Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, May 15, 2008

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Thursday he believes the Iraq war can be won within four years, leaving a functioning democracy there and allowing most U.S. troops to come home. "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom," he said of his plan.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Ten years in Iraq! No wonder the Republicans are tanking. Five years in Iraq is already five years too many. Let's declare victory and go home.

Interesting that it will take until after McCain serves his first term in office before "victory" could be achieved. Reminds me of Nixon's secret plan to deal with the war in Vietnam. It too took his whole first term and couldn't be accomplished until his second term when it was finally revealed......we would fly in planes and helicopters, people get in and we fly away. So brilliant. McCain's plan is just as well thought out. McCain is the worst kind of liar for making a claim like this that he has absolutely no way of honestly predicting. What little respect I had left for him just evaporated.

Victory? I didn't know we were at war with Iraq.

Oh yeah McSame? How?

By allowing corruption to run rampant in the Iraqi government and turn a blind eye towards it?

Face it, McBush has no magical plan for victory because the Iraqi government does not want to accept responsibility for its own actions.

Funny how the party of "personal responsibility" keeps giving the Iraqi government "Get out of Responsibility" Passes left and right.

More hypocrisy in action.

So five more years at a tune of $120 billion per year? How are you gonna pay for it Bagdad John? Gonna set up a thriving E-Bay store where you will resell carpets you buy for $5 in the Green Zone?

Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict. Well, thinking people would.

Sure we can. All we have to do is decided how to define what winning will look like. You know like parades or tossing of rose water and rice greeting us a liberators.

At least it's not 100 years anymore, right guys?

Right?

*cries*

Seems he pretty clearly specified the victory conditons....

War? Mission Accomplished was a long time ago... Or are we talking about a New, Better War, opening soon near you?

Sheesh, how do you people sleep at night...

"By January 2013. . ."

Let's see, now. That would be . . . at the end of the first term of the next president.

What a coincidence.

Translation:

This war will drag on at least through most of my presidency. And, please, do not pay attention to my use of the word "most" when I speak about how many of our troops will actually be out of Iraq. Thank you for your pavlovian loyalty, my good friends.
Yrs,
John "I Have No Shame" McCain"


Four more years! Four more years! Un-yelliman! Un-yelliman!

There are still 20 million people left in Iraq with plenty of ammunition and explosives. We can all thank Rummy for that. He was determined to occupy on the cheap and failed to secure Saddam's weapons depots.

24 million Iraqis don't want us in their country. Our forces have been unable to stabilize Bhagdad or even their Green Zone. But McCain has figured out that 2013 is the magic number. What a load of shit.

We can't afford to stay there. If we leave Iraq and Iran alone, the price of gasoline will drop precipitously.

"Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict."

God damned right they would have. The American people would have told him to go fuck himself if they had told them we would be in Iraq for ten years and spend at least 1 trillion dollars.
I'll say it not though, McBush can go fuck himself.
How's that match up with his desire to make the Bush tax cut for the rich permanent. Just how does he thing he is going to pay for five more years????

STay the course!

"Seems he pretty clearly specified the victory conditons...."

OK, I'll bite: What are those "clearly specified" "victory conditions"?

I read the article and didn't see anything even remotely meeting that bar.

"VICTORY??"...Is this old fool losing his mind?? 10 Years for total victory, I wonder how many in King George's Court taught that total Victory over those upstart Americans would end overnight.

People will fight for there Homeland, we will never win a Victory in Iraq until the Iraqis feel that that fight is worth it to them...

Yes Senator McCain that may well take a 100 Years!!!!

Methinks folks like Jonryker post ridiculous stuff just to get a rise out of us libruls.

The Dems should play McCain's "2013" remarks 24/7 in every ad... on the other hand we wouldn't want this dummy to flame out before their convention... they might pick somebody 5 or 10% smarter.

By 2013 the insurgency will be in "the last throes".

McSame as Cheney. Yea, that's even better.


McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.

Compare www.barackobama.com to www.hillaryclinton.com and you'll see who has some time-markers in their Iraq plan and who doesn't.

Bullshit!!!

Corky. That is just an absurd assertion. Stop with the attacks. Its over.

"McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.

Posted by Corky"

Ah, gone on vacation for a week, but I see nothing much has changed around here.


"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." From BarackObama.com

Ten years in Iraq!

By 2013 we will be in some form of war against Iraq for 22 years.

Thinking people still think the Iraq debacle was avoidable - as in, we never should have gone there in the first place. We were lied to about "WMD", we were lied to about the occupation, and we continue to be lied to by every Republican in Congress and the White House. A trillion dollars shat away, and this old Washington insider thinks we'll believe him?

SA - Where'd you go?

*cries*

Posted by crescentwindx


pussy

Well, the way that I see it, another 5 years will cost another $1T+ in spending and at the end of the day, we MAY receive a functioning democracy that MAY be our ally that MAY help lower the price of oil.

That price is too high even if all those 'mays' turn out to be true. The US needs to take that $1T and invest in energy independence so we no longer give a rat's ass about this region. Until we break reliance on oil, the war will never end - be it Iraq, Iran, Saudistan, etc. We need to declare war on oil and gear up the country with the same focus as was applied to the space program. That is the only deficit spending that I support at this point.

Hahahahahahahaha


Now it's only 5 years not a 100?

6 months from the election and Cindy is dumping her investments in Sudan?

What a pair!

pussy

Razor-sharp wit as always, good sir.

Is McCain actully trying to be elected by making statements like that??? Or is he so anxious for retirement that he is secretly working for Barrack??

"Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict. Well, thinking people would.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 10:07 AM"

Agreed, but in this sense: the US likely wouldn't have gone INTO Iraq if given that kind of upfront assessment (at least that's what the thinking people thought).

If Mr. McCain gets his wish, I wonder what he'll say in 2013.

Danni says: Is McCain actully trying to be elected by making statements like that?

Wait until you hear what he said about health care in the U.S. I listened to him this morning. Stunning. Out of touch.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Too bad Clinton's not going to win, huh?

Also, "immediately" isn't certain enough for you?

"SA - Where'd you go?

Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

Spent a few days in the Black Hills, then over to MT to see the folks. Safe and sound (and 5 pounds heavier) back in Ohio now.

"I wonder what he'll say in 2013.

Posted by TrueBlue"


He'll say "A hundred years, a thousand years, ten thousand years - errraaaaghhh!!!"

You know when you've had flowers in a vase too long and the water starts to stink? That's the scent of Hillary.

All the King's horses and all the King's men...

Could not unscramble what George has got us in...

Nobody can promise anything rock solid as far as cleaning up this mess is concerned, anyone who does is speaking out their ass.

Of all the Hillary slams, some of them creative, most just Libs regurgitating nonsensical Rethug misogynistic slander from the 90's, that last one from "Snark" about water in a vase?

Gives new meaning to the term, "lame".

McCain's bloody plan is closer to Obama's, who also won't say when he will start bringing out troops.


Posted by Corky

Boy, that's terrible! A candidate who actually wants to have all the possible information BEFORE announcing a major step like troop withdrawl. Of Course, HRC would probably order troop withdrawl despite the incoming sniper fire.

SA - You been to Bear Butte? Amazing place.

Iraq was an avoidable folly committed by arrogant dimblebrains, most folks can agree. But we cannot simply leave now. Obama knows that. I do believe, however, that he will prosecute the war -- and eventual withdrawal -- with strength, and intelligence. We must be patient, and understand that the mess created by the small people who have led this country for the past 8 years -- and the smegma that supports them -- goes beyond simply leaving. We are in this for the long haul. Yet, as we slowly, and carefully clean it up, it is imperative that the thugs responsible for the ignoring of the real terrorist threat and this crime against humanity called the invasion of Iraq be held accountable. I mean, isn't accountability the conservative way?

"SA - You been to Bear Butte? Amazing place.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis"

Yes, but not since I was a kid. I love that whole area. BTW, Crazy Horse Monument has a face now.

McBush flip flopping again. He declared victory last month.

Returning from his eighth trip to Iraq, McCain didn't back down on his promise to see the war through despite yesterday's tragic milestone of 4,000 deaths. "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

Does anybody believe anything this sad old man says? Or is Lokisfur now writing his speeches?

But we cannot simply leave now. Obama knows that. I do believe, however, that he will prosecute the war -- and eventual withdrawal -- with strength, and intelligence.

