> > The ground troops are going to secure Bagdad. The Navy will take care
> > of the rest. Watch and see.[/color]
>
>
> Do you know why, in the past, our troops did not remain in Sadr City?[/color]

Do you? Please press me with your knowledge.
--