You guys never had a hope of catching Bin Laden in Afganistan.
Their old women look just like their men so he would have dressed like an old krone on a donkey and just meandered out into Puckistan. ;)
Printable View
You guys never had a hope of catching Bin Laden in Afganistan.
Their old women look just like their men so he would have dressed like an old krone on a donkey and just meandered out into Puckistan. ;)
I think Bin Laden is in London hiding out on the Underground. And I have a sneaky suspicion he has a map too. Don't tell anyone though, it's very hush hush. :detective:Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
There wasn't any territory the US copuldn't take in the Vietnam battlezones but they still ended up being kicked out. Vietnam wasn't a military success for the US and neither was Iraq. Insurgencies can be beat and the US tried and failed in Iraq. And no matter how you try to rewrite history the fact is that America put Al Quaeda people on the payroll. The official line fed to the American people was, as almost everything else they were told about Iraq, bs. And on every level, from national to overarching strategy, the US got its arse kicked.
Being able to take and hold territory is irrelevant and out-Saddaming Saddam by killing lots of people was just counterproductive, something even the Bush administration eventually worked out. And SOFA, the elections run by other people and the Iraqis controlling their own oil were all second choices by the Bush administration, the last thing they wanted to happen. Bush fought for months and years to avoid doing all three things but eventually had to bend to the Ayatollahs' will and agree to do what they wanted.
It's actually quite anti-American of you to excuse and explain away massive failure like this. It's this kind of emporer/no clothes situation that's becoming more and more prevalent in the US, with disastrous choices by the country's leaders not discussed or excused and lied about. Creating a bubble around the elite so that even when they screw things up for the country they get excused and even lauded for it is the quickest way for empires to crumble and fade away.
Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else
July 25, 2008
AFP
The Iraqi officer leading a U.S.-financed anti-jihadist group is in no mood for small talk -- either the military gives him more money or he will pack his bags and rejoin the ranks of al-Qaeda.
"I'll go back to al-Qaeda if you stop backing the Sahwa (Awakening) groups," Col. Satar tells U.S. Lt. Matthew McKernon, as he tries to secure more funding for his men to help battle the anti-U.S. insurgents.
Most members of the Awakening groups are Sunni Arab former insurgents who themselves fought American troops under the al-Qaeda banner after the fall of the regime of executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Some, like Satar, had served in Saddam's army before joining Al-Qaeda. Others were members of criminal gangs before deciding to fight the insurgents, with the backing of the U.S. military.
They earn around 300 dollars a month and their presence at checkpoints and on patrol has become an essential component of the U.S.-led coalition's strategy to restore order in the war-wracked country.
"I like my work," said Satar, who is in charge of security south of Baquba in Iraq's eastern Diyala province.
According to McKernon Satar has a contract with the U.S. military to employ 230 men "but he has more than 300" under his command, which is why he wants more money to keep them happy.
The U.S. military knows perfectly well that many people joined Awakening groups simply because it was a good way to make money, and that if the cashflow dries up some would not hesitate to return to al-Qaeda.
Ex-insurgents Want More Money, or Else
Kirk you continually circle the same crap. I have never said that we should have invaded Iraq, endorsed the plan to invade nor the administrating of Iraq post invasion. Why you keep re-hashing them is beyond me. Your allusions to Vietnam are not supporting your argument at all. It in fact is never the foreign military that ultimately defeats insurgents but the indigineous gov't/people. So mirroring Iraq and Vietnam show exactly that winning battles (ie MILITARY SUCCESS) do not equate to defeating an insurgency. And yes much like I already stated taking and holding terriroty as well as body count are irrelevant to winning against an indigineous insurgency. It is almost comical that you are simply regurgitating my own thread back at me yet attempting to use it as a counter argument. I am not explaining away any failure nor am I under allusions of how history will treat it, but considering that I've walked the streets of Baghdad and met above mentioned insurgent in combat and soundly whipped his ass time and time again I think I can pretty safely say in the pure aspect of combat the military has been tremendous. Lethal force aside the tremendous work myself and thousands of other soldiers have done to improve housing, schools, roads, markets, water supply, power supply, business grants, medical facilities etc is immeasurable. The ony shining star in this whole shit sandwich has been the American militaries boots on the ground and you sir do those men and women a great disservice and disrespect to suggest otherwise. Considering we never should have invaded in the first place...at the moment the end state is going to be an Iraqi country whose people will ultimately decide its fate...regardless of the initial intentions of the invasion this is the only way it should be.
