Troop Surge Is Working

[Spinoza]

Bush failing at being at President, doesn't mean the surge or anything else that is going on there isn't working... If he, and people with the same opinion as you, wouldn't be so quick so say that we should have been in there and out in a year and such, the bickering back and forth wouldn't be nearly as bad, if happening at all.. But no, everyone was saying we'll be in there quickly (duh! on that one), and out of there quickly... That was the second mistake (besides going in the way we went in). War does not last a few days, a few weeks, a few months, it last YEARS. It can last shortly, but anyone who believed this war was going to be done that quickly, was just fooling themselves as badly as the WMD excuse believers...

NOT "EVERYONE"......

I was 100% against ANY involvement in Iraq...... And 100% for finishing the REAL and LEGAL efforts to trap and destroy ALL of al queda in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan...... The American led/inspired, and internationally sanctioned HONEST military response to 911 that severly crippled Osama and his various terrorist tactics, and even silenced the likes of hezbullah for longer than any rational Jew could have previously imagined.
Try to envision the eventual impact upon our nation in particular, and our tiny planet in general...... If America had then had the type of quality leadership that was actually SINCERELY dedicated to eliminating every terrorist hiding in Afghanistan, and then pursuing ALL remaining terrorists WITHOUT QUESTION OR QUARTER.

When I think about what COULD HAVE BEEN in Afghanistan......
It is obvious to me that most Americans could never have been subsequently hoodwinked into believing there was ever ANY NEED FOR WAR in Iraq......
For any BIG GOVENMENT NEED to spend multiple billions of taxpayer dollars on any color-coded, plastic wrapped and duct taped department of homeland security bullcrap.......
Nor any NEED to surrender so much as one personal American RIGHT for any "patriot act" political poppycock.

AND......
If America's military in Afghanistan had been following orders from even a minimally competent commander in chief......
How long would any airport boarding line need to be before we could board a plane wearing shoes, and with as much shampoo and deoderant as pleased any passenger's fancy?
And how many TAX DOLLARS OF NATIONAL DEBT would your children and grandchildren OWE to foreign interests throughout their American lives?
And even more significantly perhaps...... What bogeymen might America's children be dreaming about/fearful of tonight, had Afghanistan been logically pursued, and WAR in Iraq never irrationally considered?

[JuBru]

What has happened over the years in Afghanistan would still have happened, even without the Iraq war... And even then, what we've done in Iraq we would have ended up doing in Afghanistan (still could)... There is no total victory when you are restricted...

What rights have you surrendered? What rights of yours have been violated? I would assume none for either as your still alive and posting as freely as you want...

*sarcasm*
Until there New World Order, the Illumanti, or some renegade group rules the world.
The foreign debt is actually payoff not to attack them, so no actual debt.
Hillary Clinton.
*sarcasm*

Actually, airport security would still be heightened in whatever way until there is no such thing as an airport.
The national debt can be paid off at any moment, just won't be... It's part of the "diplomacy" people want and seen as a good thing for some reason by the powers to be (why else would they keep it?).
No amount of destroying Afghanistan or Al-Queda in Afghanistan or the Taliban in Afghanistan would have gotten rid of Al-Queda, the Taliban, etc... It's called International Terrorism - which means there are people all over the world in things called "cells" and even as individuals. Your not going to defeat, the threat will be there. You can only fight what you see, and what you create. By create, I mean where you can draw them to, which in today's world for the last 5 years, has been Iraq.

And no, I haven't forgotten Afghanistan. Nor did I disagree with most of what you said.

[Spinoza]

NOT "EVERYONE"......

I was 100% against ANY involvement in Iraq...... And 100% for finishing the REAL and LEGAL efforts to trap and destroy ALL of al queda in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan...... The American led/inspired, and internationally sanctioned HONEST military response to 911 that severly crippled Osama and his various terrorist tactics, and even silenced the likes of hezbullah for longer than any rational Jew could have previously imagined.
Try to envision the eventual impact upon our nation in particular, and our tiny planet in general...... If America had then had the type of quality leadership that was actually SINCERELY dedicated to eliminating every terrorist hiding in Afghanistan, and then pursuing ALL remaining terrorists WITHOUT QUESTION OR QUARTER.

