I'm not really sure why beating up on a dummy like Fatty is worse than beating up on a dummy like basso, but I'll try my best to do likewise. I won't find it easy.
Child abuse? Dummy? Simply because I don't feel the same way about the war? My goodness, y'all are quite the mature people today. And this is the main reason I don't bother with this anymore. It seems none of you have the capacity to talk about a topic without the juvenile name-calling. You've read your reports. I've read mine. We simply disagree. I feel that we need more troops there. If air raids are necessary again, sobeit. But, honestly, I don't think y'all even have the capacity to debate anymore. Let me know when you do.
Please. Rather, such comments are due to the vast logical flaws inherent to your own arguments. You say you trust the generals, who disagree with you. You say Bush would never do something without agreement from the generals, ignoring the aforementioned current standoff and multiple instances to the contrary from past Bush idiocy. When confronted, you act like you've been unfairly singled out and cast the same ol' "you don't like me because I disagree" strawman. Boring. If I want that kind of debate, I'll take TJ of my ignore list, or just talk to the TV when Fox News is on.
I trust the General's tactics. That is a quote from the initial article. The petty arguments and name-calling are brought up simply because it is r****ded. BTW, I find it really telling that my first statement was apparently agreeing with the Dem's stance, yet the attacks began immediately.
Hold on, so your saying the General's "tactics" are completely divorced from their unified disagreement with respect to more troop deployments? Give me a break.
Let's discuss with no polemics. Answer me two questions: 1 IF IF IF you concluded that "victory" was impossible in Iraq, what would be your position on troop deployment and withdrawal? In other words, if it became plain to you that sending more troops would just prolong what is happening now because Iraq has been rendered ungovernable, what would you say then? 2 What would it take for you to conclude "victory" was impossible? What would you have to see to conclude Iraq is completely ungovernable? Forget the name-calling. Would like your answer. I respect your right to have whatever opinion you want. To someone else: When it comes to cutting and running, remember what Reagan did when 250 marines were blown up in Lebanon.
How's "unanimous?" I already told you where this was, but here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=122000
What the liberals fail to grasp in this argument is the EXTREME cost of failure in Iraq. There are battles worth fighting, and yes, it will include the loss of life (sadly). This is one of them. Cowardly backing down and retreating, as Batman and others are demanding, signals to the terrorists that they have free reign. It emboldens them. It hands them a victory. It also diminishes the threat of force of the United States, which is a key foreign policy tool (like it or not). Losing this war would be catastrophic. It is totally unacceptable. I accept that our heroes serving as troops will suffer casualties. In what military conflict is this not the case? The cause they are fighting for is JUST. Rooting out radical Islam should be the world's #1 priority. Sadly, a small faction of anti-war liberals have succeeded in polluting the media with the terrorists' propaganda over the past several years. They have turned this war into a political football -- a sure fire way to LOSE. They can not, and will not, be listened to. President Bush is firm in his decision to WIN this war, and for that I support him. Losing IS NOT AN OPTION. Period. If given the choice, I would nuke Sadr-City before I would withdraw all US troops from Iraq. This war is that important to our nation.
But when the Generals that are fighting the war say that it cannot be won and that adding additional troops will not work, what do you do? Does Bush know something that the Generals fighting the war do not?
tj believes this (or pretends to) and yet he still won't enlist. Winning in Iraq or defeating radical Islam, or whatever, should be US' (nay the "world's") #1 priority, but only if others will put their ass on the line. tj is more than willing to fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. No Honor.
Did you read the entire article, or just the bold lines explained on condition of anonymity? Here's some more from the article: To think that everyone but Bush and Cheney feel that withdrawal is the correct course of action is borderline moronic. As I stated, I agree with the Dems on allowing more troops, armor, air raids, etc. Not sure why you people suddenly don't?
Delusional? TJ, you are not here to debate and learn are you? You are here with an agenda. No matter what anyone says, you will stick to your views. Why even post here? Your weak arguments will not convince or change anyone.
Not much else to say. It's not like Abizaid is alone on realizing this - it's only been written in the US Army Counterinsurgency manual for the last few decades. I like how Abizaid's statements perfectly refute Basso's old signature, which mocked the idea that anything other than a purely military solution to Iraq could even be considered. Again, that's only been part of Counterinsurgency 101 for the last 50 years. Duh.