How will he prosecute the war when the majority of money and votes will be from the anti war left? Not to mention having both Houses of Congress. The underlying agenda of his campaign is removing the troops immediatly. Just like the lies which carried the dems in 2006.Look at the reaction of the special interest groups turning on the current Majority in less than 2 years. Is this his so called change? Cowering to the groups which put him where he is????

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Actually he's said numerous times he would stand by his pledge to have troops out of Iraq within 16 months. It's really easy to find this information, all it required was a very small amount of looking for it.

Nobody can promise anything rock solid as far as cleaning up this mess is concerned, anyone who does is speaking out their ass.

Sadly that is the truest statement in this entire thread. George really screwed it up for the next guy...and probably the one after as well.

"By 2013 we will be in some form of war against Iraq for 22 years."

That is truely an amazing statistic. Imagine what could have been accomplished with the money spent.
The name Bush is synonymous with unnecessary war.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.
Posted by Corky at 2008-05-15 11:22 AM


Then, please, do your duty as a compliant tool and tell her campaign to get her website up to date.

There's no "date certain" at "Ending the War in Iraq" on
www.hillaryclinton.com

Unless you consider her idea about getting her administration to come up with a "viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

Obama, on the other hand, "will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq." www.barackobama.com

You may not like Obama and you may not like his plan, but to say Obama hasn't given a date certain for starting to pull out troops and that Hillary has is, at best, disingenuous. More likely, it's merely a symptom of living in Clinton Land, which you reach by going through the looking glass and checking things out with Humpty Dumpty, who explains: "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Iraq War:


1. Continue and fight till victory.

2. Pull out immediatly and let them kill each other until they get tired of it and REALLY seek peace and cooperation with each other. AND....NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN DEATH.


I choose number two.

Doc Stalksus must be using Vernon's Calculator, not to be able to figure what the date would be 60 days after she took office.

Either that, or he is being, "disingenuous".

Or just plain thick, more like.

And of course we all know from Obama's advisor that his "immediately", is just for political theatre, not something that should be taken seriously or that he could be held to.

Having endured the Clinton approach to reality over the years, I have a feeling that "She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration" might well be spun later as "Well, they're working on it and these things take time."

But pehaps she's being sincere for a change. (Hope springs eternal!) She certainly has a lot to answer for, voting to give someone like George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq.

And of course we all know from Obama's advisor that his "immediately", is just for political theatre, not something that should be taken seriously or that he could be held to.

Just like her adivsors.... Honey I know you have PMS, but please take off the blinders. The Bullshit meter broke again....

If we have been there 5 years and it's more of a total disaster now than ever... how is another 4 years going to turn it around? it will make it worse, so then he'll want another 4 years there, then another... but we wont last that long! iran will control iraq in no time, then we go to war with iran. thanks bush cheney for starting WWIII.

roflmfao!!

The ol' war vote ploy. Obama used that so much he sounded like Rudy Giuliani parroting "911, 911!!" as an answer to any question, no matter what it was.

Yo Doc, That's a good one right on target!

He follows up "The question is who is to be master, that's all."

How bout that unicorn?

"I don't believe in you either but now that we've met each other, I'll believe in you if you'll believe in me.'

Maybe someone can answer this: Why can't congress simply revoke the presidents authority to use force in Iraq? Then we could call up our boy and tell em to head for the nearest airport and get on a plane. If anything impedes your progress to the airport BURN IT DOWN! We could get em home quick. It sounds naive, but I think the troops and the US people would get behind operation GTFO.

"Gives new meaning to the term, "lame".

Posted by Corky"

Pricked your bubble? Lo siento.

2. Pull out immediatly and let them kill each other until they get tired of it and REALLY seek peace and cooperation with each other. AND....NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN DEATH.

Do you have to work at being an idiot when it comes to international relations, or does it come naturally?

If you think that Sunni and Shia will eventually stand back, say "look at this, look at what we're doing, let's find a peaceful solution" then you're living in a dream world. And that's not even bringing up the whole mess that it becomes when the question of Iranian involvement gets brought into the equation.

I'm against the war and an Obama supporter, but I'm also a realist.

"Why can't congress simply revoke the presidents authority to use force in Iraq?"

Two ways for them to prevent that.

1. Senate fillibuster.
2. Presidential veto.

"The ol' war vote ploy."

Hillary voted to give George Bush a blank check to go to war. She's not an idiot. She read the resolution. (Didn't she?) That's a fact and bringing it up is no ploy. She was just doing her usual pander bear performance, trying to have it both ways.

"One more Crowne Royale and a round of Yuengling for my huntin' buddies, bartender!"

No one in their right mind would filibuster Operation GTFO! The best part is victory would be complete and total; as the objectives would be clearly defined get to the nearest airport and kill anyone and everyone that attempts to impeded your mission. Now if that includes a few politicians or MIC fat cats well I am sure our boys are up to it.

I am half serious here operation GTFO could be the best military success we have since the 1960's

"Why can't congress simply revoke the presidents authority to use force in Iraq?"

Because they aren't trying. They are busy working on Election 2008.

Read this:
www.rollingstone.com

Pelosi and Reid are clearly incompetent llamas.

"She was just doing her usual pander bear performance, trying to have it both ways.'

Next you'll be accusing her of flip flopping on NAFTA when we all know she was against it from the start.

Yo Doc, That's a good one right on target!

I have to agree with the Doc. Sorry if that brings you down to my level being a right wing hack that I am.

As for Montana... I had the greatest two weeks of my life driving through the state. From the southern point of Lincoln up to the Eastern Glaciers and back. Best fishing outside of Alaska.

"Operation GTFO" sounds like a plan that could succeed. I'm all for it.

Given the fact McBush has already acknowledged he won't run for a second term, what he's just admitted is he can't finish the war.

I thought he'd at least go after Peace with Honorable Mention.


But he's right-the troops will be home by 2013. Long before 2013, actually.

-usual pander bear performance

"Pin an American flag on me and call me, Obamessiah!!" - B Hussein

Of flag pins and Holy Cross ads

noquarterusa.net

Too bad atheists can't get their own candidate, eh?

"As for Montana... I had the greatest two weeks of my life..."

It's a great place, Crispee. Go off the beaten path and that whole Northern Plains area is fantastic. A bit cool come wintertime, though. As a friend who lived in Fargo, ND told me, "Man, that's snot-freezing cold."

Trueblue,

Wouldn't have gone into Iraq if they knew...

Perhaps that would have been true, initially....it's hard to say. Certainly, the appeasers running the Dem Party would have objected......As it was, Bush went for the easy sell, WMD's and managed to get the thing started with lot of Dem support because of the 911 attack. Maybe he thought that was the only way to get people to agree to a war that needed to be started.....I still wish he would have tried the honest approach first....In any case, the need for the war is obvious, as demostrated by the amount of effort AQ and Iran are spending on it.

To all of you quitters...do try to remember, if we'd quit 5 years into the Revolutionary War, we'd still be subjects of the Queen.

To those who think occupations can't succeed...please recall Korea, Germany, Japan, and if those are too far away....everything West of the original 13 colonies...hell the 13 colonies themselves were occupied by varying degrees of hostile people....we have a long history of successful occupations...this will just be another....

If McCain is elected President and wants the troops to stay in Iraq and the Democrats take the House and Senate in Majority, will the Democrats fund the war or finally put an end to the funding?

Since 2006 was supposed to answer "yes" to that question, I'd suspect the troops are staying and the money will flow from Congress.

Why?

Because, like we've been told since 2006, nobody wants to be blamed for our soldiers having no money. They're afraid they'll be blamed instead of the President.

18% approval rating? Watch that drop further.

How long were we in Vietnam anyway? How many times were we told that it would end?

"what he's just admitted is he can't finish the war."

Finish the war?
On my watch?
Never!
Yrs,
John "I Am NOT The Manchurian Candidate, But I Still LOVE the Jack of Diamonds" McCain

PS: What happened to my strawberries?

"But pehaps she's being sincere for a change. (Hope springs eternal!) She certainly has a lot to answer for, voting to give someone like George Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq.

Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2008-05-15 12:06 PM"

Funny, she has the exact same voting record on the war as Obama since he assumed office - both voting to fund the war on 13+ occassion. They both have a duty to stop funding the war and they both continue to give Bush a blank check - why do you only focus on Hillary and ignore your Messiah's pro-Iraq war voting record?

