Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

 

2006-12-21 13:58:09
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6925|Los Angeles
This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq.

So before when General Shinseki said we needed more troops in Iraq, Bush and Rummy ignored his words.

And now that the window for more troops being effective has slammed shut, Bush is insisting that we should send more over there - regardless of the fact that the current generals are insisting that sending more troops is not the answer.

Who is this guy listening to, besides his own misguided, blind hubris? With his entire legacy resting on Iraq, what is he thinking? Is he delusional?

How can you defend a guy who seems to ignore not only common sense, but more importantly the words and recommendations of the top guys fighting his war? Does anyone actually believe that he's going to succeed? How can he stake the lives of even more Americans, not to mention Iraqis, on what seems to be a personal hunch, and one that flies in the face of everything that the guys on the ground are experiencing?

Now even former Republican congressman (and current MSNBC news presenter) Joe Scarborough is incredulous. Download and watch this video from his show (19MB but I dl'd at 500KB/s).

Some choice quotes:

"I supported this war, and I supported this man twice for president, and yet I'm growing more disturbed every night about how isolated George W Bush has become. All the Joint Chiefs oppose his plan for Iraq. His lead general opposes his plan in Iraq and now is gonna quit because Bush is ignoring him. Colin Powell opposes his plan in Iraq. And an LA Times poll is showing that only 12% of Americans support his plan in Iraq. Shouldn't more Americans be disturbed about this unprecedented example of a White House that's in a bunker mentality?"

"How can this president thumb his nose at the very military leaders who are fighting this war in Iraq?"

"How would Republicans have responded if President Bill Clinton had ignored the advice of all of his Joint Chiefs, his top general in the war zone, his former secretary of state, and 80 percent of Americans?  Is it not a stretch to say that many Republicans would have considered impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton if this situation were identical?"
2006-12-21 14:00:29
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7087|USA
Nice post.

We should have listened to France.

Watch out for the Patriots. They are typing books as I post.
2006-12-21 14:10:58
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Watch out for the Patriots. They are typing books as I post.
Could it be that many top generals are half polititians?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ … ional/home


Perhaps they are manuevering to retain their status in the next administration.


Cutting and running is not an option, I agree with Bush on that.
The Iraq Surrender Group's report simply was an appeasment to the antiwar crowd; it will not effect policy at all, and Bush is right to distance himself from it.

The President says he will announce the U.S.'s new strategery next month, lol.  We are going to say " okay assholes, it's dying time. " and unleash hell. The things will disolve in chaos again. Rinse, repeat.

     My overall prediction? This will be a campaign issue in 2012.
2006-12-21 14:13:38
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7071

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq.
Most people from LA are liberal and don't support the war at all. Let alone the fact that nearly 100% of those surveyed are not, nor have ever been military officers. Please don't try to argue with me on part. We all know it's true.

Your other points however look valid. This one it not.
2006-12-21 14:15:25
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6954|Global Command
True, in L.A. some people refer to the L.A. Times as the Democratic Times of L.A.
2006-12-21 14:17:27
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7069
if i was in iraq right now, i would really want more troops
2006-12-21 14:19:11
leftoverkiller
Member
+9|6888
bush and rummy are like noob commanders in bf2 they just don't listen and they cant see what they need for themselves. id have to say give our troops all the support they need to do there job efficiently and effectively. then get them home. the us fought there own civil war why cant they.

Last edited by leftoverkiller (2006-12-21 14:26:33)

2006-12-21 14:19:56
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6916|Northern California
Pride.  A weak character who can't admit things when it's raining down on you endlessly from EVERYONE..at the expense of dozens and/or hundreds of lives daily.  But this is nothing new.  His eternal soul is toast.

See the madness that is George W Bush.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-12-21 14:26:39)

2006-12-21 14:21:12
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|7071

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

if i was in iraq right now, i would really want more troops
2006-12-21 14:24:29
King_County_Downy
shitfaced
+2,791|7022|Seattle

I'm not in Iraq AND I want more troops there. If they want to fight, lets fight. Don't let the service men and women that are there now down. If they can't come home, we'd sure as fuck better help them out however we can.
Sober enough to know what I'm doing, drunk enough to really enjoy doing it
2006-12-21 14:24:52
stef10
Member
+173|6907|Denmark
Bush is such a noob of war.
2006-12-21 14:25:20
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6925|Los Angeles

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq.
Most people from LA are liberal and don't support the war at all. Let alone the fact that nearly 100% of those surveyed are not, nor have ever been military officers. Please don't try to argue with me on part. We all know it's true.

Your other points however look valid. This one it not.
Wrong.

The fact that the poll was conducted by the LA Times has nothing to do with the findings. No newspaper would be stupid enough to conduct such a poll within a single metropolitan area. How do you think they conduct these polls... standing on the corner of Hollywood and Vine, polling passers-by?

