jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 I've been watching some of the senate confirmation hearings for Gates and they seem strangely out of touch with reality. I could agree with sending more troops, but 20,000 won't make any different as far as I can see. If you sent in a million soldiers I think you might be able to cover the whole country and bring stability and close the border and all that. Of course that would mean a draft or getting other countries to send troops, so I don't think it will happen. The other option is getting out and that would be a mess. I bet a million people would starve to death if we left and the country completely broke down. So I guess I'm saying I, like President Bush or anyone else, have no solution to this problem.
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 I've been watching some of the senate confirmation hearings for Gates and they seem strangely out of touch with reality. I could agree with sending more troops, but 20,000 won't make any different as far as I can see. If you sent in a million soldiers I think you might be able to cover the whole country and bring stability and close the border and all that. Of course that would mean a draft or getting other countries to send troops, so I don't think it will happen. The other option is getting out and that would be a mess. I bet a million people would starve to death if we left and the country completely broke down. So I guess I'm saying I, like President Bush or anyone else, have no solution to this problem. 858528[/snapback] This based on your vast military experience? Yeah, thought so.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 6, 2006 Author Posted December 6, 2006 This based on your vast military experience? Yeah, thought so. 858540[/snapback] Feel free to elaborate, if you can
Joey Balls Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 Feel free to elaborate, if you can 858551[/snapback] Don't worry...he won't.
chicot Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 This based on your vast military experience? Yeah, thought so. 858540[/snapback] Are posters forbidden from commenting on subjects that they have no direct experience of?
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 Are posters forbidden from commenting on subjects that they have no direct experience of? 858582[/snapback] You mean because I deleted his post, rather than give it all the response it deserved?
chicot Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 You mean because I deleted his post, rather than give it all the response it deserved? 858669[/snapback] Did it deserve such a response because of the content or simply because he has no military experience?
Alaska Darin Posted December 6, 2006 Posted December 6, 2006 Did it deserve such a response because of the content or simply because he has no military experience? 858695[/snapback] The content more than showed he has no military experience. Do we really need to make this into some kind of "Holcomb's Armesque" thing?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 The content more than showed he has no military experience. Do we really need to make this into some kind of "Holcomb's Armesque" thing? 858697[/snapback] Hard to know where to start with this. I take two points of yours from this. A) You claim I have no military experience, and you say my post demonstrates that. Hmmmm.....perhaps you can point out how this 'fact' is proven from my post. B) Why would you even need military experience--let alone as an enlisted man like I was--to see Bush's Iraq policy is a failure? And what about all the generals and vets who have said the same thing? Please explain yourself
Chilly Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Its because you started talking about the difference in troop levels without knowing the difference between 20k and 1 million troops.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Its because you started talking about the difference in troop levels without knowing the difference between 20k and 1 million troops. 859538[/snapback] More likely because it was a shallow and silly post. When are people going to realize that most of their "solutions" to the Iraq issue aren't directed at solving the problems in Iraq, they're directed at changing the media coverage of Iraq? Iraq would be far better off if Americans stopped dishonestly trying to pretend they knew what was going on over there and instead honestly said "I really don't know what's happening in Iraq" once in a while... But then...the vast majority of people would rather have ten heartfelt opinions than be confronted by a single fact, particularly if that fact is "I don't know".
Chilly Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 More likely because it was a shallow and silly post. When are people going to realize that most of their "solutions" to the Iraq issue aren't directed at solving the problems in Iraq, they're directed at changing the media coverage of Iraq? Iraq would be far better off if Americans stopped dishonestly trying to pretend they knew what was going on over there and instead honestly said "I really don't know what's happening in Iraq" once in a while... But then...the vast majority of people would rather have ten heartfelt opinions than be confronted by a single fact, particularly if that fact is "I don't know". 859541[/snapback] When you say that it is directed at changing the media coverage, what do you mean by that anyhow. Changing it so that we hear about the losses less, like pulling troops out? I don't think anyone talks about the institutions that build up a Democracy (economy, military strength to defend themselves, free from outside interference, the process, etc).
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 When you say that it is directed at changing the media coverage, what do you mean by that anyhow. 859550[/snapback] What I mean is that very very few people actually understand what goes on in Iraq, they understand what the media reports on Iraq. Ergo, no solution presented by such can possibly address the reality of Iraq, only the reality of the reporting. I didn't mean to imply it was a conscious decision to change the reporting. Merely that people focus on the reporting and confuse it with reality. It ain't.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 Its because you started talking about the difference in troop levels without knowing the difference between 20k and 1 million troops. 859538[/snapback] You come to the rescue of Darin in a pretty pathetic manner. First he says I don't know anything about the military and now you, the BlueFire, accuse me of not knowing mathematics. Accusations from small minds does not make a debate.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 More likely because it was a shallow and silly post. 859541[/snapback] I'm guilty as charged! The sad fact is that the whole debate about Iraq has become "shallow and silly." And while the "shallow and silly" debate rages, ten more American troops died yesterday. Perhaps I should just pose the question, what did they die for?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 What I mean is that very very few people actually understand what goes on in Iraq, they understand what the media reports on Iraq. Ergo, no solution presented by such can possibly address the reality of Iraq, only the reality of the reporting. I didn't mean to imply it was a conscious decision to change the reporting. Merely that people focus on the reporting and confuse it with reality. It ain't. 859556[/snapback] I see. And how would you say the reporting is flawed? I see Iraq in choas. Is that wrong? Of course I'm just a stupid idiot who reads the main stream media, so that is understandable.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 7, 2006 Author Posted December 7, 2006 lol, Math has nothing to do with my post. 859563[/snapback] "nothing" A good way to describe your post
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Of course I'm just a stupid idiot who reads the main stream media, so that is understandable. 859565[/snapback] An "I don't know" would have sufficed. But then, considering you took a general observation and made it personal, you probably are just a stupid idiot.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I often wonder how the American public would have reacted if some of TODAY'S journalists were on the ground when Tokyo was firebombed or when Americans came ashore at Iwo.
Recommended Posts