Now lets talk about the Son's of Iraq. Firstly as I have stated and you have re stated body count doesn't = winning. We were never going to diminish AQI through attrition. For gods sake they strap bombs to down syndrom teenage girls and march them into markets. In classic counter insurgency doctrine you have to force a wedge between the insurgent and the populace where you deny sanctuary to the insurgent and fear from the populace. Although I hate admiting it the Marines in Anbar were much better at this early on than the Army. Through living in the Sunni neighborhoods, forming relationships and viciously hunting combatants it forced this wedge. The Sunnis also needed the reconcilliation. By abstaining from elections they had marginalized themselves politically. Having their own security forces to secure their neighborhoods was a pretty good deal. I don't understand how you can't see the Sunni tribes deciding to work with the US as a perfect example of counter insurgency working. The insurgent was denied sanctuary, seperated from the populace and decided to get a safer job.
Much of the AQI violence was in fact not nor is it now directed at coalition forces but at Shia communities. Sectarian violence is not something that anyone but the Iraqi people can solve. I don't know if it will ever totally end. It is a horrible truth but not a problem to be laid at the feet of anyone but its respective parties.
I dont blame the people within the military for anythng really; but I do think they are hoodwinked to a degree by the Government and the Cia too.
Like the innocent kids from all the battalions that serve in Guantanimo Bay they are doing the job and doing it right. I doubt there is physical torture there.Its a dumping ground, the end of the line after all.
How a small few of those prisoners got there and what happened to them for the months prior to getting them there,is another Cia and(anti Geneva convention matter).
Wonder where they will place the 200 that they cant release who deserve to be in there when this new President gets his way and it closes down within the year?
Special services arent hoodwinked into anything though they actually go through a very bad night or two of degrading mental and physical torture in order to just get into the regiment and thats after they've been run into ground and think theyre home safe.Then the real work begins.Tough boys and girls.
Say a Prayer for all those on the ground this Easter who ever they are.
I think the Muslim extremists will be hunting them on double time during our Christian break.
So we both agree that Iraq showed the limits of the US military. Excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Sarcasm aside, if what you meant to say was Iraq has confirmed what experts have known for years that there is no singular military solution to defeating an indigineous asymmetric insurgency then yes we agree.
It's kind of hard to be the "good guys" and play by the "rules" when the other guys don't have to....it's easier just to go around and blow shit up at random than to try and prevent such actions and still provide people the freedom to live their everyday lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
An excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyleit's easier just to go around and blow shit up at random than to try and prevent such actions and still provide people the freedom to live their everyday lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Fuck :confused: You two feeling ok today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAn excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyleit's easier just to go around and blow shit up at random than to try and prevent such actions and still provide people the freedom to live their everyday lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Yes, I'm taking the mickey out of blow-shit-up US foreign policy and specifically the eight-year-long relentless shower of shit that the Bush administration just produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreFuck :confused: You two feeling ok today?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingAn excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Yes I know; But ,but you agreed with Lyle ! :o
You need to have a rest mate, go have a lie down for a while.:)
I didn't really agree with him. Where is he anyway? I bet he's been spending the day teabagging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
...a protest is a protest no matter who it's against...I WORK for a living, so I wasn't going to spend all day holding up some crude sign like a fucking homeless person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I don't like the way the tax system is set up and I am happy there are millions of people who don't like the taxing and the spending that the government has been doing for quite some time now. It's nice that they decided to call out those responsible for this mess...the Republicans have been voted out in 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats in Congress have earned these protests.
So you weren't teabagging yesterday but teabagging is something you're OK with generally. Interesting to know. I enjoyed watching all those people displaying their teabags in public but really it's all just a big hissy fit because their guy lost the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle...a protest is a protest no matter who it's against...I WORK for a living, so I wasn't going to spend all day holding up some crude sign like a fucking homeless person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I don't like the way the tax system is set up and I am happy there are millions of people who don't like the taxing and the spending that the government has been doing for quite some time now. It's nice that they decided to call out those responsible for this mess...the Republicans have been voted out in 2006 and 2008 and the Democrats in Congress have earned these protests.
