|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 13th, 2007 12:42 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Well, I like derrida... He deserves a decent response. Maybe I'm not exactly why I like him/her, but I like Derrida... Y'know... |
|
| Jan 13th, 2007 12:25 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Don't stress it too much, Preech. To derrida VDH is a "blowhard", yet a crappy article from fucking Alternet is somehow really thought provoking.... | |
| Jan 13th, 2007 12:21 AM | ||
| Preechr |
It's not just about killing people. It's actually all about providing a secure environment where killing people is counterproductive, no matter why you feel killing somebody might be the best way to accomplish your goals. Additionally, the only reason VDH might be considered popular around here is because I occasionally post some of his articles, and I regretfully admit right here, right now, that it's been a while since I've checked him out... so I'll go get his most current addition to the blowhardedness and post it separately... |
|
| Jan 12th, 2007 07:15 PM | ||
| derrida |
Well preechr, it's not as if this strategy hasn't been tried before. In fact, one of the first places we tried it was Fallujah. We also tried it in Tal Afar, which has been more successful. Kahljorn: Yes, there is precedent for this kind of war, but not exactly parallel. Blowhards like Victor Davis Hanson (who tends to get some credence around here) like to mention the british counterinsurgency against the maylays in the 50's, but the british (actually their chinese proxies brimming with ethnic hate for the maylays) only had to kill 7,000 guerillas over the course of 10 years. Compare that with American generals placing an estimate of 50,000 insurgents killed so far and then stating that the insurgency is in fact growing. |
|
| Jan 12th, 2007 11:34 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Nutshell: Up until now, apparently the strategy has been to kill terrorists wherever they are found and that's about it. This strategy has been limited by the Iraqis to only certain areas, however, like NOT Sadr City. We go in and shoot or capture some bad guys and then leave. The governing ideology behind the leaving part was that we did not want to be seen as "occupiers." The upshot of this strategy is that we were "liberating" the same areas and neighborhoods over and over, just to have terrorists move back in as soon as we left. Kahljorn's Benny Hill analogy was pretty apt, I suppose. Now we have extracted various commitments from the Iraqi government, such as the end of off-limits areas and the beginning of a more pro-active Iraqi presence in the hot-spots. Our "surge" will be met with an approximate ratio of about one of our guys to every five or six Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad. They have also pledged $10 billion of THEIR money to reconstruction. I heard Rudy yesterday comparing the new plan to his method for reducing crime in Manhattan. Baghdad has 9 zones, each of which will be assigned a commander and each of which will be held to metrics measuring their success. As areas are cleaned, our forces will be sticking around to protect them from re-infestation. In addition to what was said in the speech, I think it's important to note OPEC's sudden and timely drop in oil prices, which hits Iran right in the wallet, and Egypt's sudden and timely call for Iran to butt out in Iraq, which was totally unexpected, at least by me. |
|
| Jan 12th, 2007 02:17 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
I think there's still a focus on training iraq troops. It has just gotten to the point where we are securing areas that we have already previously secured and then abandoned to be unsecured; that is being recognized as stupid as far as killing guirella fighters goes. The new strategy is to secure areas and keep them secure. The second part of the strategy is that there's a certain region of iraq that started with an R where terrorists are currently "massed" and they are sending 4,000 us troops to help the iraqis move them out. As for the first part of the strategy my girlfriend made the observation that our previous "strategy" amounted to troops and terrorists running around to benny hill music doing the old switcheroo. Honestly this war isn't being "Fought" but I guess it's hard to fight terrorist forces. Isn't there any historical precendent for fighting small guirella units? |
|
| Jan 11th, 2007 01:52 PM | ||
| derrida |
Basically, the new strategy is like the "strategic hamlets" one used in Viet Nam, where we set up gated communities with high concentrations of US forces and basically focus on keeping those areas safe and productive. I think it can work, if only on a tactical level, as long as sweeps are frequent enough. The rhetoric has pretty much shifted away from "the primary goal of US troops is training a new Iraqi army." |
|
| Jan 11th, 2007 01:19 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
They had it on foxnews.com along with a transcript, which is what I read. I was considering posting it here ;/ it was basically, INCREASE TROOPS BECAUSE WE DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH TO SECURE AREAS AND BAD GUSY WOULD COME BACK IN AFTER WE CLEARED THE AREA. GOTO TERRORIST REGION WITH 4,000 TROOPS AND SOME IRAQI GUYS AND FORCE THE TERRORISTS OUT. HELP TURKEY WITH BORDER STUFF. |
|
| Jan 11th, 2007 09:59 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | It wasn't last night, but maybe by now. | |
| Jan 11th, 2007 09:54 AM | ||
| DehydratedPorkMan |
Is there by any chance it will be on YouTube? Seriously, I'm not aiming for humor. I just dislike TV. And Bush. |
|
| Jan 11th, 2007 09:46 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Can somebody Cliffs Notes the speech for me? | |
| Jan 11th, 2007 09:36 AM | ||
| mburbank | How is it I keep forgetting that exchanges of any kind with Alphaboy that have an intent beyond humor are pointless? | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 10:33 PM | ||
| DehydratedPorkMan |
Quote:
I need waffles. But in the end, W needs to stop digging himself into this 500 mile-deep hole he's made and stop apologizing and creating Vietnam 2.0. |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 09:27 PM | ||
| Grislygus | Wow. I was very impressed that he took responsibility for "any mistakes made". Call me naive, but I didn't expect that. | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 08:09 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Happy to please, rube. | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 08:06 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | Good dog. | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 07:28 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
 you're cute when you say dumb shit, you know that? Because you're incapable of being wrong, you're now a master of the English informal lexicon. I can't really escape the mental image of you peering over a slang thesaurus in unbridled eagerness for a context to use "rubbernecking". I'm sorry, I forgot that your background qualifies you as an expert on slang. I guess I really do need to go get me some of thathandshakes all around! |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 07:25 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | Could someone other then Sethomas repost that. It sounds silly coming from him, and I so wanted to be put in my place. K, thanks. | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 06:31 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
you're cute when you say dumb shit, you know that? Because you're incapable of being wrong, you're now a master of the English informal lexicon. I can't really escape the mental image of you peering over a slang thesaurus in unbridled eagerness for a context to use "rubbernecking". I'm sorry, I forgot that your background qualifies you as an expert on slang. I guess I really do need to go get me some of that.
|
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 03:41 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | Then look up the word "Mark" and it might define how stupid you are. Get some slang. | |
| Jan 10th, 2007 02:42 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
Rube: –noun Informal. an unsophisticated person from a rural area; hick. Actually, I think most rubes support Bush because Jesus says they should. |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 02:40 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
Burbank...is it Wednesday or something? Is that the day your brain stays at home with the kid? I recall you thought Baker's findings were on the up and up. You liked the recommendations. You talked about it like it was anything but a smoke screen set up to accomodate Saudi Arabian lobby dollars and promote their voice. Of course you don't like Baker....he wears the wrong color. You did like the findings and that makes you a rube. |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 11:16 AM | ||
| Preechr |
Katherine Harris has absolutely no political capital left to spend. That may have been a rumor at one time, but there's no truth behind that now. Max, do you remember sometime last year Dubya's dad also saying he felt going into Iraq was a mistake? Junior's on a political island when you look at those not currently involved in government. I think that has something to do with Baker's sentiments too. |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 10:10 AM | ||
| DehydratedPorkMan |
Re: W's upcoming "New Way Forward" speech Quote:
And what's this I hear about her wanting to run because of Hillary or is that a big old joke? |
|
| Jan 10th, 2007 09:40 AM | ||
| mburbank |
I think I'll wait for the text of the speech, the newspaper is bound to give a more lifelike presentation. Alphaboy... I don't even know what to say to you. I'm pretty sure I write clearly, and yet you always see stuff I'm sure I didn't say. Hoodwinked? What would make you think I thought Baker was anything but a scumbag? Was it where I called him the Bush Family Consigliere? 'Cause that's not a good thing. That's insulting him. I thought what Baker was trying to do is what the family has always done for junior, ie. bail him out of a mess he's made. Now I'm sure Baker had other desires as well, and I'm fairly certain none of them were altruistic. Even though Baker and I both want US troops out of Iraq, I doubt we want it for the same reasons. I hardly think Baker has had some sort of Grinch Finding Christmas experience. Since W seems disinclined to do a single thing Baker recomended, it seems like he wasted his time. Baker Bad Man. Baker self interested. Baker not get what he want. Why Baker try in first place? Why Baker think he get anywhere with junior? Baker very close to Bush family. Why he invest time on panel if he not think outcome be better for him? It puzzling. Now you go: "Wow Burbank. I can't belive you think Baker's a good guy. He sure fooled you." |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
