/dev/null Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html
Simon Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081220/D956L7L80.html Why exactly do we feel compelled to tell everybody what we're about to do? "Hey fellas, head's up. In 4 months we're going to deploy this many troops here, here and here. You've got 20 weeks to secure what you can and displace to nearer the Paki border." wtf? Here's an idea; shut the hell up about it and do it with no advance warning.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Why exactly do we feel compelled to tell everybody what we're about to do?"Hey fellas, head's up. In 4 months we're going to deploy this many troops here, here and here. You've got 20 weeks to secure what you can and displace to nearer the Paki border." wtf? Here's an idea; shut the hell up about it and do it with no advance warning. Because it's a PR exercise unlikely to have any meanigful effect in the region... ...aside from increasing US casualties.
John Adams Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Why exactly do we feel compelled to tell everybody what we're about to do?"Hey fellas, head's up. In 4 months we're going to deploy this many troops here, here and here. You've got 20 weeks to secure what you can and displace to nearer the Paki border." wtf? Here's an idea; shut the hell up about it and do it with no advance warning. I've been hearing about this for months so it's not exactly news.
finknottle Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Why exactly do we feel compelled to tell everybody what we're about to do?"Hey fellas, head's up. In 4 months we're going to deploy this many troops here, here and here. You've got 20 weeks to secure what you can and displace to nearer the Paki border." wtf? Here's an idea; shut the hell up about it and do it with no advance warning. You mean like publically declaring a unilateral withdrawl date in Iraq while there is still fighting raging?
Simon Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 ...aside from increasing US casualties. That's the big beef right there. And it's actually soldiers and not politicians who are the ones doing the gum-flapping. I know some level of creeping politicism is inevitable but how the hell did we ever let our military become so politicized?
Nanker Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 That's the big beef right there. And it's actually soldiers and not politicians who are the ones doing the gum-flapping. I know some level of creeping politicism is inevitable but how the hell did we ever let our military become so politicized? It began when Bush II began fighting John Kerry's "Kinder, gentler war" with the press riding shotgun into Iraq. I still can't believe the live footage of our armored advance on Iraqi highways - with a puzzled civilian traffic steadily streaming in the opposite lanes. What? We're being invaded?! Let's watch it happen while we continue to drive to grandma's house in Mosul! Of course the generals also have a few role models to follow: Andrew Jackson, US Grant, McArthur, Eisenhower, and more recently Wesley Snipes Clark. All parlayed their military experience into the political realm. Some more effectively than others. What else is a retired **** or ***** kind of guy supposed to do when he hangs up his uni for the last time - become a lobbyist, CEO or talk show host? Thing is, the new administration is all gung-ho for ramping up the guerilla war in Afghanistan. He had no guts for liberating 30+ million people, but seems hell bent for leather to take the fight into the un-winnable Afghani mountains and beyond. That will be President BO's VietNam and he's welcome to it. It's an effort that is doomed to failure and he's well suited to the task. The white flags will fly when the US body count reaches 1,500. The left has no stomach for war - unless it's a personal war against a republican adversary. JMHO.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 That's the big beef right there. You fight a war, you take casualties. I have no problem with that. The American people have a problem with it because they've been sold on the idea of "bloodless war" by the military-industrial complex's PR over the last 40 years (if not longer - considering European wars were quite bloody and violent through the 19th century, the attempts to make war "kinder and gentler" is less a result of Western Liberalism that it is just a reaction to the WWI meat-grinder). And it's actually soldiers and not politicians who are the ones doing the gum-flapping.I know some level of creeping politicism is inevitable but how the hell did we ever let our military become so politicized? Money. The Army wants a quarter-trillion dollars at the Future Combat System, they have to lobby Congress for it. Multiply that by a hundred thousand smaller programs.
Simon Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 You fight a war, you take casualties. I have no problem with that. I think anybody with an ounce of common sense accepts that as a necessary evil. But it's a loooooong way from taking casualties to creating them.
Fingon Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Honestly, we should just bomb the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan to rubble.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Honestly, we should just bomb the mountains between pakistan and afghanistan to rubble. Worked for the Russians...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 Thing is, the new administration is all gung-ho for ramping up the guerilla war in Afghanistan. He had no guts for liberating 30+ million people, but seems hell bent for leather to take the fight into the un-winnable Afghani mountains and beyond. That will be President BO's VietNam and he's welcome to it. It's an effort that is doomed to failure and he's well suited to the task. The white flags will fly when the US body count reaches 1,500. The left has no stomach for war - unless it's a personal war against a republican adversary. JMHO. You can't hold up a cross and claim it holy and then crucify another on it with the same fervor- it makes absolutely no sense at all- the same as before, when nation building in Kosovo was BAD, and nation building in Iraq was GOOD. Absolute hypocrisy to the max... is this forum always so one-sided? I think I'm sticking to Bills talk... good gravy...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2008 Posted December 21, 2008 You can't hold up a cross and claim it holy and then crucify another on it with the same fervor- it makes absolutely no sense at all- the same as before, when nation building in Kosovo was BAD, and nation building in Iraq was GOOD. Absolute hypocrisy to the max... is this forum always so one-sided? I think I'm sticking to Bills talk... good gravy... It depends. If you mean "one-sided" in terms of "right-leaning"...then no. If, on the other hand, you mean it as "retarded"...yeah, absolutely.
Recommended Posts