To those who think occupations can't succeed...please recall Korea, Germany, Japan, and if those are too far away....everything West of the original 13 colonies...hell the 13 colonies themselves were occupied by varying degrees of hostile people....we have a long history of successful occupations...this will just be another....

I like how you left out Vietnam.

Cresent,

No, that actually makes my point too, I just didn't want to get sidetracked. We left Vietnam just as we'd won it, but we could have won it a lot easier if Johnson and Nixon had actually TRIED to win it...Instead, they were playing politics in Paris with 500,000 pawns...Sort of like we did in the first Iraq War, which, because we half-assed it, we had to come back again to do. Vietnam was a glowing failure, but really didn't have to be. Even so, pretty good record.

Wait a minute, we "won" Vietnam? I seem to remember an incident where Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces and the entire South Vietnamese army surrendered.

But hey, what do I know?

Wait a minute, we "won" Vietnam? I seem to remember an incident where Saigon was captured by North Vietnamese forces and the entire South Vietnamese army surrendered.

You're forgetting the part where Stallone went back in a blew everything up.

Funny, she has the exact same voting record on the war as Obama since he assumed office - both voting to fund the war on 13+ occassion. They both have a duty to stop funding the war and they both continue to give Bush a blank check
Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2008-05-15 12:36 PM


How did that work with Vietnam? No so good I think. At least he had the foresight to see it was bad to get in, and he and she both have the hindsight to see defunding isn't the way to get out.

Cresent,

Read again....this time, pay attention...I didn't say we won. I said we left right when we had won.

The VC were liquidated during Tet. Unfortunately, their energy in getting killed was the last straw, and scared everybody off in the process, and that convinced us to leave. Had we seen it for the decisive military victory it was, we could have exploited the situation and, with a large offensive, ended the War with South Vietnam intact....like we did in Korea....We were too panicked to see the opportunity...We're still paying for that panic, because that's the reaction the Islamofascists are expecting....The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before...

"The VC were liquidated during Tet"

Basically, true.

But not the NVA.

"The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before..."

Jon, had we stayed in Vietnam how would the US be better off today???? Did you volunteer to go over there or are you just one more of those Republicans who is brave with other people's lives at stake???

How did that work with Vietnam? No so good I think. At least he had the foresight to see it was bad to get in, and he and she both have the hindsight to see defunding isn't the way to get out.

Posted by bigjohn_1972


Well, if you are for continued funding of the war than you are for the continuation of the war so shut the fuck up about Bush and McCain and Hillary. You no longer havs a right to complain about Iraq if you are not willing to end it - period.

As for Obama - his 'anti-war' stance was simply mimicking the stance of his racist church/pastor so it would have been more courageous, honest and consistent of him to just come out and say he is pro-war so his continued funding of it would at least make sense. But then again, even his racists pastor/mentor says that Obama has no integrity and will say anything to get elected just like all politicians....

"she has the exact same voting record on the war as Obama since he assumed office"

...and after she voted to give Bush a blank check. Which he opposed even before the war started (
www.youtube.com) and she, of course, did not.

As for voting subsequent appropriations for the war, I think both of them should have voted against that. They'd have been destroyed by the Rovians, of course.

Not that your vote's in play, of course.

"The Dems intend to provide it, as they did before...

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 12:49 PM |"

I was watching one of the Borg episodes of "Next Generation" last night, and I must say, the Drudge "Jon Ryker" reminds me much more of the Borg than he does of Jon Ryker.

Did you volunteer to go over there or are you just one more of those Republicans who is brave with other people's lives at stake???

As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado.

As for voting subsequent appropriations for the war, I think both of them should have voted against that. They'd have been destroyed by the Rovians

Yes Doc, better to keep their political positions than their integrity...and $1T and 4000+ US soldiers.

I actually feel the Republicans have more honesty and integrity - some of them actually believe in the cause so they are willing to put their political careers on the line (like McCain, Lieberman) while the Dems know it is the wrong thing but vote for it anyway. They will continue to do that as long as the retarded Dem lock-step voters keep rewarding them.

"As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado."

Yeah, like John Kerry asshole.

"They will continue to do that as long as the retarded Dem lock-step voters keep rewarding them."

Your refusal to acknowledge what the Democrats in Congress have said about why they continue to fund the troops doesn't in any way diminish the truth of their statements.

I was a Vietnam War protester and most of my friends at the time were Vietnam War veterans who hated the war more than I did.

"As opposed to the anti war Dems demonstrating on the streets, spitting on the soldiers when they returned? Calling them murderers and baby killers? There's some leftist bravado."

Yeah, like John Kerry asshole.
Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 01:13 PM

No John Kerry actually fought in Vietnam. After his deferments ran out. But he did in fact have the balls to go.

I was speaking of the gutless protesters like you and your friends. Who didn't give a rats ass about the soldiers. So when you go and smear people asking them if they volunteered, it proves what kind of person you and company were. Not surprised though.

"No John Kerry actually fought in Vietnam. After his deferments ran out. But he did in fact have the balls to go.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-05-15 01:25 PM"

Kudos to Crispee for acknowledging what many of his compatriots still can't bring themselves to admit.

Nullifidian,

Yeah, I had you for a "New Treck" fan....

Danni,

Well, I was one year old when Tet hit, so nobody really asked my opinion back then....

DAnni,

Would we be better off if we'd stayed in Vietnam?

Well, if it worked out like Korea, Germany, and Japan....yes, we'd be WAY better off....As it is, it made us look weak and led the Islamofascists to believe that we're so fat and lazy we won't stand up to anything....In the case of the Dems, their correct, as the VC were in 'Nam....

"some of them actually believe in the cause so they are willing to put their political careers on the line (like McCain, Lieberman)"

No flip-flopping from that pair, no sirree.

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Posted by Corky


Obama has said Immediately. Sounds like his date is going to be January 09.


So how many troops did Hillbillary commit to pull out 1%, 5%, 1000, 10,000, 100,000?

What date is she commited to?

A few days ago she said:
The United States' security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda," she said. "It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

so Tell us Hillary's grand plan to end the war in Iraq.

Nah your just a stupid fuck who will fall for her bullshit troop reduction of a few percent and call it a day, no real change. cause your a chump, a blind ass retarded chump.

but hey prove me wrong

Back your sh!t up Douchebag!

You don't want me to continue sending it to your PO Box?



Would we be better off if we'd stayed in Vietnam?

Well, if it worked out like Korea, Germany, and Japan....yes, we'd be WAY better off....As it is, it made us look weak and led the Islamofascists to believe that we're so fat and lazy we won't stand up to anything....In the case of the Dems, their correct, as the VC were in 'Nam....

Posted by jonryker


Well then if it such a noble cause, bring back the draft instead of sending disabled vets for their 3rd and 4th tours.

That way at least the odds would be a little more balanced that everyone capable of serving this nation in our almighty struggle against the boogeyman will have a chance to earn their keep.

Well then if it such a noble cause, bring back the draft instead of sending disabled vets for their 3rd and 4th tours.

Posted by 726 at 2008-05-15 02:28 PM |

Thanks for showing your knowledge about being a soldier. Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there. They want to stay until it is resolved or until orders come to withdrawal. See thats what goood soldiers do. They understand much more than you or I in the Sates. They know what kind of outcome they want.


As candidates get closer to the GE, they are provided with summaries of briefings on all sorts of domestic, military and international matters that the executive branch gets on a daily basis, partly so that they don't say things that run contrary to established US policy during the campaign, partly so that they can correctly couch answers in debates, press conferences and public appearances and partly so that they get a head start on the 75 days of "education" that they undergo while naming a cabinet and making appointments prior to Jan 20, 2009.

This, in part, is what you are seeing now with the three remaining candidates, and their "soft" responses to the question of when troops will be out of Iraq.

All this sturm and angst is entertaining, but what do the candidates really mean with their promises?

"Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there."

Howsaboutalinkonthat????

"Danni,

Well, I was one year old when Tet hit, so nobody really asked my opinion back then....

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 01:57 PM"

It's OK (fortunate?) for someone to have not lived through the Vietnam War, but it is NOT OK to stay willfully ignorant about its history while espousing platitudes regarding how that war ended up. This is particularly disturbing since your way of dealing with those realities is having an immediate impact about how we are dealing with Iraq. PLEASE do yourself (h*ll, ALL of us!) a favor and spend some time reviewing the life/times of that conflict and critically evaluate those lessons in regards to our present circumstances.