Kirkland, does the US government spend too much money?
They were spending too much money before Obama took over. Between 2000 and 2008 Bush doubled the national debt to ten trillion and gave guarantees to the banks for another ten trillion. Where were the teabaggers then? The only reason they're upset now is that their guy lost the election and there's now a black man in the White House. If McCain had won there'd be exactly the same level of spending but no teabaggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
This argument is getting so old. The thing is I know your are better than this b/c I've seen you post on this topic before. Saying that the level of Federal spending is ok b/c the last guy did it too is the kind of debate I'd have with my four year old. Also by your statement we can say that any political protest has no meaning or relevance its just b/c "their" guy lost?
The bold and underlined part answers the question, I didn't ask for a commentary on why people are angry and besides you are wrong in the conclusion you have reached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Yes the government spends too much. That's all I needed to read, and especially from you who if I am not mistaken wrote in a number of posts that America spends too much and taxes too little. The tea baggers agree that America spends ( and has spent before Obama got in office as well) too much but they don't believe raising taxes does anything other than give the government the green light to spend more money.
There might not be tea baggers had McCain won, however, there would be no lack of protesters, I am sure you will admit to that.
I'n not saying the level of spending is OK, I'm wondering why people have only got so exercised about it in the last couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
After the evidence of my Infallibility and your relentless wrongness over the past couple of years, I find it difficult to believe my eyes here. It looks like you're claiming that Kirkland Laing, The Infallible One, is wrong about something! Your arrogance is breathtaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleThe bold and underlined part answers the question, I didn't ask for a commentary on why people are angry and besides you are wrong in the conclusion you have reached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Yes the government spends too much. That's all I needed to read, and especially from you who if I am not mistaken wrote in a number of posts that America spends too much and taxes too little. The tea baggers agree that America spends ( and has spent before Obama got in office as well) too much but they don't believe raising taxes does anything other than give the government the green light to spend more money.
There might not be tea baggers had McCain won, however, there would be no lack of protesters, I am sure you will admit to that.
...as is your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Did I not mention when Barry was running, even in the Primary that any who opposed the Great Obama would be called a racist???
Am I wrong???
That is a fabrication.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle...as is your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Did I not mention when Barry was running, even in the Primary that any who opposed the Great Obama would be called a racist???
Am I wrong???
Uh no, I believe the race card was used on pretty much everyone even Bill and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8
:rolleyes: .....I LOVE how Garafolo tries to support her claims with Phrenology ;D...I guess she's finally found something that she sucks at worse than acting, comedy, and radio.
And as usual you just keep changing the subject. Why are the teabaggers only getting upset now? Where were they the last eight years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle...as is your ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Did I not mention when Barry was running, even in the Primary that any who opposed the Great Obama would be called a racist???
Am I wrong???
I think most rationale people can agree that President Bush did a pretty crappy job and it is unfortunate that while he was president many of the GOP refused come out against him. That being said many of the tea party (who picked this stupid name anyway?) attendees might be hypocrites but it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingI'n not saying the level of spending is OK, I'm wondering why people have only got so exercised about it in the last couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Most of them are there protesting about tax increases when they just got a tax cut. The money Obama increased spending by is only to counteract the cratering of the economy caused by the policies of the last eight years. He's reacting to the biggest financial disaster for nearly a century and things would be a great deal worse if he hadn't reacted. If McCain had won the election he would have done pretty much the same thing, except we wouldn't have seen any of those teabaggers out protesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChildsI think most rationale people can agree that President Bush did a pretty crappy job and it is unfortunate that while he was president many of the GOP refused come out against him. That being said many of the tea party (who picked this stupid name anyway?) attendees might be hypocrites but it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingI'n not saying the level of spending is OK, I'm wondering why people have only got so exercised about it in the last couple of months.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Kirk there is no way to know what Sen. McCain would have done and there were other options besides the tremendous amount of spending we have seen. Most of the people I have spoken to that attended the events didn't really take issue with the taxes as much as the budget and bailouts. These are philisophical differences between you and them and although you claim omnipotence it doesn't make them wrong or their opinions any less valid than yours.
