Mass US protest against Iraq war

#81
Trip_Wire said:
Crabtastic:

BTW: The article on th war that I posted was a testimony by Newt Gingrich, not Sen Biden. I thought it contained many good points.

Why should I not call Clark, just what my opinion of him is? You give your biased opinions on everything, why shouldn't I call a spade a spade?

My opinion, is just as valid as anyone elses, to include yours! :pissedoff:
My mistake. However, last time I checked, Newt was also eyeing up a run in '08, so I suppose the larger point can still apply- politicians make statements that work on a lot of different levels. Newt can throw these ideas out there and look like a statesman because he knows it's not going to get picked up and used. There's a possible, if not plausible, argument to be made McCain thought the same thing when he was advocating more troops in 2005 and 2006. As long as Rummy was there, he knew it wouldn't happen. But Rummy's gone now and to McCain's surprise, the Administration has taken his advice (to a point). So, McCain is watching the Iraq situation unfold with one eye and watching his presidential hopes spiral down the pan with the other.

Feel free to call Clark a prima donna. I never said the man was perfect or that you should not have an opinion on the matter, although I do take issue with your validity claims since you rarely back up your statement with your thoughts on the matter. Just use your words to express your thoughts, not someone elses'. Citing other peoples' ideas is all well and good, but if I wanted to know what they think, I'd ask them or go and read their books and articles. My original purpose when adding the additional information surrounding the Pristina Airport incident, was to point out that that the situation was not as cut and dried as you and others would believe.

As for the proposals Gingrich made, there seems to be a lot of bureaucratic growth going on there. I'm surprised that a good conservative like yourself, who extolls the virtues of the warfighter above all else, would support such an idea. Perhaps you could share with us why you think this would work?
 
#82
crabtastic said:
gallowglass said:
SLRboy said:
spiffy said:
A small protest with that traitor bitch hanoi jane present. I do hope she has a fatal illness soon.
If the likes of Jane Fonda are protesting in order that the likes of you are kept chained to your post rather than being allowed to run free in the yard - I'm all for it, in a big, big way.
I think it is fair to suggest that Jane Fonda is primarily protesting for the benefit of...Jane Fonda. As with her treasonous behaviour during the Vietnam War, she is merely using opposition to this present conflict as a means to parade her left-wing credentials and to drag herself back from the career wilderness. She and her ilk were wrong more than thirty years ago, and they're wrong now. They clearly would like to see a return to the America of the 1970s - angst-ridden, divided, military-loathing and the perfect platform for moral poseurs such as herself. 'Support the troops - bring them home' - how exactly does cutting and running equate to supporting the troops?

Here's an idea - if Jane Fonda feels so utterly assured of her position, why does she not visit U.S. Forces in Iraq? - now there's a reception I'd pay good money to witness.
As regards being angst-ridden, divided and military loathing- the failed policy of the Administration has already led to two of those three conditions (although it appears that there's a degree of reunification- against Bush's plan). Personally, I'd rather that a country with the hard power that the US can muster expresses a little self-doubt once in a while, as opposed to the hubris of recent years. If you're not sure about something, you tend to think harder and more critically at what your plans are.

As for "support the troops- bring them home". I cannot think of a better way of support troops, both at the individual level and the strategic level, than ensuring that they are not being sent to risk life and limb in an unecessary war, which has been strategically mismanaged at every single turn for four years and that is already lost. I think supporting the troops also means that they are rested, trained and equipped to deal with other threats that may exist in the world.

Now, let's take a quick look at the origins of the phrase "cut and run". (Another administration catchphrase which has been dropped, like "Islamofacism" and "stay the course", because too many people started thinking about what the term actually means.) "Cut and run" originated in the days of sailing ships. It meant to get under way in an emergency by cutting the anchor chain and running before the wind. In the instance of square-rigged ships, it also meant to cut the lines holding the furled sails, whereupon the sails would unfurl of their own weight and the ship could sail at once.

