A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. - Page 107

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes it did. It allowed Saddam Hussein to take over. And all polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis prefer that Saddam is gone (only among the Sunnis is it the majority and a slim one).

We made the place better, just not as good as everyone would like. But getting rid of Saddam was a good move no matter how you slice it.

Is it $350 billion better? Couldn't we have spent that money a little more wisely?

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To analogize, there was a point before Katrina when better levees would have helped. After the storm hit, not so much.

That is not an analogy at all. You have no idea whether more troops would have helped then and you have no idea if they would help now. It is all guess work. The arrogant arm chair quaterbacking and second guessing on this war is amazing. Everyone is an expert.

The point is wanting to win. Wanting to create a stable Iraq. Invading Iraq was always a risk. It would have been a risk with 500,000 solider and support from every country on the planet.

But Iran and Syria were never going to help us.

Right now their own politicians in Iraq are complaining that we might leave. If the democratically elected representatives of the country don't want us to leave, then doesn't that show that the majority is with us and we can win?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....4da9y9bi.html

Why not throw in 500,000 troops to see if it would help? If we truly want to win this thing why not give this a try? Why is pulling out before the job is finished even an option if we want to win?

SlaveNoMore · 12-07-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Replaced_Texan
BTW, I really liked The Big Over Easy. How was The Fourth Bear, Slave?

His most over-the-top book, yet. At times, it tried to be too clever.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 12-07-2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is it $350 billion better? Couldn't we have spent that money a little more wisely?

Wow. My little suburban community has spent enough on the war to fund our entire school system for two years.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 12-07-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That is not an analogy at all. You have no idea whether more troops would have helped then and you have no idea if they would help now. It is all guess work. The arrogant arm chair quaterbacking and second guessing on this war is amazing. Everyone is an expert.

You see, this is why I rely on people like Franks and Powell. I do think they have some expertise on the subject. Or, you can rely on Slave's right wing blogs.

I'd support more troops for a worthwhile, winnable objective. Someone needs to show me that objective first, and explain how the troops deployed would meet that objective.

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
These bells can't be unrung. The cake is in the oven, so we can't sift the flour. The baby's in the basket and the ring's on the finger. We can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

You can't know this. You only say this because you want us to lose. It is possible that the only way to win this war is the way we did it. No one knows anything for sure. More troops could have made it worse, caused more resentment. Taking more time on the diplomatic front, and postponing the invasion may have made it harder for us to conquer the country.

The question is the commitment to get the job done and get it done right. It may not be possible to secure a democratic, stable and violence free Iraq. But it is certainly possible that we can. But I can't see any reason why we shouldn't give it our best shot.

Creating a democratic and stable Iraq was a great cause. Something definitely worth shooting for. Right now we are faced with a decision of continuing to pursue that goal the best we can or give up. If we just took the attitude that failure is not an option our chances of success would increase exponentially.

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You can't know this. You only say this because you want us to lose. It is possible that the only way to win this war is the way we did it. No one knows anything for sure.

Ah, so everything has been done perfectly. Got it.

And just a suggestion - you might want to consider apologizing to G^3 for that comment. Surely you don't mean it.

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Is it $350 billion better? Couldn't we have spent that money a little more wisely?

What is the annual budget now 2.5 Trillion? So what is that 1.4% of the money our government will spend this decade? The middle east is one of the few places in the world that isn't accepting democracy and free markets. If we could turn that trend around by implementing a stable and democratic, free enterprize democracy right in the heart of the middle east, isn't that worth more than 1.4%? It has cost us .001% of our populatoin so far. We lose ten times that number every day naturally.

Gattigap · 12-07-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The arrogant arm chair quaterbacking and second guessing on this war is amazing. Everyone is an expert.

Why not throw in 500,000 troops to see if it would help? If we truly want to win this thing why not give this a try?

In earlier posts, you pissed on the idea of adding forces from other countries to meet this number (excepting the Brits).

So. Where will these extra 300,000 or so troops come from? If your answer is "active forces are about 540,000, so just flood them all in Iraq" my question becomes "what will you do in 12 months when you're supposed to rotate them all out?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 12-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You only say this because you want us to lose.

This is a total crock of shit. Pull your head out of your ass if you want to have an intelligent discussion on this topic.

Cletus Miller · 12-07-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
It has cost us .001% of our populatoin so far. We lose ten times that number every day naturally.

But not in the same demographic as those lost in the war (i.e. with most of their productive years ahead of them). It's not a reasonable comparison. It's like saying that infant mortality isn't a problem because x-times as many old people die every day.

Sidd Finch · 12-07-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You only say this because you want us to lose.

It's statements like this that make me glad that the commission pointed out that divisive rhetoric at home is part of the problem.

Of course, I'm sure the neo-con crowd interpreted "divisive rhetoric" as "criticism of the Bush Administration's glorious conduct of this Great War on Terror". The leopard can't change its spots.

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the annual budget now 2.5 Trillion? So what is that 1.4% of the money our government will spend this decade? The middle east is one of the few places in the world that isn't accepting democracy and free markets. If we could turn that trend around by implementing a stable and democratic, free enterprize democracy right in the heart of the middle east, isn't that worth more than 1.4%? It has cost us .001% of our populatoin so far. We lose ten times that number every day naturally.

Couldn't we have just bought Iraq? Real estate can't be very expensive there.

Replaced_Texan · 12-07-2006, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Couldn't we have just bought Iraq? Real estate can't be very expensive there.

I suspect the mineral rights cost a bundle, though.

ltl/fb · 12-07-2006, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I suspect the mineral rights cost a bundle, though.

We could buy the land w/o buying the mineral rights?