Also, try not to get bogged down in the superficial cr*p and myths that have been trotted out here today:

www.vvaw.org

Here's a little context (which is oft times sorely lacking here on the DR) into each candidate's promises on Iraq:


Obama: He will start "immediately" (which logistically means that troops will start moving out within 90-120 days after he "orders" their withdrawl) and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. A combat brigade numbers 3,500 troops. Simple math says that within 16 months he will have withdrawn between 36,000 and 49,000 troops out of 150,000, leaving over 100,000 troops still in Iraq.

Obama "will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq", which is easy to do since they are already built. He "will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;" which is what the permanent bases that he didn't build are for, and "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." See above.

Basically, what Obama is promising to do is exactly what Petreaus said was his tentative plan at the last congressional briefing...start drawing down combat brigades in early '09, and hope to have them out by spring '10, or approximately 18 months. Barry is basically promising to chop 2 months off that timetable.

Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there."

Howsaboutalinkonthat????

Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 02:44 PM |


Don't need a link. I have first hand knowledge. Something you will never, ever know. Nor will you ever have that feeling of a soldier thanking you for thanking them and supporting their wishes to end this. Whether it be at a funeral, or at the bar directly below the recruiting center, I get the same reacion and answers. When is the last time you thanked a soldier? As opposed to telling a soldier your feelings about the CiC and their failed mission for oil???

726,

Not noble. Killing people isn't noble....practical....However, draft armies are impractical when confronting terrorists...people who are drafted are not as trainable and tend to not do difficult jobs and tend to snap under high-discipline, civilian-infested combat....Nope, need professionals for that kind of stuff...

Trueblue,

I did live through it, and I've had to live with the results of that fuck-up....I just was too old to dodge the draft like you....

Was something I said about Tet inaccurate? Superficial? Ignorant? About what? You know, when you accuse someone of that, if you want to be convincing, you might want to make specific, fact-based objections to what I'm saying, rather than general ranting...

Hillary:

She "would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration." She is a little more honest about how long it will take for the Pentagon to get their shit together, but it will still take 90-120 days for the first troops to come home. She has also made it clear that she is going to first withdraw "combat brigades", just like Barry, and "would focus American aid efforts during our redeployment on stabilizing Iraq". Basically, no difference, about 100K troops would be in Iraq for a while.

Hillary "will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region." Sound familiar?

Obama has not given a date certain when he will start to pull out troops. Period. Clinton did.

Posted by Corky




No surprise you cant back up your words Corky

Even the simplest realities elude you, no wonder you fell for the Clinton tripe.

Reality is asking a lot from a troll like you.

And who, does she think, would flow into the vacuum created by those exiting combat bridages?

Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there. They want to stay until it is resolved or until orders come to withdrawal. See thats what goood soldiers do.

Posted by crispee_oc



www.cnn.com

Do good soldiers also commit suicide at a higher rate than they die in combat.

This is your idea of a functional military, you buffoon!

McCain:

As hinted in the article, McCain lays out a scenario where the Military commanders will drawdown combat troops as conditions on the ground dictate, with the hope that Iraqi troops can shoulder the brunt of the heavy lifting increasingly through '09 and into '10. After the "combat brigades" are withdrawn in conjuction with this rise in Iraqi troop strength, "U.S. troops would still be present, but those soldiers would not play a "direct combat role" because Iraqi forces would be capable of providing order." Over the next couple of years, troops would be further drawn down until there was "a troop presence aimed at maintaining stability, like the U.S. presence now in Japan, South Korea and Germany."

Stripping away the rhetoric, not much different then Hillary or Barry.

Repugnant,

Actually, I'd think that yes, good soldiers, being good at killing the other guy, probably wouldn't get killed so often....certainly, they don't become junkies, frag their officers, and impregnate half of the women in the country they're fighting in....

As to the suicides, that's pretty shaky evidence to start with, though.

Are you actually saying that this army in ineffective? If so, you'd better come up with a better one.....

Are you actually saying that this army in ineffective?



I'm saying the leadership of this army is ineffective for the goals of the American citizens.


If so, you'd better come up with a better one.....


Don't worry we'll be doing that in November, we have to clean up the mess you Neocon imbeciles made.

maintaining stability, like the U.S. presence now in Japan, South Korea and Germany.

I think you forgot about 150 other countries we are policing from here to eternity.

To bad our own borders aren't secure though.


Do good soldiers also commit suicide at a higher rate than they die in combat.

This is your idea of a functional military, you buffoon!

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:01 PM


Like yourself, you have to have some screws loose to contemplate suicide. Only a fucking tool would use the suicide angle as an exapmle to tarnish the troops.

Repugnant,

So, what's the leadership got to do with voluntary vs a draft army? See, that's what you were talking about....Do I have to carry both sides of this debate? FOCUS!

...certainly, they don't become junkies, frag their officers, and impregnate half of the women in the country they're fighting in...


you are talking about the US Army right?

Being forced to grunt out 3-4 tours over what you originally signed up for leads to depression, addiction, senseless killing and other social disorders.

Lets get real here..many of these soldiers are smart enough to know they were conned by Bush.

Lets get real here..many of these soldiers are smart enough to know they were conned by Bush.

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:32 PM

I couldn't have said it better.

John Kerry

BTW thanks so much for living up to your handle.


Only a fucking tool would use the suicide angle as an exapmle to tarnish the troops.

Posted by crispee_oc


It not to tarnish the troops, its tarnishing the poor planning that kept our soldiers in combat years after they were supposed to come home to their families.

Whether you want to admit it or not - its had a negative impact on the troops.

Keep yer fucking head in the sand, we'll tell you when its safe to come up with your tail between your legs.

what's the leadership got to do with voluntary vs a draft army? jonryker



Seriously, are you that stupid?

Repugnant,

I was talking about the DRAFTED US Army as it performed in Vietnam as opposed to the VOLUNTEER one now. Strangely, you seem to prefer the former model, which did not work in a long-term, frontless war....

So I'm wondering why you prefer the draft army and how it is you think the volunteer army got snookered into volunteering? What do you think they were volunteering to do, have bake sales? Why do they keep reenlisting? Why are they exceeding recruiting targets across all branches?

When exactly was Vietnam winnable? We never had control over the countryside. The SV govt. was continuously corrupt and not trusted by the SV people.
Let review:
On March 1, 1968 Clifford succeeded McNamara as Secretary of Defense. Clifford, who had entered office as a staunch supporter of the Vietnam commitment and who had opposed McNamara's de-escalatory views, turned against the war. According to Clifford: "The simple truth was that the military failed to sustain a respectable argument for their position." Between the results of Tet and the meetings of the group that bore his name, he became convinced that deescalation was the only solution for the United States. He was convinced that the troop increase would lead only to a more violent stalemate.

On March 22, at Clifford's suggestion, Johnson called a conclave of the "Wise Men". With few exceptions, all of the members of the group had formerly been accounted as hawks on the war. The group was joined by Rusk, Wheeler, Bundy, Rostow, and Clifford. The final assessment of the majority stupefied the group. According to Clifford, "few of them were thinking solely of Vietnam anymore. All but four members called for disengagement from the war.

According to the U.S. State Department, the NLF "made pacification virtually inoperative. In the Mekong Delta the NLF was stronger now than ever and in other regions the countryside belongs to the VC."

The horrendous losses inflicted on NLF units struck into the heart of the irreplaceable infrastructure that had been built up for over a decade. From this point forward, Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the NLF's ranks with North Vietnamese troops. However, this change had little effect on the war, since North Vietnam had little difficulty making up the casualties inflicted by the offensive. Some Western historians have come to believe that one insidious ulterior motive for the campaign was the elimination of competing southern members of the Party, thereby allowing the northerners more control once the war was won.

Mostly from Wikipedia (yep, lazy again).

The biggest shame is that if we could admit that we failed there, we could draw reality-based conclusions from our experience there. And avoid repeating it.

Keep yer fucking head in the sand, we'll tell you when its safe to come up with your tail between your legs.


Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:36 PM

I will pull my head out of the sand when you pull yours out of your ass. Because only a fucking clown would try and claim they know what is going on with the troops mindset and why they decide to re-up. From your cozy little shithole no less.

Why do they keep reenlisting?


I joined for several reasons. 19, no job skills, bored with life in the town I was living in. Lack of good jobs at the time


or

A friend of mine double dog dared me to join.
I had to do it or he would have thought I was a pu$$y.

or

Where else at eighteen could I jump out of a plane, shoot things, and blow up stuff . . . and get paid for it

From your cozy little shithole no less.

