Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Shape Shifter]

just became a mushroom cloud.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...d=516&ncid=716

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If it is true that the recently released NG documents are forgeries, I am astonished at the speed with which the right wing bloggers were able to spot font discrepancies. Now it only remains to find the Scaife-funded sleazebag who planted them.

Game over SS. Game over. The elections in the bag. And the bag is Red, not blue.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
If it is true that the recently released NG documents are forgeries, I am astonished at the speed with which the right wing bloggers were able to spot font discrepancies. Now it only remains to find the Scaife-funded sleazebag who planted them.

As always only the two of us see the real issue. While the herd is looking for political gain, we see how to bring in the $$$. If MS looks so identical to IBM that the 2 memos end up that close, thats copyright infringement. Big Blue is back in the game SS!
Can someone here introduce me to IBM's GC?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Go in heavy to what end? We don't have enough troops there to properly occupy the area, even if our political leadership was willing to take the heat for the casualties that would result. We cannot occupy Iraq with the troops we have there, and the Iraqi forces cannot take up the slack, so we're stuck letting part of the country be controlled by insurgents.

We don't necessarily have to occupy the area. We do have to go house-to-house, seize any weapons and ammunition, kill or arrest any combatants, and route out any communications or strategic assets the insurgents have.

If that means more troops, then so be it. The plain and simple fact is that we have to commit to being there or we have to leave. We cannot accept letting insurgents control part of the country or we'll be at a stalemate indefinitely.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
We don't necessarily have to occupy the area. We do have to go house-to-house, seize any weapons and ammunition, kill or arrest any combatants, and route out any communications or strategic assets the insurgents have.

If that means more troops, then so be it. The plain and simple fact is that we have to commit to being there or we have to leave. We cannot accept letting insurgents control part of the country or we'll be at a stalemate indefinitely.

I think your approach may mean more troops, but for sure it means lot o'dead marines. Easy for you arm chair generals to advocate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think your approach may mean more troops, but for sure it means lot o'dead marines. Easy for you arm chair generals to advocate.

Don't know that this is necessarily true. The marine snipers resting on rooftops and listening to Metallica can be given instructions to shoot any armed (non-coalition) person in sight. Fortified buildings can be shelled and bombed. We did it before, and I think there are more dead marines on an average day in Al-Anbar province after the Fallujah brigade's formation than back when they were doing what I describe above. If you are merely saying they don't necessarily have to go house-to-house in all cases because occupants of some houses will give plenty of cause to blow the house up from a distance without needing inspection/searching, than I agree with you. I'm not sure that Taxwonk is saying otherwise.

My bottom line is that there needs to be a cordon and a complete weapons-free (fire freely at armed persons) policy set up for Fallujah. The sooner the better. For the sake of setting an example, I'm in favor of being more on the indiscriminate side with that particular fucking place than being on the cautious call-Rummy for permission case-by-case side.

Despite what some here were saying 4 months ago in favor of not maintaining heavy forces in places like Fallujah, its clear that not maintaining heavy forces has produced the worst possible result: an emboldened enemy. People understand losses, and there will be a lot of Fallujahans who understand the error of their ways when the terrorists they embrace sustain a lot of losses. Until then, fuck them all.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Don't know that this is necessarily true. The marine snipers resting on rooftops and listening to Metallica can be given instructions to shoot any armed (non-coalition) person in sight. Fortified buildings can be shelled and bombed. We did it before, and I think there are more dead marines on an average day in Al-Anbar province after the Fallujah brigade's formation than back when they were doing what I describe above. If you are merely saying they don't necessarily have to go house-to-house in all cases because occupants of some houses will give plenty of cause to blow the house up from a distance without needing inspection/searching, than I agree with you. I'm not sure that Taxwonk is saying otherwise.

My bottom line is that there needs to be a cordon and a complete weapons-free (fire freely at armed persons) policy set up for Fallujah. The sooner the better. For the sake of setting an example, I'm in favor of being more on the indiscriminate side with that particular fucking place than being on the cautious call-Rummy for permission case-by-case side.