When I think about what COULD HAVE BEEN in Afghanistan......
It is obvious to me that most Americans could never have been subsequently hoodwinked into believing there was ever ANY NEED FOR WAR in Iraq......
For any BIG GOVENMENT NEED to spend multiple billions of taxpayer dollars on any color-coded, plastic wrapped and duct taped department of homeland security bullcrap.......
Nor any NEED to surrender so much as one personal American RIGHT for any "patriot act" political poppycock.

AND......
If America's military in Afghanistan had been following orders from even a minimally competent commander in chief......
How long would any airport boarding line need to be before we could board a plane wearing shoes, and with as much shampoo and deoderant as pleased any passenger's fancy?
And how many TAX DOLLARS OF NATIONAL DEBT would your children and grandchildren OWE to foreign interests throughout their American lives?
And even more significantly perhaps...... What bogeymen might America's children be dreaming about/fearful of tonight, had Afghanistan been logically pursued, and WAR in Iraq never irrationally considered?

If you are able to consider ANY of the thoughts in my prior post......
TRY THE FOLLOWING.

Imagine a president and a vice president who are finacially joined at the hip to BIG OIL interests in particular, and BIG MONEY interests in general.
Imagine two such fellows who are as "moral and christian" as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, and their hypocritical ilk.
Then imagine a hanging-chad administration with DEFINITE INTENTIONS, but no serious opportunity for any overt or drastic/dramatic political power before 911.
And then Osama hands these lads the very agenda they have been longing for on a silver propaganda pile of terrorist shit.

Suddenly there is a screen...... From behind which even the most common and sinister oaf may freely pretend to play wizard.
A few well written/contrived orations later...... And the peddler/preacher has the hungry multitude believing that ONLY HE has sufficient bread and fish to feed the frenzy that NOTHING but his contrived hysteria has inspired.

Afganistan is the obvious target to PROVE any sincere intent.
But Afghanistan becomes TOO EASY.
The enemy that our little opportunist has tried to catapult to INTERNATIONAL FIENDS OF HORROR STATUS turn out to be NOTHING but frail despots who send others to die for ALLAH, but have no desire to meet any such personal fate.

THEY RUN.
THEY HIDE.
THEY FRET THEIR SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS FATE as they come to realize that they will soon be discarded in the small and insignificant print of history, like so many other feisty fellows and fools who never actually tempted any serious slice of mankind's hallowed history as anything more than a failed footnote..

AND THEN the alleged christian president of America ANSWERS their alleged moslem prayers...... And diverts his proclaimed hunt for ALL 911 villians in favor of a fabricated search and destroy mission for a fellow who had ABSOLUTEL NOYHING to do with either 911 or terrorism.

How heartedly must these haters of America have LAUGHED......
As they watched little george sprinkle pepper on their trail, before the hounds he has loosed were able to tree them in the terrorist tower of babel they had once so confidently built to their personal bully satisfaction!

BUT WHY?

[JuBru]

I don't know why Bush ordered the military to go into Iraq after Congressional approval... Just know what was given as the reason, which has turned out to be fabricated. Nor do I try giving any reason like oil, money, etc. that everyone else points out. Fact is, I don't give a d*** why we went in anymore, that does not matter to me nor many others (or else Bush & Co. would be impeached and probably have charges brought against him). We are there, so do the job. Cutting and running is just as dumb as going in. But we went in, and it is HOW we went in and conducted the operations that has been the problem now.


I assume there's a point your trying to make...

*edited at 9:11pm - I just realized I put Afghanistan in the first sentence when I meant to put Iraq... mixed thoughts when typing I guess.

[Spinoza]

If you are able to consider ANY of the thoughts in my prior post......
TRY THE FOLLOWING.

Imagine a president and a vice president who are finacially joined at the hip to BIG OIL interests in particular, and BIG MONEY interests in general.
Imagine two such fellows who are as "moral and christian" as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, and their hypocritical ilk.
Then imagine a hanging-chad administration with DEFINITE INTENTIONS, but no serious opportunity for any overt or drastic/dramatic political power before 911.
And then Osama hands these lads the very agenda they have been longing for on a silver propaganda pile of terrorist shit.

Suddenly there is a screen...... From behind which even the most common and sinister oaf may freely pretend to play wizard.
A few well written/contrived orations later...... And the peddler/preacher has the hungry multitude believing that ONLY HE has sufficient bread and fish to feed the frenzy that NOTHING but his contrived hysteria has inspired.

Afganistan is the obvious target to PROVE any sincere intent.
But Afghanistan becomes TOO EASY.
The enemy that our little opportunist has tried to catapult to INTERNATIONAL FIENDS OF HORROR STATUS turn out to be NOTHING but frail despots who send others to die for ALLAH, but have no desire to meet any such personal fate.

THEY RUN.
THEY HIDE.
THEY FRET THEIR SEEMINGLY OBVIOUS FATE as they come to realize that they will soon be discarded in the small and insignificant print of history, like so many other feisty fellows and fools who never actually tempted any serious slice of mankind's hallowed history as anything more than a failed footnote..

AND THEN the alleged christian president of America ANSWERS their alleged moslem prayers...... And diverts his proclaimed hunt for ALL 911 villians in favor of a fabricated search and destroy mission for a fellow who had ABSOLUTEL NOYHING to do with either 911 or terrorism.

How heartedly must these haters of America have LAUGHED......
As they watched little george sprinkle pepper on their trail, before the hounds he has loosed were able to tree them in the terrorist tower of babel they had once so confidently built to their personal bully satisfaction!

BUT WHY?

Suppose for a moment (if possible) that I am not INSANE......
And that my obvious disgust with the little george/big dick administration has not totally warped what little may remain of my little grey cell capacity.

Now imagine (as difficult as it may be for many who frequent this board) that ANY war against terrorism has ALWAYS taken a financial backseat for little george and big dick, in favor of their personal and petty thirst for BIG OIL PROFIT...... NO MATTER THE COST!

I'll now assume that most of the dawgs who routinely bark here will prefer to ignore the remainder of this missive.

So for the few who mind not in what stream of thought my mind might drift...... Consider the following.

Imagine OIL is your god.
Imagine you covet Iraqi oil for personal profit on earth.
Imagine some idiot terrorist provides you with the perfect excuse to wage a war that will work...... As long as you fail to destroy the terrorist that you pretend to seek, and are then able to "CREATE" an alleged terrorist foe who controls the OIL you covet.

I've saved the best part of my mental meandering for last.

Here's the best part......
The actual oil from the ground to the pump matters not.
Either the IRAQI OIL itself, or the destablilation of Iraqi OIL production will pruduce tremendous BIG OIL PROFIT.

And if ALL Iranian OIL could somehow become confused in the same salad tossed with the vinegar of the little goerge/big dick regime...... Could $100 per barrel OIL long remain only a BIG OIL DREAM?

Good night.

[Spinoza]

I don't know why Bush ordered the military to go into Iraq after Congressional approval... Just know what was given as the reason, which has turned out to be fabricated. Nor do I try giving any reason like oil, money, etc. that everyone else points out. Fact is, I don't give a d*** why we went in anymore, that does not matter to me nor many others (or else Bush & Co. would be impeached and probably have charges brought against him). We are there, so do the job. Cutting and running is just as dumb as going in. But we went in, and it is HOW we went in and conducted the operations that has been the problem now.


I assume there's a point your trying to make...

*edited at 9:11pm - I just realized I put Afghanistan in the first sentence when I meant to put Iraq... mixed thoughts when typing I guess.

"We are there, so do the job."......
I could not agree more!

But the only current question that means ANYTHING......
Is precisely what JOB should our military forces be maneuvering TO DO NOW.

What might history now record regarding the Battle of Stalingrad, had Gen. Paulus ordered a
reasoned military retreat and regrouping of his considerable and still capable forces, rather than blindly following the insane orders of drug dependent dictator who cared more about his ego than he did about his soldiers or his nation and its people.

What might history now record regarding the Battle of El Alamein, had Gen. Rommel been foolish enough to stand idly by and watch his army be destroyed...... Had he lacked the courage required to defy Hitler's NO RETREAT ORDERS, and save the men in his command.

In war as in poker......
Knowing when to hold 'em, and knowing when to fold 'em...... Is key to any logical lunge toward any opportunity of any manner of success.

[JuBru]

"We are there, so do the job."......
I could not agree more!

But the only current question that means ANYTHING......
Is precisely what JOB should our military forces be maneuvering TO DO NOW.

What might history now record regarding the Battle of Stalingrad, had Gen. Paulus ordered a
reasoned military retreat and regrouping of his considerable and still capable forces, rather than blindly following the insane orders of drug dependent dictator who cared more about his ego than he did about his soldiers or his nation and its people.

What might history now record regarding the Battle of El Alamein, had Gen. Rommel been foolish enough to stand idly by and watch his army be destroyed...... Had he lacked the courage required to defy Hitler's NO RETREAT ORDERS, and save the men in his command.

In war as in poker......
Knowing when to hold 'em, and knowing when to fold 'em...... Is key to any logical lunge toward any opportunity of any manner of success.

If you listen to news, talking heads, etc., Iran is next up... if so, do it right, but finish one thing this time completely before moving on to the next... We weren't completely done with Afghanistan, moved to Iraq. Now it's being speculated we are moving into Iran, before we are done in Iraq... It really is a simple solution, but as long as there are lawyers, pointless/dumb laws, ineffective leaders, etc., it won't happen.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

From Drudge. However the NYT link isn't working yet.

NYT: People moving with freedom around much of Baghdad; Commerce returning, even liquor stores are reopening... Developing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/wo...gewanted=print

[Spinoza]

From Drudge. However the NYT link isn't working yet.

NYT: People moving with freedom around much of Baghdad; Commerce returning, even liquor stores are reopening... Developing...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/wo...gewanted=print

''

"Even liquor stores are reopening"......

That's good enough for me, Tyler...... I pronounce the SURGE a SUCCESS! :icon_wink::icon_wink:

[Spinoza]

A serious question for Rusty......
Based on my understanding of Ron Paul's unique and sweeping military platform.

It is (I believe) Ron Paul's stated intent to not only bring American troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan forth with...... But to also BRING HOME ALL THE AMERICAN TROOPS who are currently serving ANYWHERE ELSE on our tiny planet.

It is (I believe) Ron Paul's stated opinion that America's military should be employed to defend our soveriegn soil...... And not used to POLICE THE WORLD. or perform tasks designed for EMPIRE BUILDING.

As a fellow who obviously has an honest and praiseworthy concern for all the American citizens who currently comprise our nation's military forces......
What say you to this Ron Paul military philosophy?

[JuBru]

I say it is wrong...

It's a very nice soundbite to say bring everyone home and abandon all bases outside of U.S. soil, etc... But I believe it will be very problematic when it comes to actually securing American soil by that standard. You HAVE to have offense, can't just be defense... Despite the wording - Department of Defense. You can NOT do that at any part of the world with everything being in the U.S. You need the forwarding bases spread strategically across the world to be able to handle whatever flashpoint there is. Yes, in a sense you get a "world police" tag from that, but that's not the case when your actions are driven by actual security. Threats to America no longer come from just someone attacking our soil... With everything back in America, it WILL make America more unsafe than ever before. And would he, or any other President, be able to justify doing nothing when they know exactly when an attack is coming and from where? With everything on American soil - you wouldn't be able to prevent it, that is a simple fact with today's technology. I much rather attack someone before they attack us or have the ability to... not to mention whatever President is in office when that happens - and it will under the non-intervention, isolationism, etc. - will be out of office be the end of the month either because of "forced" resignation or a coup d'etat, assuming there's even a America left at that point... Planning for something big is better than planning for nothing at all.
I don't believe it's the shutting everything down and bringing everyone home and downsizing is what he should be looking at doing... I admit, there are TOO MANY bases spread throughout the world, and some should be shut down, but overall, a good bit should still be open. There are many solutions, some popular, some not so popular.

I'll also admit I have thought about it as telling the world to effe off and let them destroy themselves, and then we go in a clean up after their mess... but then I realize that with that, America will be attacked with everything they have, which means nuclear missles, and there will be no second thoughts to launch or not, just as long as it destroys America. And no, I don't believe it's "fear-mongering" because of what human nature is, and that will never change.... the only thing you can do is try and control it, which to some is bad and others refuse to realize.