Posted by crispee_oc



Where are you now OC?

From your cozy little shithole no less.



or were you referring to the Alabama National Guard?

Where else at eighteen could I jump out of a plane, shoot things, and blow up stuff . . . and get paid for it

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:44 PM

I guess you never got into the whole honor and respect thing did you repug?

"Don't need a link. I have first hand knowledge."

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do. You don't have a clue.

"Why are they exceeding recruiting targets across all branches?"

Wouldn't have anything to do with bonuses would it?
All these kids are joining because the believe in the mission in Iraq...riiiiight....most of them can't find Iraq on a map. Most of them don't know anything about Iraq or why we are there.
The thing about a draft army is that lunatics like Bush can't use a draft army as he sees fit because the wealthy and powerful can't keep their kids out of harms way and thus are much more cynical about politicians sending them off to war. Had we had a draft army, we would not be in Iraq now.

Where are you now OC?

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:45 PM

About 20 miles from the most decorated Marine Base in the United States.

Why do they keep reenlisting?

forums.military.com


I heard they gave you a pair of new shoes.
I was tired of going barefoot.


I had nowhere else to go!!!!


Job Corps was full.

I joined to have sex with foreign women.

It was either Infantry or The Ballet

hmm thats funny Im about 10 miles from the most baddass airforce base in the world


so the fuck what?

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do. You don't have a clue.

I don't believe I have talked to EVERY soldier. I said the ones I do talk to. Maybe you should try it one day. I would be happy to send you information on two soldiers on their third tour. Both of whom I have known since they were born. I am sure they would love to know what you think from the comforts of Florida.

hmm thats funny Im about 10 miles from the most baddass airforce base in the world


so the fuck what?

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 03:49 P


Don't like the answer? Don't ask stupid questions. Like I said somehow you missed the honor and dignity boat.

"I would be happy to send you information on two soldiers on their third tour."

Oh, why didn't you say so....you talked to two soldiers....so you are an expert on the entire force in Iraq and what they want. Personally I suspect you are full of crap. I seriously doubt that anywhere near a majority of the troops on third and fourth tours are happy to be there. I doubt seriously that they even believe the US should be in Iraq but I will defer because you know two soldiers.

"I would be happy to send you information on two soldiers on their third tour."

Oh, why didn't you say so....you talked to two soldiers....so you are an expert on the entire force in Iraq and what they want. Personally I suspect you are full of crap. I seriously doubt that anywhere near a majority of the troops on third and fourth tours are happy to be there. I doubt seriously that they even believe the US should be in Iraq but I will defer because you know two soldiers.

Well aparntly Im in a bad ass location because Im not far from a base either, it makes me tough guy, like you. big Manly man lives near a base, so hes an authority on the war.


He knows someone in the military, makes him expert.

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do.

I Never said that I did, learn to read basic english gringo. You make strawman with all your hay.

I said more troops are opting for suicide than are being killed in combat. this is largely due to the fact that they are being abused by the cushy offices of the Pentagon.

But basic observation eludes you capability to determine reality I see.

Like I said somehow you missed the honor and dignity boat.

ahh you never said that - more delusional lies from Crispee?

So are you actually on a military base?

or just near one?

I doubt seriously that they even believe the US should be in Iraq but I will defer because you know two soldiers.

Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 03:58 PM | Reply

Danni,
Why would I care what an admitted military hater of the sixties thinks? You admitted to being part of the crowd who spit on soldiers and calling them killers. BTW I enjoy telling these guys what I read on this blog. They get a good laugh when I echo the likes of you and Repug.

Well aparntly Im in a bad ass location because Im not far from a base either, it makes me tough guy, like you. big Manly man lives near a base, so hes an authority on the war.


He knows someone in the military, makes him expert.

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do.

Sounds like you are legend in your own mind. Not sure how answering your question makes me a bad ass. As for you posting something I didn't write...would calling you a dumbshit apply???

"You admitted to being part of the crowd who spit on soldiers and calling them killers."

Liar. In fact the "spitting" has never been documented as anything that really ever happened. In the sixties we didn't hate the soldiers idiot, we hated the president. Ever hear of a little group called Vietnam Veterans Against the War????

BTW my Dad was actually onboard an aircraft carrier right off the coast of Vietnam during the war. They flew missions to VN every day. So saying I was a military hater is sort of...stupid and dishonest.
I grew up on military bases all over the country.

*ignoring the pissing match between crispee and repug*

ROC-

I agree that the positions (long term) for all three candidates aren't much different, nor could they probably realistically diverge by much. That being said, however, unlike McCain, both Hillary and Obama are willing to put a time on the withdrawl, which McCain isn't willing to do. Given the practical realities, it most likely is a distinction without a difference, but I think that McCain's unwillingness to put a date on it will really hurt him.

BTW my dad who was a pilot and a Commander in the Navy did disagree back then about the war and we argued quite a bit. A few years later though he had come around to my way of thinking and admitted that he had been misled. That was very difficult for him because he truely loved the Navy but he finally realized what a POS Nixon really was. Johnson realized too late that he had ruined his own career and reputation by prosecuting that war. McNamara has said that he and the others in the government were guilty of war crimes.

*ignoring the pissing match between crispee and repug*


Sorry for screwng up the thread and making it a pissing match.

crispee

Pardon me pissing on the thread. Im trying to argue with an idiot and it devolves quickly, but im sick of hearing idiots so I entertain it...



You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do.


For the second time Crispee, you can make a strawman, but I never claimed to know the desire of every soldier. but it seems that you feel that since you live near a base and have a couple of friends on tour that you are. but you still make nonsense.

The military is being over extended because the govt doesnt have the balls to call it a war and implement the draft because they know the people would revolt in the streets all over the US

I dont expect your feeble mind to grasp that crispee , but its reality.

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do.


For the second time Crispee, you can make a strawman, but I never claimed to know the desire of every soldier. but it seems that you feel that since you live near a base and have a couple of friends on tour that you are. but you still make nonsense.


For the second time I didn't post that. Someone posted it to me. Can you fucking read and follow along? Do you need the bouncing ball on top of the letters? Go back and look at who asked what before you shove your little size 8 shoe in your mouth. It is obvious some here don't care for the back and forth which I admit I am guilty of. Move on little man.

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do. You don't have a clue.
Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 03:47 PM

Does that help Repug? Or are you going to continue to embarrass yourself?

SO MAKE A FUCKING POINT CRISPEE

My point is that troops are overextended as a result of the bush administrations inability to plan and operate this war effectively.

Many of these troops aren't re-upping, they are being forced to take more tours than they agreed to. its causing depression, suicide and family problems.

A draft would really put this war in perspective and the support would turn further agianst the war.

There would be protests in the streets.

the soldiers good intentions are being abused by the Pentagon and the Bush admin. It is weakening our national defense.

My point is not that I know the wishes and dreams of every troop in Iraq, i never said that, you just lamely tried to paint it that way.

This conflict has been mishandled from the onset and our troops are suffering because of inept leadership.

What is YOUR point - get it out our shut up!

You have first hand knowledge of the desires of every soldier on third or fourth tours...bull shit you do. You don't have a clue.
Posted by danni at 2008-05-15 03:47 PM

Does that help Repug? Or are you going to continue to embarrass yourself?

Posted by crispee_oc



perhaps you missed these repsonses dingleberry...

I Never said that I did, learn to read basic english gringo. You make strawman with all your hay.

I said more troops are opting for suicide than are being killed in combat. this is largely due to the fact that they are being abused by the cushy offices of the Pentagon.

But basic observation eludes you capability to determine reality I see.

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 04:00 PM

AND

For the second time Crispee, you can make a strawman, but I never claimed to know the desire of every soldier...

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 04:23 PM

What is YOUR point - get it out our shut up!

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-15 04:37 PM

The top of your head??? Seeing as you continue to post shit I never wrote or asked or claimed. My point was made at 2:34pm. Now will this shut your fucking trap? Or does someone need to read it to you first?


Because if you did you would know most of those on their 3rd or 4th tours are there because they want to be there. They want to stay until it is resolved or until orders come to withdrawal. See thats what goood soldiers do. They understand much more than you or I in the Sates. They know what kind of outcome they want.

Posted by crispee_oc at 2008-05-15 02:34 PM

so your saying that the majority of troops would prefer to spend an indefinite amount of time in Iraq to resolve this war?