And don't try to tell me that if McCain had done the same thing and it was democrats protesting that you wouldn't be on here screaming their praises either.
McCain wouldn't have done anything different to Obama. The stimulus would have been tilted more to tax cuts than government spending on things like infrastructure, which means that the stimulus would have been less effective than the Obama version will be. There really weren't any other options available except not to spend any money at all and you just have to look at how well that worked out for Hoover in the same situation to see not spending money wasn't an option. I'm not omnipotent and their opinions are worth far less than mine. They don't have coherent opinions or even understand what they're arguing about. Things they belive as articles of faith, eg. tax cuts pay for themselves and increase revenues, are total nonsense. They really are a bunch of clueless dummies, and you don't need to be omnipotent or even Infallible to know that, you just need to look at the facts and the evidence. Once you do that you can't disagree with me because the facts and the evidence are all on my side.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
The bailouts happened under Bush, who guaranteed over ten trillion worth of debt before he left office. Bush also signed the first stimulus bill. So Obama is only continuing Bush's policies.
Well for starters they could have nationalized the banks instead of bailing them out and I have even seen you post that this should have been done but we digress. It is really hard to take you seriously sometimes. You make sweeping generalizations about anyone who doesn't support Obama and who voted for McCain. You take the opinion that anyone that doesn't agree with you point for point is either misinformed or an idiot. I go to bed at night thanking god that you do not live in this country. It is that exact type of elitist self righteous attitude that we do not need in this country. It boggles my mind the amount of time and energy you spend posting on American politics and policy.
Well with the Bush Tax cuts ending soon and Obama wanting to pass things like Cap and Trade, I don't think he's going to make life cheaper for many.....a tax cut for 95% is ridiculous anyway when nowhere close to 95% of Americans pay income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
And man am I flattered, did you just copy me??? Awww, that's sweet...see you can be humble, honestly it suits you
Yes, I can see how Jeneane's opinion would really have an effect or be relevant to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
They could have nationalised the banks but both sides are dead against doing so, the GOP even moreso than the Democrats. When Obama does eventually get round to nationalising the banks the GOP will be screaming about socialism, communism etc. I'm not making sweeping generalisations about every Mccain voter, I'm pointing out quite accurately that the teabaggers are a bunch of clueless dummies that have no grasp whatsoever of the economic issues at stake. They are misinformed and they are idiots. I'm not elitist or self righteous, I just know what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
The repeal of the Bush tax cuts will only raise taxes on the top 1% of earners. The bottom 95%, the people who were out teabagging last week, will all be better off under Obama. Obama isn't giving 95% of Americans an income tax cut, he's giving them a tax cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleWell with the Bush Tax cuts ending soon and Obama wanting to pass things like Cap and Trade, I don't think he's going to make life cheaper for many.....a tax cut for 95% is ridiculous anyway when nowhere close to 95% of Americans pay income taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
And man am I flattered, did you just copy me??? Awww, that's sweet...see you can be humble, honestly it suits you
And I don't understand your last point.
Economically speaking you probably know more than just about anyone I personally know...but Kirk you don't know or seem to have a good understanding of Americans. So your ramblings about our policies, politics and "knowing whats best for us" comes off really self righteous and pretentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThey could have nationalised the banks but both sides are dead against doing so, the GOP even moreso than the Democrats. When Obama does eventually get round to nationalising the banks the GOP will be screaming about socialism, communism etc. I'm not making sweeping generalisations about every Mccain voter, I'm pointing out quite accurately that the teabaggers are a bunch of clueless dummies that have no grasp whatsoever of the economic issues at stake. They are misinformed and they are idiots. I'm not elitist or self righteous, I just know what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
The only money Obama spent other than the regular budget was the stimulus money. This is about 700 billion, or about 7% of the money the Bush administration had guaranteed the banks to cover their losses before Obama took office. And the 700 billion stimulus is to prevent economic meltdown caused by Bush's disastrous economic policies! It's something all economists agree is needed, there's almost no argument between reputable economists on the stimulus, just a little on how to actually spend the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChildsEconomically speaking you probably know more than just about anyone I personally know...but Kirk you don't know or seem to have a good understanding of Americans. So your ramblings about our policies, politics and "knowing whats best for us" comes off really self righteous and pretentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingThey could have nationalised the banks but both sides are dead against doing so, the GOP even moreso than the Democrats. When Obama does eventually get round to nationalising the banks the GOP will be screaming about socialism, communism etc. I'm not making sweeping generalisations about every Mccain voter, I'm pointing out quite accurately that the teabaggers are a bunch of clueless dummies that have no grasp whatsoever of the economic issues at stake. They are misinformed and they are idiots. I'm not elitist or self righteous, I just know what I'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
In 1929 a huge financial/property bubble burst and America tipped into a bad recession and eventual deflation, not helped by the fact that the banks were insolvent and stopped lending. The Prez at the time Herbert Hoover, decided to let the market take its course and the economy recover eventually with no government interference. The economic situation at the time was actually better than the current situation in terms of bad debt, consumer debt etc.
