for the americans, or anyone who watched president bush's speech, what did you think about it, ill comment later.
I did not see it.. anyone have a link ?
US President George W. Bush has taken responsibility for the "unacceptable" violence in Iraq as he announced that an extra 21,500 troops will be sent to the country...he has admitted there were not enough troops sent to Iraq to secure the country after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Sounds contradictory to itself towards the end. Guaranteeing the plan will be a success, then stepping it back and saying it will be a step towards success?
Who writes this shit anyways?
^I didn't catch if it was 21,500 total. Does that include the 4,000 in the penninsula region, or is that force in addition to the 21,500?
Who writes this shit anyways?
^I didn't catch if it was 21,500 total. Does that include the 4,000 in the penninsula region, or is that force in addition to the 21,500?
Last edited by tefI0n (2007-01-10 18:28:48)
Well, agree or disagree at least he didn't sound like a dumbass...lol(Leaning on the podium...etc..)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Americans are tired of the violence. (Something like that)
That was one quote that just cracked me up. We are... yet you're sending more troops over?
Anyways, we can't leave Iraq now, it'd be a disaster, so I'd agree with his speech this time.
That was one quote that just cracked me up. We are... yet you're sending more troops over?
Anyways, we can't leave Iraq now, it'd be a disaster, so I'd agree with his speech this time.
We are so going to war with Iran. Setting up patriot missile systems? Gee I wonder if that creates a safe highway for our aircraft and cruise missiles to level the shit our of what ever ? I pray Iran crosses the boarder with tanks and troops and attacks us. I wonder if they posses the resistance not to ?
If they wanted to stop the insurgency they would go after the real root of the problem. We still have some gaping holes in logic.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
If anything it would be us attacking them. We'd be the ones rolling tanks in.jonnykill wrote:
We are so going to war with Iran. Setting up patriot missile systems? Gee I wonder if that creates a safe highway for our aircraft and cruise missiles to level the shit our of what ever ? I pray Iran crosses the boarder with tanks and troops and attacks us. I wonder if they posses the resistance not to ?
EXCERPTS FROM THE PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS TO THE NATION
Wed Jan 10 2007 18:42:47 ET
Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the White House to lay out his plan for a new way forward in Iraq.
On the new strategy:
Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
On the role of the Iraqis:
Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
On securing Baghdad:
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
On what Iraq must do:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.
On the economic component:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
On protecting the American people:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.
On what victory in Iraq will look like:
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
On bringing our troops home:
[To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
Wed Jan 10 2007 18:42:47 ET
Tonight President Bush will address the Nation from the White House to lay out his plan for a new way forward in Iraq.
On the new strategy:
Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
On the role of the Iraqis:
Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
On securing Baghdad:
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
On what Iraq must do:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.
On the economic component:
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
On protecting the American people:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time…In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region.
On what victory in Iraq will look like:
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security…The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will…Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship…A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
On bringing our troops home:
[To]step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government…Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.
To me this sounds like the same old, same old.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You want Iran to attack?jonnykill wrote:
We are so going to war with Iran. Setting up patriot missile systems? Gee I wonder if that creates a safe highway for our aircraft and cruise missiles to level the shit our of what ever ? I pray Iran crosses the boarder with tanks and troops and attacks us. I wonder if they posses the resistance not to ?
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work…and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
Before they would clear and leave. With more troops they should be able to clear and hold. Hopefully some will be able to the difference. Workable or not this is a different strategy.
Before they would clear and leave. With more troops they should be able to clear and hold. Hopefully some will be able to the difference. Workable or not this is a different strategy.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-11 00:09:13)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Canada FTW !
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-3.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007 … 011007.pdf
These two documents make interesting reading.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007 … 011007.pdf
These two documents make interesting reading.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Lets see -
1) Replacing the chief of operations for the theatre with a Navy admiral.
2) Firing and replacing generals that disagree with him.
3) The "surge", accomplished by not letting soldiers rotate out when their replacements arrive.
4) A 2nd Carrier group in the Gulf to supplement the first...not a replacement.
5) An announcement of Patriot missile batteries being deployed...useful for shooting down IEDs?
6) Declaration that Iran's national bank is funding terror.
Why the hell did Bush even mention the patriot missiles in his speech? It had absolutely nothing to do with the counter-insurgency and was a very specific thing to mention. All things I'm seeing is a very big sabre-rattling against Iran...VERY big. The troop surge will be needed to help keep a lid on Shiite areas when Iran gets attacked, more carriers/aircraft and land-based missile defense are only useful against someone with a big airforce or missile attack capability.
Dear god, Bush and the neo-cons are fucking crazy and nobody is doing a damned thing about it.
A war with Iran would get China and Russia involved quickly. Russia because Iran is right on their border and China because Iran is one of their biggest oil and gas suppliers (possibly their biggest). I don't know what to think anymore, I'm just in shock that they would push things this far.
1) Replacing the chief of operations for the theatre with a Navy admiral.
2) Firing and replacing generals that disagree with him.
3) The "surge", accomplished by not letting soldiers rotate out when their replacements arrive.
4) A 2nd Carrier group in the Gulf to supplement the first...not a replacement.
5) An announcement of Patriot missile batteries being deployed...useful for shooting down IEDs?
6) Declaration that Iran's national bank is funding terror.
Why the hell did Bush even mention the patriot missiles in his speech? It had absolutely nothing to do with the counter-insurgency and was a very specific thing to mention. All things I'm seeing is a very big sabre-rattling against Iran...VERY big. The troop surge will be needed to help keep a lid on Shiite areas when Iran gets attacked, more carriers/aircraft and land-based missile defense are only useful against someone with a big airforce or missile attack capability.
Dear god, Bush and the neo-cons are fucking crazy and nobody is doing a damned thing about it.
A war with Iran would get China and Russia involved quickly. Russia because Iran is right on their border and China because Iran is one of their biggest oil and gas suppliers (possibly their biggest). I don't know what to think anymore, I'm just in shock that they would push things this far.
China does not want a war with the US.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Lets see -
1) Replacing the chief of operations for the theatre with a Navy admiral.
2) Firing and replacing generals that disagree with him.
3) The "surge", accomplished by not letting soldiers rotate out when their replacements arrive.
4) A 2nd Carrier group in the Gulf to supplement the first...not a replacement.
5) An announcement of Patriot missile batteries being deployed...useful for shooting down IEDs?
6) Declaration that Iran's national bank is funding terror.
Why the hell did Bush even mention the patriot missiles in his speech? It had absolutely nothing to do with the counter-insurgency and was a very specific thing to mention. All things I'm seeing is a very big sabre-rattling against Iran...VERY big. The troop surge will be needed to help keep a lid on Shiite areas when Iran gets attacked, more carriers/aircraft and land-based missile defense are only useful against someone with a big airforce or missile attack capability.
Dear god, Bush and the neo-cons are fucking crazy and nobody is doing a damned thing about it.
A war with Iran would get China and Russia involved quickly. Russia because Iran is right on their border and China because Iran is one of their biggest oil and gas suppliers (possibly their biggest). I don't know what to think anymore, I'm just in shock that they would push things this far.
Financial reasons mostly. We have both become quite dependent on each other economically.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
my favorite part was when he said the one clear message that came out of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group report was that failure in Iraq was unacceptable.. No George that was not the main message that came from that report which YOU have rejected, along with the Generals you sacked because they expressed the same sentiments that the Iraq study presented you. What a little fucking dictator you have become (not to a lot of peoples surprise)
Who said war? Russia and china can squeeze us economically and politically without firing a shot. After all, you just said we depend on them.Kmarion wrote:
China does not want a war with the US.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Lets see -
1) Replacing the chief of operations for the theatre with a Navy admiral.
2) Firing and replacing generals that disagree with him.
3) The "surge", accomplished by not letting soldiers rotate out when their replacements arrive.
4) A 2nd Carrier group in the Gulf to supplement the first...not a replacement.
5) An announcement of Patriot missile batteries being deployed...useful for shooting down IEDs?
6) Declaration that Iran's national bank is funding terror.
Why the hell did Bush even mention the patriot missiles in his speech? It had absolutely nothing to do with the counter-insurgency and was a very specific thing to mention. All things I'm seeing is a very big sabre-rattling against Iran...VERY big. The troop surge will be needed to help keep a lid on Shiite areas when Iran gets attacked, more carriers/aircraft and land-based missile defense are only useful against someone with a big airforce or missile attack capability.
Dear god, Bush and the neo-cons are fucking crazy and nobody is doing a damned thing about it.
A war with Iran would get China and Russia involved quickly. Russia because Iran is right on their border and China because Iran is one of their biggest oil and gas suppliers (possibly their biggest). I don't know what to think anymore, I'm just in shock that they would push things this far.
Financial reasons mostly. We have both become quite dependent on each other economically.