Despite what some here were saying 4 months ago in favor of not maintaining heavy forces in places like Fallujah, its clear that not maintaining heavy forces has produced the worst possible result: an emboldened enemy. People understand losses, and there will be a lot of Fallujahans who understand the error of their ways when the terrorists they embrace sustain a lot of losses. Until then, fuck them all.

Hello

Well, the devil is in the details. It really just depends on how free the marines would be to inflict civilian casualties if necessary to protect themselves. What about when the insurgents shroud themselves in a burka to look like a woman but they have an RPG under the burka? Under your scenario, the marine doesn't see the RPG, just what he thinks is an unarmed woman, and he doesn't shoot and gets an RPG lobbed at him and dies.

Something has to be done, I agree, but I am for more bombing. Tell the civilians to evacuate and then bomb the shit out of areas where the insurgents are known to be located. That won't do much for PR, but at least it will stop the dead marines.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Well, the devil is in the details. It really just depends on how free the marines would be to inflict civilian casualties if necessary to protect themselves. What about when the insurgents shroud themselves in a burka to look like a woman but they have an RPG under the burka? Under your scenario, the marine doesn't see the RPG, just what he thinks is an unarmed woman, and he doesn't shoot and gets an RPG lobbed at him and dies.

Something has to be done, I agree, but I am for more bombing. Tell the civilians to evacuate and then bomb the shit out of areas where the insurgents are known to be located. That won't do much for PR, but at least it will stop the dead marines.

Yeah, I'm in favor of the type of bombing you advocate, and I stated this in my post (you said "where the insurgents are known to be located" and I said something about where they've given reason to be bombed without the need for close inspection).

That said, what the marines were doing before they pulled out was quite alright with me. They suffered 8 dead in one or two weeks while turning the edges of the city into a slaughterhouse for armed Iraqis. Last week, they suffered something like 7 dead in a single suicide bomb attack on a convoy in the region. I liked it better when the marines were at least inflicting a grossly disproportionate body count. As you say, they should tell the citizens to get out (again). And anybody coming and going should be thorougly screened, particularly the males. But its time to turn the place into a slaughterhouse again, because this experiment in political meddling has caused harm to the long term mission. At the end of the day, the Iraqis in places like Fallujah need to have a great motivation not to want to see the U.S. come back. A grossly disproportionate use of force resulting in the annihilation of armed factions in the town is probably the best motivation the marines can ever provide.

The only time this hasn't worked, is when politicians impose unreasonable restraints on the marines. Which is the general reason I can't stand Rummy today (you know, Rummy = McNamara). Just tell them to clean out the town by killing or capturing the greatest number of armed combatants while reasonably minimizing civilian casualties, and let them figure out how they want to do it.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But its time to turn the place into a slaughterhouse again, Hello

Its a go scheduled to begin november 3. the last piece in the puzzle was Rather biting at the memos.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I can't stand Rummy today (you know, Rummy = McNamara).

I think Rummy will be gone by January.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Its a go scheduled to begin november 3. the last piece in the puzzle was Rather biting at the memos.

The forged memos were the last straw, but the bump occurred before the fake memos. The bump was due to people watching Kerry at his convention and saying, hmmm, all he wants to talk about is Vietnam. Bad campaign strategy to make that convention all about Vietnam. Especially once the swifties came out with the truth about Kerry's VN record.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think Rummy will be gone by January.

2

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Spend more!

Fiscal Conservatives Challenge Bush

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...gn_promises_dc

Hope you get some nice cuts of meat after it gets slaughtered.



Will a real Republican please stand up? Club?

I can't remember if I posted here or not, but during the first half of Bush's speech at the convention, I kept repeating: "Sounds great, but how the fuck are you going to pay for it?"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can't remember if I posted here or not, but during the first half of Bush's speech at the convention, I kept repeating: "Sounds great, but how the fuck are you going to pay for it?"

Bush lied!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
The forged memos were the last straw, but the bump occurred before the fake memos. The bump was due to people watching Kerry at his convention and saying, hmmm, all he wants to talk about is Vietnam. Bad campaign strategy to make that convention all about Vietnam. Especially once the swifties came out with the truth about Kerry's VN record.

There will be one more dirt push in the second or third week of October, relating to Bush's drug/alcohol use and DUI records. It's not over yet.