LA Times wrote:

METHODOLOGY
The Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg Poll contacted 1,489 adults, including 1,342 registered voters, nationwide by telephone. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Adults were weighted slightly to conform with their respective census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for all adults, and registered voters, is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.
2006-12-21 14:28:46
commissargizz
Member
+123|6889| Heaven
Well he is commander in chief, so basically he is the top general so all have to do as he says.
2006-12-21 14:30:22
URE_DED
BF2s US Server Admin
+76|7044|inside the recesses of your...
We voted for Bush.  He totally betrayed us.  And now I'm afraid that his election has been one of the single worst things to happen to our country.
2006-12-21 14:31:14
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6916|Northern California

King_County_Downy wrote:

I'm not in Iraq AND I want more troops there. If they want to fight, lets fight. Don't let the service men and women that are there now down. If they can't come home, we'd sure as fuck better help them out however we can.
Yeah great.  How about supporting the war effort with more troops...say, 3 years ago?!?!?  When it was recommended?  How about a year ago when the smart people among republicans and democrats were saying it?  No.  When the shit hits the fan, and he's surrounded with what is obviously the end of war in Iraq...to "not lose" he decides to go with more troops.  Even though commanders in Baghdad have told him and secretary Gates that they'd just be more targets. 

Someone needs to grab that bastard, shake him, and ask him what "winning" means in his mind.  If it's somewhat rational (not even possible, but rational), then he needs to share it with the world because just wishing to win is, as Jon Stewart cleverly parallels with using the Peter Pan "believe" analogy, is not realistic in the least.
2006-12-21 14:40:07
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6925|Los Angeles

ATG wrote:

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Watch out for the Patriots. They are typing books as I post.
Could it be that many top generals are half polititians?

Perhaps they are manuevering to retain their status in the next administration.
Perhaps.

But there are few better ways to maneuver politically than to be correct in the face of delusionment.

ATG wrote:

Cutting and running is not an option, I agree with Bush on that.
I agree with Bush that kids should be educated and that terrorism is bad. It's not difficult to find things to agree with him on, if they're vague enough pronouncements.

ATG wrote:

The Iraq Surrender Group's report simply was an appeasment to the antiwar crowd; it will not effect policy at all, and Bush is right to distance himself from it.
I assume by "the antiwar crowd" you meant "7 out of 10 Americans".
2006-12-21 14:46:58
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7266|Cologne, Germany

Bush has lost it. The Iraq war is a stalemate. At this point, all you do is exchange body bags for little to no considerable gain. No one "wins" in Iraq...

You have removed Saddam, and given the Iraqis a chance at democracy. Fine.
But now it's up to the Iraqis to decide for themselves if they are ready for the challenge.
2006-12-21 16:57:42
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7071

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq.
Most people from LA are liberal and don't support the war at all. Let alone the fact that nearly 100% of those surveyed are not, nor have ever been military officers. Please don't try to argue with me on part. We all know it's true.

Your other points however look valid. This one it not.
Wrong.

The fact that the poll was conducted by the LA Times has nothing to do with the findings. No newspaper would be stupid enough to conduct such a poll within a single metropolitan area. How do you think they conduct these polls... standing on the corner of Hollywood and Vine, polling passers-by?

LA Times wrote:

METHODOLOGY
The Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg Poll contacted 1,489 adults, including 1,342 registered voters, nationwide by telephone. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation, and random digit dialing techniques allowed listed and unlisted numbers to be contacted. Multiple attempts were made to contact each number. Adults were weighted slightly to conform with their respective census figures for sex, race, age, education and region. The margin of sampling error for all adults, and registered voters, is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups, the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results may also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.
Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.

Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.
2006-12-21 17:00:16
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6792|Columbus, Ohio
I remember when Kennedy did not listen to his generals.....good thing too. 

And no, I am not comparing Bush to JFK, so calm down.  I am just pointing out that this is not the first time it has happened
2006-12-21 17:02:55
sfarrar33
Halogenoalkane
+57|7043|InGerLand

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

This is incredible to me. Especially when the LA Times is finding that 12% of Americans support his call for more troops in Iraq.
because the LA times surveyed the whole of America...
not disagreeing with any of the post btw just saying that i seriously doubt that exactly 12% of all Americans support his call in Iraq, could be as different as 13%
2006-12-21 17:05:07
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7147|Eastern PA

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.

Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
2006-12-21 17:08:45
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6916|Northern California

Masques wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Ignoring a little something are we. You fail at proper debate.

Those polled were not damn military general or experts. The public wants no more troops because they believe the war is stupid/pointless/ take your pick. They still have no damn idea about military tactics or how to properly maintain peace in a place like Iraq. There for it doesn't fucking matter what the hell people think, because they have no clue. The only people I want to hear from are the generals and experts period. This is why I told you this is a worthless point and that you should focus on your other ones.
White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
Yep, even the central command general Abizaid (retiring now because of all this BS) has long since been against more troops.  I'm sure the LA Times ran that story too  so it must be false! lol
2006-12-21 17:09:16
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|7147|Eastern PA
Not to mention that Bush was Against increasing the size of the military before he was For it

Last edited by Masques (2006-12-21 17:09:50)

2006-12-21 17:27:26
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|7087|USA

Masques wrote:

Not to mention that Bush was Against increasing the size of the military before he was For it
Flip Flopper!
2006-12-21 17:30:48
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7197|PNW

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

So before when General Shinseki said we needed more troops in Iraq, Bush and Rummy ignored his words.
You know, Generals were fuming for more troops in Vietnam. Administration caved in and they got them. Where did it get us?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-21 17:31:01)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard