DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on June 16, 2010, 05:50:29 PM
-
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/15/congress-expresses-growing-concerns-about-afghan-war/ (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/06/15/congress-expresses-growing-concerns-about-afghan-war/)
Good article listing the numerous failures to date of the MacChrystal plan and the government's tricky position in explaining them to the satisfaction of Congress.
IMHO, the alleged "dissatisfaction" of Congress or specific members thereof and the administration's "difficulties" in explaining them are just window-dressing or shadow play. Congress will approve whatever must be approved to prosecute and/or escalate the war, but this is a foreshadowing of serious public concerns as well as Treasury limits that will soon force some hard choices on the war-mongers in Washington.
-
As soon as I get pooch into his new camouflage outfit we'll kick the hell out of the Taliban. Besides I think their about to pull a Palin and quit. Sorta like the Jews during WWII.
-
What is hard about the explanation?
Obama is less capable of decisive action.
-
"What is hard about the explanation?
Obama is less capable of decisive action."
Spoken like a true Navy man.
http://www.goatlocker.org/sound/AWEIGH.WAV (http://www.goatlocker.org/sound/AWEIGH.WAV)
-
<<What is hard about the explanation?>>
What's hard about the explanation? It's always hard to explain failure. The offensive on Marjah was a bust. The current offensive in Kandahar has had to be postponed in view of repeated Taliban strikes and the inability of the Karzai government to get the locals on board, so it's a bust too. McChrystal talks big and tough but he can't deliver the goods. Never will be, any new offensive in Kandahar will turn out about as "successful" as Marjah - - the Taliban will fade into the hills and move somewhere else, returning to fight when and where they choose. The locals will show photo-op support for the occupation troops, but in reality do whatever they can for the home team. How the hell are they supposed to get onboard when the Taliban can cut their nuts off at will? Nobody believes the Americans will outlast the Taliban and Karzai's attempts to rally the locals add up to one big circle-jerk
<<Obama is less capable of decisive action.>>
Decisive action my ass. Decisive action would be sending in an additional 300,000 to 400,000 troops on a 20-year mission which he can afford to do like I can afford to buy a couple of Lamborghinis for the garage. This half-ass jerking around is going to satisfy the lap-dog MSM for another few months, and then more excuses and promises and sooner or later the whole fucking teppel schmaltz is just going to fall down around his ears. He can't postpone the débacle forever. He's a con man just like his immediate predecessor in office.
-
Oh shut the hell up. You're just bitching and moaning for the sake of bitching and moaning. Good lord. I hope you die before you have to go to a nursing home. Imagine those poor workers having to listen to you while they lift you off the john?
-
I guess anything short of all-out support for the uniformed thugs who have taken hundreds of thousands of innocent Middle Eastern lives in their unrestrained slaughter campaign would constitute "bitching and moaning" to you. However, my opinion is as stated. If you don't like it, just shut the fuck up and don't read it. Who the fuck gives a shit what you think of it anyway? You're a former participant in a criminal war of unprovoked aggression, in which millions of innocent Vietnamese were tortured, murdered, raped and mutilated with impunity by scumbags just like the ones you're defending now. Who the fuck are you to deliver moral lectures to anyone? You think anyone gives a shit?
Also, none of your God-damn fucking business how I will interact with the nursing home staff when the time comes any more than it's any of mine how you get along with the VA staff, although I kinda suspect it's not all sweetness and light there either.
-
<<Obama is less capable of decisive action.>>
Decisive action my ass.
Did I misunderstand recent history?
The consensus of the JCS and the generals on the sciene was that a surge was needed and they reccomended a number.
After mulling it over more than two months the President takes decisive action , and gives the generals two thirds of the manpower they had asked for.
Bush also had this problem , but between the two Obama has it worse.
Can you imagine Rosevelt and Chirchill responding to the needs of the campains with such a lack of dispatch?
-
<<The consensus of the JCS and the generals on the sciene was that a surge was needed and they reccomended a number.>>
The problem was that there was some informed military opinion that the recommended number was short by hundreds of thousands from what it needed to be. In September 2009, in a classified report, Gen. McChrystal stated that the war needed a commitment of 500,000 troops for five years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29)
<<After mulling it over more than two months the President takes decisive action , and gives the generals two thirds of the manpower they had asked for.>>
Mulled it over? WTF would YOU do if one general who seems to know what he's talking about gives an estimate of half a million and others say 90,000?? Either McChrystal and his staff are right or the other guys (the JCS) are right. If the right number is half a million, what's the difference if the JCS gets 60,000 or 90,000? Either way they're fucked If McChrystal is correct, there is no fucking way. The country can't afford half a million troops in Afghanistan for five years, so they might as well pull the plug on the whole fucking enterprise right now - - only Obama can't afford the political consequences of doing so. So he's more or less stuck on going ahead with the JCS estimates, only in reality they're fucked at 90,000 and they're fucked at 60,000. Either way they're fucked. Obama had no choice (politically) but to go with the JCS and hope to hell they were right and not McChrystal. But at the same time, figuring correctly that they had buffed up their estimate to give him some fat he could cut, he gambled on the 2/3 figure.
<<Bush also had this problem , but between the two Obama has it worse.>>
How you figure that?
<<Can you imagine Rosevelt and Chirchill responding to the needs of the campains with such a lack of dispatch?>>
You tell me. I have no idea when they were presented with troop estimates and how long they took to respond. I don't see the comparison anyway between WWII, a very mobile and fluid war of large armies moving at blitzkrieg speed with the fate of the world hanging in the balance and a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan with virtually nothing at stake that anyone gives a shit about.
-
Shit.
I feel that I responded more harshly than I needed to and it's really bothering me. My apologies to BSB and to the group. I shouldn't be so thin-skinned. I take it all back. Sorry, BSB.
-
See post #6? That's the kind of garbage that gets posted in here on a daily basis from that asshole for NO reason other then he's asshole. Yet, it's allowed to go on and on and on.
-
Yeah but I already apologized for that. To you and the group. See #9. I over-reacted.
-
I ignored post #9 because it's meaningless. You'll turn right around and post something just like it tomorrow, or the next day.
This group complains about the level of debate? This kind of crap is the reason for it. And as I said, it's daily.
-
<<I ignored post #9 because it's meaningless.>>
Well, that's your choice and I can't do a God-damn thing about it. You were owed an apology and an explanation and I delivered both without even being asked. I'm not going to wallow in this shit forever. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of it.
<<You'll turn right around and post something just like it tomorrow, or the next day. >>
My intention right now is to ignore every one of your provocations in the future but if and when I feel like responding in kind, you'll get a response in kind. Right now I'm sorry I even wasted a lousy minute on you. It was against my better judgment that I allowed myself to get sucked into it and it was obviously one big fucking mistake. I really don't have the time for this shit.
-
"your provocations"
Ha ha, "my" provocations? Asshole, it's your provocations that are the problem. Sucked into it? You're nowhere else but in it every minute you're in here. You don't do anything but provoke in post after post. The ones that have allowed you to get away with your bullshit for years now are some of the same ones complaining about the debates. They have nothing to complain about. They're getting exactly what they must have wanted.
-
I better clarify. My posts can be politically provocative. If you believe in the U.S. military, then I guess it's provocative to see them described as thugs and murderers. You are correct, my posts are provocative. I'm never going to describe them (the U.S. military) as heroes, but of course you or anyone else is free to disagree and prove me wrong. That's the essence of debate - - I say Chavez is a good guy, you say he's a bad guy. Debate. The U.S. is a great country/the U.S. sucks. Debate.
What I meant in referring to "your provocations" was not provocative political opinion, but ad hominem personal attacks. That's never supposed to be a part of the debating process, but against my better judgment I got sucked into them. Big mistake. If I can help it, THAT is not gonna happen again. My posts, however, will be as politically provocative as I wish to make them. That is not your fucking problem. If you don't wish to respond with a counter-argument, then don't respond. Like I give a shit. But if you choose to respond with more of your personal bullshit, then fuck it, guy, I am just not going to bother. Comprende?
-
You're off on some trip snowblower. I never said a thing about Chavez. You spend your time in here throwing around so many insults you have no idea what I believe about anything.
I repeat. You're nothing but an insult machine.
-
<<You're off on some trip snowblower. I never said a thing about Chavez.>>
I used Chavez as an example, BSB. It doesn't matter that you said anything about him or not. I could equally well have used Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, George W. Bush, Alexander the Great, Louis XIV, King George III or Mother Teresa in the example and made the exact same point.
<<You spend your time in here throwing around so many insults you have no idea what I believe about anything.>>
Actually, BSB, I have a pretty good idea what you believe about a lot of things. And I challenge you to find ONE insult that I "threw around" that was not a response to an insult directed at me. Don't waste your time, 99% of the insults I "throw around" are purely retaliatory in nature, and as far as the 1% that were not, well, I apologize to the recipient if I haven't already done so. I see you like to throw around a few insults yourself from time to time. What is the fucking point of looking back and digging for grudges to hold against one another? If somebody is truly not worth the effort, I just stop responding to them, as I've done in a few cases. Believe me, it's no great loss but in your case for the time being, I think I can make the effort to ignore the insult and continue the exchange of ideas. I have a very good idea where you're coming from. You really should make the effort to see where I'm coming from. I'm right and you are wrong, and you know it.
<<I repeat. You're nothing but an insult machine. >>
Repeat it all you like. I don't insult anyone who hasn't insulted me first and now I'm not even going to insult them. You don't seem to realize that the "insult machine" isn't exactly pushing apple pie, mum and the flag here, consequently it's always attracted more than its fair share of insults and abuse in the first place. What is a pitching machine when it's not being fed any balls?