By 1932 when FDR took office the economic machinery had completely broken down. The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade had closed. Thirty-two states had shut their banks.
Illinois and much of the South had stopped paying teachers. Schools closed for months. An army of 25,000 famished war veterans squatting in view of Congress had been charged by troopers of the 3rd US cavalry with naked sabres – led by a Major George Patton.
Armed farmers threatening revolution had laid siege to a string or Prairie cities. A mob had stormed the Nebraska Capitol. Minnesota's governor was recruiting Communists only for the state militia. Lawyers attempting to enforce foreclosures were shot. More than 100,000 New Yorkers applied to go to the Soviet Union when Moscow advertised for 6,000 skilled workers.
The $700 billion stimulus is an attempt to prevent the US economy tipping into the kind of deflationary meltdown that happened between 1929-32. America is already facing deflation, prices are going negative right now, but hopefully the stimulus will prevent it getting too bad and us getting a 1930s repeat. So really the 700 large is a drop in the bucket compared to actual losses now and potential losses to come if the economy keeps tanking.
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
FDR's New Deal hurt millions of poor people : USD College Republicans
FDR Was a Great Leader, But His Economic Plan Isn't One to Follow - washingtonpost.com
I don't have an opinion on this really, but apparently not all historians believe the New Deal was the best or only solution.
Will the stimulus actually stimulate? Economists say no | McClatchy
Gateway Pundit: 200 Top Economists Say "Stimulus" Bill Won't Work
For Many Economists, Stimulus Falls Flat - CBS News
I didn't disagree with the stimulus bill in principle just the parts that seemed political but apparently not ALL economists thought it was the best idea. Lastly with a country in economic crisis what I did expect is an effort to dramatically curb our budget. I can agree to disagree on the parts of the stimulus package and omnibus that I philisophically oppose but my simple Soldier mind cannot fathom why we haven't slashed federal spending across the board.
FDR made several mistakes but overall the New Deal was a huge success. If you read the UCLA critique they're attacking FDR's incomes and pricing policies, something which was tried at the time but eventually ended by FDR as it wasn't working. You'cw got to remember at the time economics as a discipline was in its infancy, nothing like the depression had ever happened and every possible theory was tried, the ones that didn't work were discontinued. New Deal opponents claim that the government spending didn't end the depression and only WW2 finally did but WW2 was just a gigantic government spending programme, far bigger than the New Deal, so either way it was government spending which ended the depression that was caused by no government spending when the bubble burst in 1929, something that thankfully didn't happen this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanChilds
Yes, lots of people disagree with the current stimulus. If you actually read those articles you'll see that most of the criticism of the stimulus comes from the left with liberal economists claiming it isn't big enough, gives too much in tax cuts etc. The right claim it gives too little in tax cuts. History and all the evidence shows us that tax cuts are a far inferior method of generating economic growth than government spending. So like I said in the previous post no reputable people really disagree that the government should spend money, they just disagree over how the money should be spent.
And the government isn't cutting spending because government spending is the whole point of the exercise. Consumers have stopped spending (consumer spending is 70% of the economy/GDP), business have stopped investing because nobody is spending, people are being laid off because everything is slow. Those laid off people cease spending too, which creates more layoffs/falls in spending, which can lead to a vicious deflaionary spiral. like what happened in 1929. That's why the government is increasing spending! If they don't, the whole thing can easily tip into depression because [i]nobody else is spending.[i] The government is currently the lender of last resort and now has also to be the spender of last resort.