[Spinoza]

I say it is wrong...

It's a very nice soundbite to say bring everyone home and abandon all bases outside of U.S. soil, etc... But I believe it will be very problematic when it comes to actually securing American soil by that standard. You HAVE to have offense, can't just be defense... Despite the wording - Department of Defense. You can NOT do that at any part of the world with everything being in the U.S. You need the forwarding bases spread strategically across the world to be able to handle whatever flashpoint there is. Yes, in a sense you get a "world police" tag from that, but that's not the case when your actions are driven by actual security. Threats to America no longer come from just someone attacking our soil... With everything back in America, it WILL make America more unsafe than ever before. And would he, or any other President, be able to justify doing nothing when they know exactly when an attack is coming and from where? With everything on American soil - you wouldn't be able to prevent it, that is a simple fact with today's technology. I much rather attack someone before they attack us or have the ability to... not to mention whatever President is in office when that happens - and it will under the non-intervention, isolationism, etc. - will be out of office be the end of the month either because of "forced" resignation or a coup d'etat, assuming there's even a America left at that point... Planning for something big is better than planning for nothing at all.
I don't believe it's the shutting everything down and bringing everyone home and downsizing is what he should be looking at doing... I admit, there are TOO MANY bases spread throughout the world, and some should be shut down, but overall, a good bit should still be open. There are many solutions, some popular, some not so popular.

I'll also admit I have thought about it as telling the world to effe off and let them destroy themselves, and then we go in a clean up after their mess... but then I realize that with that, America will be attacked with everything they have, which means nuclear missles, and there will be no second thoughts to launch or not, just as long as it destroys America. And no, I don't believe it's "fear-mongering" because of what human nature is, and that will never change.... the only thing you can do is try and control it, which to some is bad and others refuse to realize.

I appreciate your honest reply......
But I have no time tonight to give this discusion the attention I feel it needs.

Cheers to you and all whom you love.
Later.

[Spinoza]

I say it is wrong...

It's a very nice soundbite to say bring everyone home and abandon all bases outside of U.S. soil, etc... But I believe it will be very problematic when it comes to actually securing American soil by that standard. You HAVE to have offense, can't just be defense... Despite the wording - Department of Defense. You can NOT do that at any part of the world with everything being in the U.S. You need the forwarding bases spread strategically across the world to be able to handle whatever flashpoint there is. Yes, in a sense you get a "world police" tag from that, but that's not the case when your actions are driven by actual security. Threats to America no longer come from just someone attacking our soil... With everything back in America, it WILL make America more unsafe than ever before. And would he, or any other President, be able to justify doing nothing when they know exactly when an attack is coming and from where? With everything on American soil - you wouldn't be able to prevent it, that is a simple fact with today's technology. I much rather attack someone before they attack us or have the ability to... not to mention whatever President is in office when that happens - and it will under the non-intervention, isolationism, etc. - will be out of office be the end of the month either because of "forced" resignation or a coup d'etat, assuming there's even a America left at that point... Planning for something big is better than planning for nothing at all.
I don't believe it's the shutting everything down and bringing everyone home and downsizing is what he should be looking at doing... I admit, there are TOO MANY bases spread throughout the world, and some should be shut down, but overall, a good bit should still be open. There are many solutions, some popular, some not so popular.

I'll also admit I have thought about it as telling the world to effe off and let them destroy themselves, and then we go in a clean up after their mess... but then I realize that with that, America will be attacked with everything they have, which means nuclear missles, and there will be no second thoughts to launch or not, just as long as it destroys America. And no, I don't believe it's "fear-mongering" because of what human nature is, and that will never change.... the only thing you can do is try and control it, which to some is bad and others refuse to realize.

IMNHO......
Your above missive rather accurately reflects the current majority opinion(s) of America's taxpayers/voters/citizens. But there is nothing actually new, save twists of nuance, in the military philosophy you so accurately describe. It is easily traced back to those now so seemingly distant WWII pages of American history, when Americans experienced such deadly early defeat...... But such dramatic final victory.