What do you think would define resolved?





www.washingtonpost.com

For Mortenson and the members of the 1st (infantry) Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton, Calif., the orders for Iraq came in January 2003, in March 2004 and in February of this year.

"I remember before we went in, nobody's ever been in combat and we didn't know exactly what to expect. But we were all motivated that we could do it. We were really eager to go," said Lance Cpl. Eric J. Young, 22. Like Mortenson, he was a squad automatic weapon (SAW) gunner in Alpha Company.

A year later, the second tour was greeted with a certain amount of confidence, he said. "We had an idea of what to expect this time: the heat, everything bad about Iraq."

But learning about a third tour was tough.


"Those of us who had gone through [the first and second deployments] were pretty convinced we weren't going to go back," said Young, whose enlistment ends in August. "Honestly, I was kind of pissed off about going back."

Cpl. Matt Buchanan, 22, a machine-gun squad leader in Charlie Company of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, agreed. He was shot in the arm during his third tour this spring and was sent back early to wait out his September separation from the service.

"I thought, 'You have got to be kidding me.' I could not believe they were doing that," Buchanan said. "I can accept that because it comes with the job. But the worst part was telling my family."

Mortenson was back at Camp Pendleton in late summer 2004. He told a National Public Radio reporter who was interviewing Marines upon returning from their second tour: "I've been there twice, and no, I don't want to go back."

By March, Mortenson and the rest of his unit were in Ramadi -- just kind of doing a lot of patrols looking for the enemies, and guarding iraqi political centers, Mortenson wrote his parents on March 13.

...

i am trying to put out ideas because on may 19th I only have a year left. that only leaves me with 6-7 months when I get back . . . not a lot of time, Mortenson wrote on April 18.

Early on the afternoon of April 20, Mortenson and Cpl. Kelly M. Cannan, another third-timer in Iraq, were on their way to catch reported terrorists at a cafe in Ramadi when a roadside bomb went off beside their Humvee. Cannan was killed instantly. Mortenson sustained a massive head wound and died hours later at a military medical facility in Baghdad.

www.nytimes.com

Mary Coe, a marriage and family therapist working near Fort Campbell, an Army base on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee, said she was seeing "many, many divorces" right now. The 101st Airborne Division recently returned from its second deployment with an astonishing level of rage, she said. "Now we are seeing 15- to 20-year marriages not making it, and these are families that survived 20 years of deployments," Dr. Coe said.

Yep Crispee just bury your head and ignore reality

www.nytimes.com

Among combat troops sent to Iraq for the third or fourth time, more than one in four show signs of anxiety, depression or acute stress, according to an official Army survey of soldiers' mental health.

The stress of long and multiple deployments to Iraq is just one of the concerns being voiced by senior military officers in Washington as Gen. David H. Petraeus

Now lets here a positive story. One about a guy whos done 4 tours and plans to keep at it til the job is finished!

In this speech, in which McCain gazed out upon the broad horizon at the end of his first term in office:

What a wonderful world it will be: "The Iraq War has been won": "Iraq is a functioning democracy"; "al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated"; Osama bin Laden has been captured or killed; there's been no major terrorist attack in the U.S.; Iran and North Korea have renounced nuclear weapons; "the size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased and are now better equipped"; there's been "a substantial increase" in veterans' benefits; the genocide in Darfur has been stopped; "the United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future"; "the world food crisis has ended"; "test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country"; "health care has become more accessible"; Medicare and Social Security have been fixed "without reducing benefits" or "increasing taxes and raising premiums"; America is "well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil"; "our southern border is now secure" and "illegal immigration has been finally brought under control." And, oh yeah, there are a lot fewer fat kids trudging their way through PE class.

Sounds pretty great, doesn't it?

There's only one problem: it's pure, unadulterated fantasy. The political equivalent of the trippy tour the Beatles gave us in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds -- only instead of rocking horse people eating marshmallow pies, we have "professional and competent" Iraq Security Forces and an Iraqi government "capable of imposing its authority in every province" and "defending the integrity of its borders."
www.huffingtonpost.com

Arianna (I didn't know my husband was gay) Huffington? What does she know other than how to avoid paying federal taxes?

Doc,
I have to admit I am a little disappointed seeing you paste anything. You are one of the few gifted posters that can make even a stiff like me crack up. Not because what you post is a joke, just your knack for words.

Crispee, you are WRONG! It was Arianna (I turned my husband gay) Huffington. C'mon now!

Let's declare victory and go home.


except it would be the terrorists who
would be the victors, but of course the left doesnt give a shit about that.

and of course it would mean the genocide of thousands if not millions of iraqis who have stood with us....
and all this time we have heard from defeatists that we are at fault for every iraqi killed by terrorists and now we read that leftists want to get out and spur on the genocide....well which is it?

typical liberal fuck

and leftists have been squealing like pigs about what is victory and here it is....
also....most of you have said mccain and bush are the same and here we see a major difference. mccain called for a surge like operation from almost the beginning and only the worst liberal fucks can deny the surge has worked.....

Crispee, you are WRONG! It was Arianna (I turned my husband gay) Huffington. C'mon now!

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks at 2008-05-15 06:05 PM |

Thanks for correcting my error.

Crispee, you are WRONG! It was Arianna (I turned my husband gay) Huffington. C'mon now!

Posted by Dumb_as_Rocks at 2008-05-15 06:05 PM |

Thanks for correcting my error.

Posted by crispee_oc



ff

and now for my more serious answer which gives the samething

its very VERY simply.
vote for the black man or the white woman and we will lose in iraq and all that entails
vote for mccain and we still have a chance to win that gets better and better all the time.
so each one of us has to make up our minds which one we are for ....AND the consequences that follow in both cases.

And after a couple of hundred comments which did indeed deteriorate into a pissing contest, in struts one BLT, preening his feathers and announcing that the Bush candidate can get us victory. Victory indeed! BLT cannot define what the hell that might be or how we know it when we see it, but we cannot let "the black man or the white woman" put what's best for *people* ahead of Big Oil. herm

Ok fine. Just win it with YOUR kids.

It's not worth mine.

McCain's policy towards Iraq is the same as Bush's. The only difference he offers is he's not physically Bush.

BTW - the Pentagon's pressuring the VA not to diagnose Soldier's with PTSD. Instead they are pushing "Adjustment Disfunction." Not only is that a hell of a lot cheaper, it allows the Soldiers to be redeployed.

As if the suicide rates (1000 attempts a month while under care) aren't high enough already.

Support the Troops. Vote out the GOP.

THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ

we are occupying a foreign country.

I said "the Pentagon's" and I went and reread the e-mail. The e-mail is from VA hospital's PTSD program coordinator (re: AD vs. PTSD).

My misattribution, corrected.

McCain's policy towards Iraq is the same as Bush's. The only difference he offers is he's not physically Bush.

I think they must be sharing the same brain though since neither one of them can tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni.

Four more years or a hundred years. It doesn't matter since the old geezer will be dead or a veg by then!

Support the Troops. Vote out the GOP.

Posted by YAV at 2008-05-15 10:05 PM |

It worked in 2006. Of course 15 months later we are no closer to withdrawal. I should say the dems are no closer.

"Trueblue,

I did live through it, and I've had to live with the results of that fuck-up....
Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 02:52 PM"

For someone who was "one year old when Tet hit" (January 1968), it's laughable to hear you state that you "did live through it". Try checking out the timeline of Vietnam's recent history (since 1930), especially the involvement of the United States which was as early as 1945 with an increasingly deeper involvement until the first US troop withdrawals in June 1969. By the time the last US troops left (March 1973) you were, maybe, in Kindergarten?!! I was born during the Korean War, but I'd never DREAM of saying I lived through it!

servercc.oakton.edu


"Was something I said about Tet inaccurate? Superficial? Ignorant? About what? You know, when you accuse someone of that, if you want to be convincing, you might want to make specific, fact-based objections to what I'm saying, rather than general ranting...
Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 02:52 PM"

Just what results have you had to live with and what fuck-up? Be specific because I'm sure you want to be convincing ;-)! I, nor anyone else I believe, disagreed with what you stated about Tet. It would have been more accurate to add to your statement by saying the Tet offensive by the NLF collapsed in no small part to the NLF's complete miscalculation that South Vietnamese would rise up and join the NLF (can you say 'flowers and chocolates'?). Also, the NLF was largely replaced by the NVA (North Vietnam) forces, who are the ones who actually took over South Vietnam thereby re-unifying the country in 1973. Didn't you wonder that if the VC had been completely crushed in mid 1968, why did it take nearly FIVE YEARS years before the US troops left (and not exactly victoriously)??? In an ironic twist, in 1973 the US completely miscalculated that the ARVN (South Vietnam) would stand up to the NVA. By 1973, South Vietnam had been fighting one powerful country/army after another for almost 35 years. Most of that population had not lived during a time without war and/or occupation. Not surprisingly, the ARVN didn't put up much resistance when some of their own countrymen (albeit from North Vietnam) invaded South Vietnam.