"Cut and run" has nothing whatsoever to do with cowardice, surrender, or defeatism. It is, in fact, the intelligent thing to do when in dire straits. The captain who cuts and runs has a chance of saving his ship. The stubborn, rigid captain, who stands upon the bridge and defies the elements, will find his ship driven upon the rocks -- and destroyed.
Got to agree with all that, but it's worth mentioning that Iraq wasn't a 'threat' to the US in the first place, which leaves the question 'Why invade a nation that posed no threat to the American nation, and risk creating and fomenting a deadly threat to your own troops (and Halliburton contractors - who are obviously there out of the goodness of their own hearts, spreading freedom and doing their charitable deeds)?'

Well, I believe I know the answer to that one, and my opinion on it hasn't changed a jot in the last 4 years.
 
#83
crabtastic said:
The fact is, ladies and gentleman, that the Clark-Jackson tiff was a symptom of a much bigger bunfight which was going on between No.10 and the White House. POD was getting his orders from Chairman Tony, Clark was getting his from Washington. Played well to the Daily Mirror crowd, though.
Sorry to jump in so late on a rather tangental point, but from what I understand of the situation, Clark didn't have 'full and complete' support from Washington on this matter. By 'full and complete', what I mean is that some people, primarily the Pentagon, were offering support on the basis that SACEUR is in charge, don't let some non-US subordinate dick you around. But politically, he was already onto a loser with Strobe Talbott already in Moscow trying to iron out the bigger issues diplomatically.

I personally think that the WW3 analogy had more resonance in the context of a Major TJ Kong in command of Leper Colony.



"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do."
And has everybody forgotten Trick No. 276 from the JNA Book of Nasty Tricks to Play on Unsuspecting Foreigners: Hat Swapping. Followed by by Trick No. 432 from the same book: How to get a US 3* into trouble with Croat customs - give him an engraved (present from Ratko Mladic)pistol.
 
#84
Crabtastic:

Firstly, If I can find an article already written by a person, whom I respect that expresses what I would say and shares my views, and/or opinions why in the hell would I want to type all that crap, when I can cut and paste it and say just what I would have said? The COL said just what I wanted to say about Clark and what I also think him. I will follow this practice anytime I have a chance to. I also cut & paste a lot articles and links to websites and/or links to articles, that I may or may not have an opinionl on however; may have felt they were a good point of discussion by members here.

Like most humans, I'll use what is there, if it fits my needs. I don't like to type and/or engage in long conversations, etc. with people who could give a shitte less what you are saying and are only thinking of what they are going to say!

The airport incident, wasn't the basis that I formed my opinion, of Clark nor the report that was quoted written by him. IMHO, he did a poor job as the NATO Commander and was fired, because of it. He is not and never will be a 'Soldiers soldier.'

As far as I'm concerned Gen. Clark is a dead issue!

As for the War in Iraq, I don't really understand your views. You want to pull all the troops out and leave Iraq? Thats downright stupid! Are you sure your not French? You know, one of those white Flag waving, Cheese eating surrender monkies? ;)

IMHO, as soon as that happens, there will be a massive loss of life in a civil/religous war that will make whats going on now look like childs play!

Iraq, will be taken over by mostly Iran and Syria, it will be run by Moslem extremist and become a base of operations and training base for all the moslem extremist around the world. Much worse then the Taibans regime was in Afganistan. We can not afford to loose this war. Iran, will also get all th oil and wealth from them, that will bring plenty of $$$$ to help the with their quest for WMDs, etc.

If we leave Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, the world will never trust America, in any relationship between countries again. We need to keep our word and treaties and other promisees as a point of honor.

If this latest plan doesn't do what is required and I have my doubts that the Army & Police in Iraq will do what is required to make it succeed; however; we do need to give it a chance.

If it doesn't work, we need to pull in massive amounts of troops and make it work along with the civil actions, etc. in Newts article. We need do do whatever it takes at all costs to win there and in Afganistan!
 
#85
Much better effort!

