Truth Detector

Too bad they didn't appoint you General of the Army, based on your own impression of yourself, the war would have been over by now.

I would be interested in learning more about your military experience and how your expertise exceeds that of our current Military planners and Civilian politicians.

I would also be interested in knowing where you got your information at the beginning and during the invasion that gave you such deep insights as to our blunders that surpassed the information the commanders in the field had.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

rsixing

Because I have an interest in the Army study over the invasion and uptake of the occupation in Iraq in no way means I esteem myself so highly, irrespective of your puerile and simplistic attempt to portray me as someone who does. Not sure why you have this combative attitude towards a simple request I made to someone else but maybe you need to cut back on the coffee.

__________________
It's Bush's fault!

mikhail

World war 2 was packed with military blunders but people should be aware of their over confidence with hindsight.

The fact is alot of people in the media have invested their reputations on failure being the only result possible in Iraq.Ive seen many already beginning to back track.I say lets get off the argueing between pulling out or staying in and start talking about the best way to rebuild the infrastructure.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Truth Detector

You clearly stated:

Originally Posted by rsixing
Attribute it to my military career. I am very interested in comparing this Army study to my own estimation of the military blunders I observed at the beginning and during the invasion sweep to Baghdad and uptake of the occupation.

It lends the appearance that you observed the "military blunders" beginning and during the invasion did you not?

If anything is puerile and simplistic, it appears to be your LACK of response to my questions.

I am not surprised there would be no answer, but please spare me the hyperbole; carry on.

Indy

If I were you I would have completely ignored that ignorant post. Why even reply when TD clearly only wanted to bicker?

__________________
Affiant further sayeth not.

Truth Detector

Ignorant posts? What fascinating hypocrisy coming from someone who would prefer to run away from a debate than engage in it.

Carry on; I look forward to more pithy small minded insults from someone who fancies themselves as an intellectual giant.

Truth Detector

You could not have stated a greater truth, BUT, you left out the Democrats who have also invested their reputations in failure.

Unfortunately, it would take political courage to reverse this and I am afraid that is something severely lacking when it comes to the Democrat party and Liberals.

Indy

Case in point TD... case in point. Thanks for showing everybody what I said was true. Cheers!

Truth Detector

Sorry for the late rebuttal but here goes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
Okay so you are convinced the OTHER option; pulling out and allowing whatever may happen to occur is the better option. Will this be a better definition to what is defined by what is meant by "victory?"
There is a clearly defined victory. You CHOOSE not to acknowledge it. Victory will be when the Iraqi Government is strong enough to stand on it’s own and defend its borders from terrorists and outside elements.

Why is this so hard for Liberals to understand; because it doesn’t serve the political agendas.



Quote:
Would withdrawal be less ethereal and more concrete?
See the above.


Quote:
What I find specious about such arguments is that they take the position that their GUESSES as to what will happen if we withdraw as being more concrete than the GUESSES as to what will happen if we remain.
But your OPINION is not relevant in the diplomacy of the situation. It happens to be the people in charge who need to make those determinations and they don’t happen to agree with your “humble” OPINION. Your OPINION doesn’t make our efforts wrong or Bush wrong either.

What IS wrong is Democrat politicians who VOTED FOR the Joint Resolution putting our men and women in harms way, and then denigrate the mission and it’s commander. In MY OPINION, that is the most pathetic and disgusting thing about the party these days.





Quote:
The ONLY thing we can be ASSURED of with a withdrawal is that Osama was correct when he stated that Americans don't have the stomach for a long protracted struggle. The Democrats are desperate to prove him right. The fascinating thing about this is that I cannot fathom how this will make Americans or Iraqi’s safer.Carry on.
This is another “because you say so.” But the FACTS do not support your wild-eyed partisan rhetoric. This war was never built on a lie and if Liberals who wallow in blissful ignorance of the facts would take the time to READ the joint resolution, they would understand it.

But that would not serve their political agenda to tear down this administration and argue for failure in Iraq for purely partisan political purposes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vader
...they prove that I know what is going on it the world and you haven't a clue. I served my country...you served lunch while volunteering for the Salvation Army.
Bush got us into the war with the UN resolutions, 34 other nations that supported the Joint Resolution and the Congress and Senate that voted to authorize force. To suggest otherwise is pure false partisan political rhetoric.

The notion that Barrack Hussein Obama will get us out is also wishful thinking not based on any facts. Barrack Hussein Obama will backtrack on this promise almost as fast as he backtracked on his promise about using Public funding for this campaign. But then, both of us are speculation, I assert that mine are probably more accurate based on Barrack Hussein Obama’s history so far.

