Capitalism

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

So we both agree that Iraq showed the limits of the US military. Excellent.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[El Kabong]

So we both agree that Iraq showed the limits of the US military. Excellent.

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

So we both agree that Iraq showed the limits of the US military. Excellent.

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.

An excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.

[Andre]

So we both agree that Iraq showed the limits of the US military. Excellent.

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.

An excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.

Fuck You two feeling ok today?

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

An excellent critique of the last eight years of US foreign policy. Well done Lyle.

Fuck You two feeling ok today?

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.

[Andre]

Yes I know; But ,but you agreed with Lyle !

You need to have a rest mate, go have a lie down for a while.

[Kirkland Laing]

Yes I know; But ,but you agreed with Lyle !

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.

[El Kabong]

I didn't really agree with him. Where is he anyway? I bet he's been spending the day teabagging.

...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.

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 Laing]

I didn't really agree with him. Where is he anyway? I bet he's been spending the day teabagging.

...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.

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.

[El Kabong]

Kirkland, does the US government spend too much money?

[Kirkland Laing]

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.

[VictorCharlie]

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?

[El Kabong]

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.

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.

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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?

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.