The day MacArthur sat on the deck of the Battleship Missouri and watched Japan sign papers of unconditional surrender...... Is the day America began writing its long chapter of SUPERPOWER SUPREMACY. These were NEVER AGAIN days. NEVER AGAIN would America relax its military might and fervor as it had so obviosly done after WWI, or fail (ever again) to be adequately prepared for any military attack on America by any enemy.

AND IT WORKED......
America enjoyed world respect as it once again WALKED SOFTLY, but paid the fairly reasonable taxed dollars needed to CARRY A BIG STICK!
UNTIL KOREA!

Korea changed the essence of the American military equation, and spawned the spread of America's military-industrial complexity. Instead of "THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENCE" military mind-set...... America sent its soldiers and guns into a foreign land, and began waging war against a projected political/philosophical "foe" that had neither threatened or attacked so much as one sandy beach along any sovereign American shore.
And thus was born the BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENCE military mentality that Americans have been SOLD with their profitable political pabulum for over 50 years.

To be continued......

[Spinoza]

IMNHO......
Your above missive rather accurately reflects the current majority opinion(s) of America's taxpayers/voters/citizens. But there is nothing actually new, save twists of nuance, in the military philosophy you so accurately describe. It is easily traced back to those now so seemingly distant WWII pages of American history, when Americans experienced such deadly early defeat...... But such dramatic final victory.

The day MacArthur sat on the deck of the Battleship Missouri and watched Japan sign papers of unconditional surrender...... Is the day America began writing its long chapter of SUPERPOWER SUPREMACY. These were NEVER AGAIN days. NEVER AGAIN would America relax its military might and fervor as it had so obviosly done after WWI, or fail (ever again) to be adequately prepared for any military attack on America by any enemy.

AND IT WORKED......
America enjoyed world respect as it once again WALKED SOFTLY, but paid the fairly reasonable taxed dollars needed to CARRY A BIG STICK!
UNTIL KOREA!

Korea changed the essence of the American military equation, and spawned the spread of America's military-industrial complexity. Instead of "THE BEST OFFENSE IS A GOOD DEFENCE" military mind-set...... America sent its soldiers and guns into a foreign land, and began waging war against a projected political/philosophical "foe" that had neither threatened or attacked so much as one sandy beach along any sovereign American shore.
And thus was born the BEST DEFENSE IS A GOOD OFFENCE military mentality that Americans have been SOLD with their profitable political pabulum for over 50 years.

To be continued......

I am not a acadamic historian......
Merely a history buff who mostly believes in the old adage that predicts "If you do not learn from history, you are destined to repeat it.

So rather than simply supposing that ANY/EVERY future American BEST DEFENSE is a "GOOD" OFFENSE...... I believe that America's collective military efforts over the last 57 years should not be ignored.

My current beer memory recalls the following......
Korea......
Vietnam......
Grenada......
Panama......
Somalia......
Iraq #1......
Bosnia Herzegovina......
Afghanistan......
And Iraq #2!

The following questions are specifically for Rusty, out of respect for his prior reply......
But any dawg comment that stirs this particular pot is welcomed, as always.

Assuming that every American war/military action should be undertaken ONLY for the immediate and/or future benefit/protection of any majority of all American citizens......
Would you mind describing with as much detail possible, how ANY of the above listed American OFFENSIVE military operations WERE NECESSARY for any DEFENSE OF AMERICA?

Assuming that ALL of the above American war/military actions have COST significant treasury/taxpayer dollars...... Can you imagine any avenue along which these same REAL dollars could have been BETTER "paraded" for ANY BEST/HONEST INTEREST OF AMERICA?

Assuming that your BEST OFFENSE rationale is worthy of any serious consideration......
Would you mind describing EVEN ONE HISTORICAL AMERICAN INSTANCE, when any alleged BEST OFFENSE American war has been either COST or BLOOD effective toward ANY seemingly righteous DEFENSIVE goal/agenda?

There's more as always......
But you know me by now.
I routinely enjoy watching the pot bubble, before pouring more beer into the stew.

Cheers and good night.

[JuBru]

I'll reply once I get some details that are a little fuzzy in my mind straightened out.