Trip_Wire said:
As for the War in Iraq, I don't really understand your views. You want to pull all the troops out and leave Iraq? Thats downright stupid! Are you sure your not French? You know, one of those white Flag waving, Cheese eating surrender monkies? ;)
Wow, that was inventive banter.

IMHO, as soon as that happens, there will be a massive loss of life in a civil/religous war that will make whats going on now look like childs play!
Yes, you're probably right, but you're also working from the presumption that the situation can be fixed. I'm saying that it can't and at its vert best, the current "strategy" (and I use the term loosely) can be seen as delaying the inevitable.

Iraq, will be taken over by mostly Iran and Syria, it will be run by Moslem extremist and become a base of operations and training base for all the moslem extremist around the world. Much worse then the Taibans regime was in Afganistan. We can not afford to loose this war.
And I'm saying that you've already lost it. You just haven't accepted the fact. As for Iran and Syria, yeah they'll almost certainly be involved in what happens in Iraq, although I doubt they'll be able to "control" the country and the situation any more than we can. They have every reason to try- the least of which is that they are in the midst of a huge refugee crisis on their own borders. It's in their interests to calm things down in there, and who's to say that people who know the population, the nature of Iraqi politics and cultures won't have more success than the naive, ideologically pure, 22yr old Republican Party hacks that were sent in to preside over Iraq's reconstruction.

Here's the thing that you're not considering. The Syrian and the Iranian government do things for their own interests and purposes. Believe it or not, they do not judge the merits of every policy they consider exclusively in terms of how much it p1sses off the United States. Ahmadinejad is loopy, but almost everything he's doing which annoys the US is aimed at propping up domestic support. Only about 1/5 Iranians voted for him. Most boycotted the election. The Iranian people, given time, space and positive inducements will in all probability come over to the US. In what was quite the miscalculation, Ahmadinejad's popularity FELL when he had that Holocaust denial conference. However, threaten the Iranian people with air strikes or invasion and, as you might expect, they start to fear and resent you, no matter whose action might be prompting the US action.

Now, since the US is unable to prevent the slide into chaos and the thought of launching an attack on Iran is too preposterous for words (unless you're Dick Cheney who has clearly lost all touch with reality in the past couple of months), do you think it might make some sense to stop going out of your way to provoke these same people? The tough guy act is a good trick which plays well to a certain domestic constituency in the US, but in the real world of international relations and diplomacy pragmatism is the order of the day. It is now clear to everybody except the terminally stupid that not even the mighty US can afford to ignore or overthrow governments they find disagreeable.

If we leave Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, the world will never trust America, in any relationship between countries again.
Never is an awfully strong word. But guess what? American credibility is already shattered and there is nothing that can be done about that except a change in Administration. Just look at the news today. The Europeans have told Bush that he's on his own with his get tough with Iran policy- even TCB has said so. From now until 20Jan09, the only way you will be able to persuade anyone to join you is through bribery or coercion.

If this latest plan doesn't do what is required and I have my doubts that the Army & Police in Iraq will do what is required to make it succeed; however; we do need to give it a chance.

If it doesn't work, we need to pull in massive amounts of troops and make it work along with the civil actions, etc. in Newts article.
In the words of Kenny Rogers:

You've got to know when to hold 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
and know when to run,
The fact is, Trip, that the "surge" of 21,000 for a few months is, right now, all that the armed forces could sustain. It's a near consensus viewpoint now- even shared by the Pentagon's own reports- that the US military would collapse if any more was committed.
 
#86
Crabtastic:

Of course, I disagree with your POV on Iraq. So, whats new? ;)
 
#88
Trip_Wire said:
Crabtastic:

Of course, I disagree with your POV on Iraq. So, whats new? ;)
Trip, your attitude towards Crab is and posts directed to him have a lack of maturity. I actually don't know if someone with such a child-like manner and thin skin could be a soldier, such as the special on you are supposed to be.


You don't have to take anything I say. As a matter of fact, I could, as I said give a shitte what you think of my opinions and/or posts!