I also find it fascinating to see the Liberal/Democrat rhetoric about “occupying forces” when they never raised an issue about how long we “occupied” Europe or Japan. Why do you think that is? RIGHT; it serves a false partisan political rhetoric intended to impugn this Administration for purely partisan political gain.

So please spare me the hyperbole, lies, distortions and partisan hack rhetoric. The decision was made to go in. The Democrats who also CHOSE to authorize force and should be behind this Administration 100% until the mission is finished are disingenuous pathetic partisan Liberals who should be kicked out on their asses for failing to support the troops THEY voted to put into harms way.

Your OPINION hardly matters in things of great import, but the OPINIONS expressed by the DNC and the political hacks who parrot their talking points are the lowest form of bile one can find.

The bottom line is that Barrack Hussein Obama is just another political hack who IF elected, and I still think he will lose by a landslide, will back out of every promise he has made when REALITY slaps him in the face and will result in a short 4 year term when the American people realize that it does not take a “village” to make a President, but EXPERIENCE.

rsixing

No problem...after all it's getting close to the 4th of July.

It that truly the defined "victory"? How does your definition even constitute "victory"? All your definition describes is a bench mark. Methinks "victory" will remain undefined as long as we have a republican president in office since not having one allows them to "further American interests" in the region.

And "the people in charge" will most likely change with a new PotUS. Thankfully.

Will you admit the majority of American's want us out of Iraq and your position is the minority opinion? I hope so because to do otherwise would be dishonest.

IMO Bush has been misleading us and has been wrong from jump street. He has dragged our nation into a never-ending ME conflict in Iraq with no true sense of finality and placed Afghanistan and Bin Laden on a back burner. "Not on (his) watch". What a ****ing joke.

Again IMO we, as a nation, invaded Iraq without just cause. Hussein was not an "imminent" threat to us. Most of us knew the WMD's was a lie from the beginning. Those who cling to these lies and misdirections are the ones who are the blind being led by the blind.

But to clarify my position if Hussein had attacked us I would stand behind the decision to take the fight to him just as I have stood behind the decision to go after the Taliban and Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Even though Bush tossed away the opportunity to capture Bin Laden if he had accepted the Taliban's offer to turn Bin Laden over to a neutral nation. That was a huge mistake and the mistakes have continued to be made by decreasing the hunt for this criminal and the emphasis in Iraq for "American interests".

They were wrong for voting for the JR. I agree.

Really. Obviously your understanding of the reasons offered for the Iraq invasion differs from the truth but hey, that's yours to own not mine.

Then the majority of American's are partisan for political reasons...

Yes. True. But that is avoidance of the "reasons" we got into this "war" and what I was discussing, not who "authorized" it. That is what, from my perspective and certainly the majority of Americans is most important.

I concede Obama may ratify his position but after a visit to Iraq perhaps he will have a better understanding of how his current position is not as tenable on the ground as on paper. Nonetheless, irrespective of a change, I believe we need to withdraw from Iraq sooner then later and I believe Obama believes that also. If it takes longer then 18 months I will be satisfied with that since McCain has no intention of withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Would you compare WWII to the "war" we are currently engaged in in the ME? Perhaps within that comparison lies the answer to your question.

As for me this type of war we are engaged in is anything but conventional. It is a "new" type of warfare, our enemies are not defined by uniform, insignia nor flag. There is no forward battle area or rear battle area where opposing military armies meet on the battlefield as used to happen in conventional warfare but only hardened insurgents (and in using insurgents I am not meaning al Qaeda) who use small group attacks to cause terror among the civilian population and guerrilla tactics to attack standing military forces. This warfare is proving to be a very effective form of warfare against a far superior, stronger and better armed military not unlike what the Russians experienced in Afghanistan in the 80s'.

Can such a decision be a mistake? Or is it your opinion in all instances such decisions are right?

Not supporting a war does not mean not supporting the military. This is simply a tactic used by those who support the war to place those opposed to the war in a negative light so who is really using rhetoric?

Any opinion(s) should be valued particularly when discussing "things of great import".

We will have to wait until November to see if your belief proves true but when I look at my 8-ball and ask it if McCain will be elected it has told me "highly doubtful".

Concerning what type of Presidency Obama would command I believe a president is not an island unto himself and is the representative of our nations of people and so, in that vein, it does take a village to make a President. Particularly one who will truly represent the people, listen to the peoples he represents and use his position to turn this nation in a direction it has been ripped from in the last 7+ years and stands the potential of continuing in if McCain is elected.