BTW, my caveat about superficial and ignorant items referred to the comments (not YOUR comments, but then I didn't state/imply that they were YOUR comments) regarding "Vietnam veterans/spit upon/baby killer" comments, but then you would have discerned that if you had bothered to read the link that followed my comment.

One last thought, your comment: "I just was too old to dodge the draft like you....
Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 02:52 PM"

is a toss-up whether it's mostly presumptive, inaccurate, or assinine.

BALDERDASH!

The "war" has already been "won".

dickhead said so on the carrier.

THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ

we are occupying a foreign country.

Posted by truthhurts at 2008-05-15 10:18 PM


We're spreading democracy.

The older among us remember Nixon's "secret" plan to end the Viet Nam war. Much touted during his election campaign. Well, there was no plan.

And McCain is just talking out his ***.

this is great the timeline is dropping fast. by
november it should be even better

Trueblue,

Typo...I meant to say I was too young to dodge the draft like you, not too old....

"Trueblue,

Typo...I meant to say I was too young to dodge the draft like you, not too old....

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-16 08:53 AM"

Jonryker
It's OK. That's what I understood you to mean and my response to it is still the same.

As long as we're correcting typos, I see that I have one: "I, nor anyone else I believe, disagreed ..." should have said "I NEVER, nor anyone else I believe, disagreed...". Although in the context of the entire rest of my paragraph, it probably was apparent what I was intending to say. I apologize for any confusion my typo may have caused.

what do the pollsters say? 100 years is too long?

TELL 'EM FIVE YEARS!

Trueblue,

I just saw your note about the specifics of Tet.

My point is that with the VC gone, had the US turned it's attention to the NVA with the intent of smashing them up, they clearly could have done so at that time. The NVA might have been tough, but they were out-gunned in a straight-up fight, as the war demostrated time and again. With the VC gone, the US had a window to turn the war into a conventional one, which they could have won, I think beyond any question...

They chose not too, perhaps because they didn't understand how completely they'd gutted the VC, or perhaps because they were just sissies responding to political pressure. In any case, they had a chance right there to win the war and keep South Vietnam, rickety as it was, intact in the deal, much as we have done in Korea, holding off China, a much more formidable foe. Look at South Korea now....We could have had a similar setup in South Vietnam....I'm sure the Cambodians would have preferred we stayed as well, but nobody asks their opinion because they're all dead....

No, at the critical moment, we chose to lose. In so choosing, they chose to lose a war that we'd spent lots of dead soldiers on, and a war which, at that point after Tet, was winnable. In spite of all the years of dreadfully cynical, murderous policy, they had a chance to win and they passed it up.

Consequences for me? Well, aside from a dead cousin or two, what I really meant was that since then, the US has been perceived as weak, contibuting mightily to the rise of terrorism against us....We are all paying for that, not only at the pump, but in civil liberties and tax load....

Most importantly is the loss of confidence in the culture as a whole, leading to an ethically deteriorating society, which is increasingly fractured, contentious, and dishonest....We're all paying for the loss in Vietnam...Many of us no longer believe we can succeed together....Defeat in Vietnam started that....

If we stick Vietnam out, terrorists do not try these tactics....they've said so themselves, that the unwillingness of the US to stick out Vietnam encouraged the attack on the marines in Beirut, and with that pullout they became certain that if they were violent and ruthless enough, we'd back off. We're all paying for that. The Dems and some Reps continue to give them encouragement, so the war goes on....We're all paying for Vietnam still...

So, that's my angle....We chose to lose, and in so doing, chose to become losers....At least, some of us did....

Nam was lost before Diem Bien Phu.

Zat,

Simplistic, and untrue....

Nam was stupid from the start.

No way it would have ever succeeded.

Iraq is going to look just as moronic in a few decades, if anybody's around.

Since you claim to be a teacher (I pity your students.) here's a brief reading list:

"Spies and Commandos: How America Lost the Secret War in North Vietnam "
www.amazon.com

"Hell in a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu"
www.amazon.com

"Covert Ops: The CIA's Secret War In Laos"
www.amazon.com

McCain's Vision for 2013 . . .
As He Hobbles Out of Office


Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she's gone.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds.
Follow her down to a bridge by a fountain
Where rocking horse people eat marshmellow pies,
Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers,
That grow so incredibly high.
Newspaper taxis appear on the shore,
Waiting to take you away.
Climb in the back with your head in the clouds,
And you're gone.
Lucy in the sky with diamonds,
Picture yourself on a train in a station,
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties,
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstyle,
The girl with the kaleidoscope eyes.

Doc,

Wasn't that what you were up to while he was in a POW camp being tortured?

So how much deeper in debt will the US be after 5 more years of fighting in Iraq? Someone needs to ask this geriatric assclown just how is he going to pay for 5 more years of this failed policy. Borrow more $$$$$ from the Chinese I guess. MCSAME IS AN IDIOT!!

Marchmadness,

Failed? Have we been attacked since? What would be the point of this war, if not to prevent attacks on us. You can call the war expensive and maybe too expensive if you like, but to call it "failed" is silly.

Give Dems a super majority and let them put their money where their mouth is!!!

Until then, Dems hands are tied as the GOP votes as a block.

Give Dems a super majority and let them put their money where their mouth is!!!

Until then, Dems hands are tied as the GOP votes as a block.

A link everyone, whatever "side" you are on, should take a look at:

www.warisaracket.org

"With the VC gone, the US had a window to turn the war into a conventional one, which they could have won, ... "

This is inevitably the argument stated when someone tries to "prove" we could have won in Vietnam. And they constantly ignore the fact that NV knew that and therefore avoided open conflict, just as they had against the French in the 1950s. And, just like against the French, their tactics won. Thus, we _never_ had the chance to "turn the war into a conventional one". It's the same stupid lack of reality which causes great powers to lose these little wars. And if we continue with such beliefs, we will continue to lose the little wars.

Btw, the VC were never "gone". Their ranks were replaced by North Vietnamese. In the aftermath of Tet, even Clifford and LBJ's cabinet recognized the VC still controlled the rural areas of SV.

Failed? Have we been attacked since? What would be the point of this war, if not to prevent attacks on us. You can call the war expensive and maybe too expensive if you like, but to call it "failed" is silly.

Posted by jonryker


yes we have to the tune of 4000 dead americans. or do they not count?

yes we have to the tune of 4000 dead americans. or do they not count?

Posted by truthhurts at 2008-05-16 11:48 AM |

Just as much as the 4000 that would have died during peace time over the last 5 years.(You do know we have many deaths and injuries off the battlefield.) The difference is we killed 10 times as many. That is thousands of past and potential enemies. Right??

Failed? Have we been attacked since? What would be the point of this war, if not to prevent attacks on us.

You realize that the fact that we haven't been attacked (in that sense of the word) in 6 and a half years doesn't equate to "the war is preventing terrorist attacks on the US."

If you actually believe that, I have a rock that wards off tiger attacks to sell you.

Cresent,

Well, what's preventing them....we tried ignoring them...that didn't work...since we stopped ignoring them, they haven't been able to pull an attack together....perhaps planning attacks is tough to do from a cave in Pakistan, eh?

Once again, the evidence is with me.

They crashed a plane into the pentagon and we had our pants around our ankles. They took out New York City - we were not prepared to defend.

The fact that we were attacked in the first place with warning memos still lying on Condis desk makes this administration a failure.

Instead of action our chimp in charge reads My Pet Goat because he doenst want to startle the 6 year olds - what kind of lame bullshit do you support. Oh yeah, a failed attack on Iraq.


A FAILURE

The difference is we killed 10 times as many. That is thousands of past and potential enemies. Right??

Posted by crispee_oc


But see your too narrow minded to realize you created 100 times more terrorists by US policy in the ME.

I dont expect you to get it, I understand your have no capability to see the full ramifications of US policy and actions. Your choice of president failed miserably, you failed miserably.