Why don't you quit your babel and whining and just STFU and go away! I see know need to join in your endless babel and BS!
Maybe its the way you talk in nursery or spam land?
 
#89
FlakeShag said:
Trip_Wire said:
Crabtastic:

My understanding is that you were never a serving soldier and you are a user, addicted to Coke, So WTF do you know about soldiering? Or anything else for that matter?

I suggest that you clean yourself up, and read all the rude posts from Crabtasic addressed to me. You might just get a clue! Cnut! :pissedoff:
 
#90
Sorry, you are under the impression that I'm addicted to coke? Please elaborate. Or were you referring to flagshake? Who, I must confess, appears to be as mad as a bicycle sometimes. As much as I would like, I can't afford a coke habit on my salary and meth is much more abundant around here.

By the way, your banter isn't improving. For the past couple of days you've been using "cnut" like a Tourettic 3yr old who's just learned a new word.
 
#91
crabtastic:

No it wasn't you! It was 'flagshake!'

I can't help it if there are so many cnuts that seem to post and reside here. I think maybe 9 out of ten were directed at you! Well deserved too! IMHO ;)
 
#92
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen,
As to whether its more war or pullout
why don't we look at the incident of Najaf as a beta version or trial run.
Has it worked out well?
Did Americans and Iraqi forces know what they were doing.
Have the 'right' people been killed?
Have we been told the truth?

If what some people suspect has happened there has then the mere competence of the troops command and communication structure must be in doubt.
 
#93
Trip_Wire said:
I stand by my comments! I gave my opinion and explained my dislike of W. Clark. I don't agree with your assesments, on anything, in fact, I have little regard for any of your expressed statements, opinions, etc.

Rant:

You will never convince me, that you know anything about being a warrior! To me, you are a new left academic, who only views, the world and currant events, through your own biased opinions, based on those leftist liberal views. The fact that you did some tours, with the CRABs fails to impress me. I have also found that your word as a man, is worthless. Remember?

Actually, I wonder why, as a non-citizen, all you do is rant and rave about this Country, it's foreign and domestic policys, etc. that you don't pack up and go back to the UK or some other Country, that you think is better.

The fact that you live here and are earning your living here, as well as taking advantage of all this Country offers, etc. and then badmouth every facet of this Country every time you get a chance here on this board makes me angry.

We're never going to agree on much of anything, as I see it. You seem to relish attacking every post that I make. You always seem to use terms that are insulting, demeaning and downright rude, which in turn causes me to use terms in reply, that normally I wouldn't use to a fellow poster, however; I find that replying in kind, to you and some others here is the only way to handle such slaging matches.

Rant off!
You are kidding right? You are the most abrasive, rude arrogant and annoying person I have had the misfortune to read crap from in a long time. The very reason I comment on your posts is your arrogant and rude manner. I can't believe you have the brass neck to accuse others of what you are so badly guilty of. Your attitude is the stereotypical American who gets on everyone’s t1ts. And to be honest at your age you should know better.

Sorry for dragging it off topic but I had to get that off my chest.

OK back on topic ;)
 
#94
#95
#96
Tripwire

Your first llink was really good, showed the average American serviceman at work and rest, the reason we are there and the sorrow all servicemen in harms way must be prepared to suffer.

The second is a bag of sh1te. Terrorism only happening for 28 years? 110 million muslims actively seeking the destruction of the USA? - if they are doing so they aren't making a very good job of it
 
#97
Sven:

Thanks for your opinion.

Perhaps to you they aren't making a very good job; however IMHO they are progressing towards their goals just fine. Also, remember that the video wasn't just talking about the USA.

If we lose the GWOT, it will be because, people like yourself have such a casual attitude about the goals of the moslem fascists/extremists.

They are very serious about their goals. As pointed out in the video, look at your own Country and France and Spain and what is going on.

There plans and goals will not happen and/or be accomplished overnight.

The message sounds like Chicken little's "the Sky is Falling;" however, many things in the overall message have merit, IMHO.
 

Latest Threads

Top