But see your too narrow minded to realize you created 100 times more terrorists by US policy in the ME

Posted by Repugnant at 2008-05-16 01:34 PM

As oppsosed to the narrow minded policies prior to Bush? It is amazing how the appeasers such as yourself are just now realizing they hate us. Here is a hint Einstein: THEY HATED US BEFORE BUSH, THEY WILL HATE US AFTER BUSH. Any action against them was going to cause a reaction. Right or wrong, justified or not, we sent a message. That message was we are willing to take over an entire country. We are finally going on the offensive after decades of unprovoked attacks. Too bad we put the gloves back on and lost the will.

Repugnant,

Yet, they have not attacked since said chimp launched the attack.....so keep raving with the rest of the Appeasers....

Jonny boy,

How many times did "they" attack us prior to Bush's misfire in Iraq?

Jonryker,

Im sorry that you lost your 1/2 cousins. Unfortunately, with 50,000+ killed (and many more injured),few families/friends were untouched by Vietnam.

I can appreciate your point regarding (paraphrasing now) perceived US weakness leading to increased threats. While I don't have specific proof to counter your argument (and I'm not sure how anyone, you or I, could prove this point for/against), there are some facts which (at a minimum) dispute your assertions:

1. The US troops stayed in Vietnam for another five years after Tet without success. IMHO, this was more likely due to the type of war (guerilla warfare in a jungle) which the US was ill-suited to engage in and the political realities of the South Vietnamese government, than some simplistic "blame politicians" excuse that is often trotted out. A quick review of the number of troops, material', and amount of bombing (especially compared to our involvement in all of WWII) would indicate that the US gave it as good a shot (one can ALWAYS argue if it was their BEST shot) as they knew how and were equipped to do.

2. The Vietnam War was fought on "their turf". It's hard to over estimate just how difficult it is to defeat an enemy that has emotional ties to their home, fully understands the land and conditions, has connections to the local citizens and (in this case) has "enjoyed" the opportunity to be battle-hardened from decades of conflict. Couple that with the logistic nightmare (for the US) of maintaining supply lines from thousands of miles away and the advantage the NVA had with having a "big brother" (China) in close accessible proximity (and the US's unwillingness to engage China directly) and it was hardly a "fair fight". While it's not a perfect analogy, I do think many parallels can be drawn between the US fight for independence with Great Britain and the NVA fight with the US. NOTE: I'm NOT placing a value judgment on the NVA's cause. I'm just comparing the TYPE of conflict in both cases. History has other examples (Napolean invading Russia, Persia invading Greece, etc.). In short, Tet taught the NVA to NOT engage in a conventional "straight-up fight" and they changed their tactics accordingly. The US did not sufficiently change their tactics, or maybe more accurately, could not. The result for the US (and other historical examples) bears out which was more successful.

3. IF your assertions were true, then the best time to strike back at the US would have been as soon as possible rather than years (decades) later. This was not the case. I'd hazard a guess that many other factors (economic, military, political, etc.) had at LEAST as much effect as any perceived weakness on the part of the US.

4. If none of these points give you pause to re-evaluate your assertions, then how does the overwhelming success and timing of Desert Storm play into your scenario?

True,

Anther factor affecting Vietnam, the American people came to realize that it was a fight not worth fighting. Assuming victory could be attained at all it would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. With no real prize to be had; I think many counted the butcher's bill too high.

Trueblue,

I appreciate your comments.

1. They had enough troops, but they didn't have a strategy aimed at decisively winning...they just went after body counts and political points...wrong approach from the Higher Ups, as it had been for the entire war. This killed morale in the army, which knew what they were up to, and the window closed. They had a window, they squandered it.

2. Your analogy comparing China and NVA to our fight for independence is an excellent one, and, I think, appropriate....Nobody ever says the British had no chance to beat us, though...Indeed, the lesson from that is that the one who gives up first, regardless of military power, loses.....

3. The terrorists were not in position for major strikes right after Vietnam nor even right after Beirut. That took time to organize and get the people trained and put them in place. It is not coincidence that that's when they started doing so....

4. I dispute the success of Desert Storm. If we'd finished that job instead of wussing out and leaving Saddam in place, we'd already be finished over there....Militarily, it was great, but strategically, it was all for nothing, as Vietnam turned out to be. Military results without ultimate political consequences are an obscentity...

I'm going home for the weekend now...Thanks for the intelligent conversation....

YEAH!

Just 5 more years of the same thing!

BTW, what defines a win when it comes to Iraq again?


In 5 more years McCain won't even know his own name let alone why we're in Iraq.

Sounds good. Bush should have said this in the beginning, and the people would have had a much different view of the conflict. Well, thinking people would.

Posted by jonryker at 2008-05-15 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:


Doesn't this tell the enemy that we're leaving? All they have to do is hold out for 5 more years. Isn't that the rightard logic used so many times to keep us there?

"Bush should have...."


.....but DIDN'T!

Just as much as the 4000 that would have died during peace time over the last 5 years.(You do know we have many deaths and injuries off the battlefield.) The difference is we killed 10 times as many. That is thousands of past and potential enemies. Right??

I've calculated the run rate before the wars and now. It's more than 2x now what it is without war. Your argument is false for that reason alone, though I feel compelled to state that those 4077 killed in action and 30,004 wounded in action are above the non-war run rate.

Jonryker,

Have a fun weekend!

Salaryman's comments (2008-05-16 03:31 PM) are very much valid. I had intentionally avoided discussing that aspect as it seems (to me) too often to have been used as the ONLY reason for the termination of the US involvement in Vietnam (well, at least militarily).

Here's some more thoughts (assuming this thread is still active after the weekend). Also, feel free to determine if they are also intelligent or not ;-):

1. Um..., MAYBE. I'm hesitant to speculate on the proper amount of troops to finish/win (assuming it was "win-able) that kind of war. For what it's worth (after the Tet offensive), Gen. Westmoreland had requested an ADDITIONAL 200,000 soldiers, but his request was denied (possibly/likely because one thing the Tet offensive did accomplish was to completely expose the amount of BS that had been fed to the American people regarding how the war was going). Gen. Westmoreland subsequently stepped down, so it would appear that at least one individual with hands-on experience with the situation would disagree with you. In fairness, IMHO, the "body count/political point" approach was likely the only viable re-tooling that the US could do under the circumstances. POSSIBLY and/or alternatively, the US could have pulled out, completely re-vamped the training and then re-invaded (or threatened to) to accomplish their objective. But then the "target" may have moved again, so it's all very speculative. Bottom line: the game was fixed as soon as we dealt ourselves in. The HOPE was/is that we wouldn't repeat that mistake. Note for the present/future administrations: I've observed the American people have handled (and will handle) the worst imaginable news, but they NEVER respond favorably to being 'snookered'.

2. The British, of course, always had the chance to beat us (and even tried again some 30 years later!). It was our Providence to have General Washington exploit our advantages and force the British to fight "our kind of war". Oh, and a big thanks to Lafayette and the king of France for providing the perfect assistance at the perfect time, too! As such, the British didn't "lose heart". They were soundly defeated AND re-evaluated their ability to continue fighting a "US war", so I guess we'd (at least) disagree on that lesson from history.

3. TOTALLY disagree here. The terrorists (hmmm, I think the British referred to the US in that way, too. Food for thought!) do NOT require that much time to plan an attack (and neither did we during our fight!). History is full of examples to back that up: HAMAS, Hezbollah, IRA, Oklahoma City bombing, heck even the South Chicago Gang (Al Capone, et. al.). What is more curious (and even more damaging to your assertion) is WHY didn't the terrorists attack the US during our involvement in Vietnam? I'd submit that the REASON for the terrorist attacks (rather than the ability) was lacking!

4. It's easy to play the "what if" game, so I'll join in ;-)! I submit it is MORE likely the results would have been the same with the following caveats: the US would be in MUCH worse shape since we would not have the $$$ "muscle" that became available during the 90's and our troops would have been more extended/exposed than they were when we invaded Iraq. Instead, the US probably would have experienced an economic collapse and Iran might have blockaded (by mining, sunk ships, attacked oil tankers, etc.) the Straits of Hormuz. The US would then be facing a double dilemna of trying to use the Straits to supply the troops AND having a supply of oil cut off. Yes, I know we don't get the majority of oil from that area, but other countries DO. IF that supply is interrupted, it will force them to compete with us from those sources that do supply us. BTW, some of these circumstances can become just as valid today. More food for thought.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable