Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleDrill 178 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Interesting timing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Quiet celebrations are being planned throughout the military, since the guy was your basic, arrogant idiot. If he had stepped down three months ago, he might have prevented the Republicans from losing Congress. In fact, Bush's hearty endorsement of Rumsfeld last week probably pushed a lot of frustrated independent voters over the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Quiet celebrations are being planned throughout the military, since the guy was your basic, arrogant idiot. If he had stepped down three months ago, he might have prevented the Republicans from losing Congress. In fact, Bush's hearty endorsement of Rumsfeld last week probably pushed a lot of frustrated independent voters over the edge. Agree. Any guesses as to his replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Bush already had a press conference scheduled in about one minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 LINK Just in: Robert Gates will be the new SecDef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The most cynical move would be to appoiint Joe Lieberman as SoD, so that the Republican governor of Connecticut appoints a Republican Senator. That would be political suicide for the President, but then he's done a lot stupider things over the past few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleDrill 178 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Wow. A simple question turns into a bash. You guys need to go listen to Bush's comments about cooperation and moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. You mean it wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. You mean it wasn't? Not until it was on Fox, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. You mean it wasn't? Not until it was on Fox, right? Touche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. You mean it wasn't? Not until it was on Fox, right? Touche. French??? Nice!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 When the Navy Times etc starting questioniing Rumsfeld, the White House should have immediately started to listen to the officers. Say what you will, this war was not run like the commanders wanted. It was run by goals and politics, just like Vietnam to some extent. The actual levels were open to debate. But when the officers start to near openly question things, it is time to listen up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 When the Navy Times etc starting questioniing Rumsfeld, the White House should have immediately started to listen to the officers. Say what you will, this war was not run like the commanders wanted. It was run by goals and politics, just like Vietnam to some extent. The actual levels were open to debate. But when the officers start to near openly question things, it is time to listen up. Totally agreed. We clearly need more troops in Iraq to get the job done. I hope this happens real soon. I would also like to see more training of Iraqi law enforcement officers, not just the army. I fear that if we don't get control over the situation quickly over there, we will end up being forced to divide up the country, and I think that could to more chaos. I also hope that with the new SECDEF we will see a focus also on Afghanistan. With the Tailiban regrouping, we could have real trouble. I hope we aren't turning a blind eye to what was, and could continue to be a real hot bed of terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I agreed with going into Iraq and still think it was the right thing to do. However, I have became very frustrated in the way we have handled Iraq. We again, let politics get in the way of military matters. Starting to remind me of Clinton during the 90s. Clinton had the right idea for Bosnia, Somilia, Haiti, etc. But he did not commit to it properly and they all became FUBAR. At least Bush did make a commitment, unlike Clinton, but it has become a mismanaged mess in Iraq. Vets of today may eventually look at the Bush administration in such a negative way as the vets of the 90s look at Clinton in that same way. So, here is a question to ponder, will we ever have a President of the United States again that will properly manage military conflicts? Has it gotten so political now that it is impossible to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 This just announced on Fox and MSNBC. Day late, dollar short. OK...whatever that means. I think he means this should have happened before the elections. Maybe then it wouldn't have been such a bloodbath for the GOP. Very good. Glad to see someone on here doesn't need everything spelled out for them. Well, the part you quoted, "This just announced on Fox and MSNBC," and then your reply, "Day late, dollar short," could also lead one to believe that this was common knowledge in some circles outside of Fox and MSNBC, couldn't it? Hence, my reply. You mean it wasn't? Not until it was on Fox, right? Touche. French??? Nice!!! Yeah, I could be a bedwetting lib yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 When the Navy Times etc starting questioniing Rumsfeld, the White House should have immediately started to listen to the officers. Say what you will, this war was not run like the commanders wanted. It was run by goals and politics, just like Vietnam to some extent. The actual levels were open to debate. But when the officers start to near openly question things, it is time to listen up. Totally agreed. We clearly need more troops in Iraq to get the job done. I hope this happens real soon. I would also like to see more training of Iraqi law enforcement officers, not just the army. I fear that if we don't get control over the situation quickly over there, we will end up being forced to divide up the country, and I think that could to more chaos. I also hope that with the new SECDEF we will see a focus also on Afghanistan. With the Tailiban regrouping, we could have real trouble. I hope we aren't turning a blind eye to what was, and could continue to be a real hot bed of terrorism. Agreed on all points although I have my reservations still about the more troops. But, hey, if that's what it takes then so be it. The quality of training regarding the Iraqi Army/National Guard has progressed by leaps and bounds since I was there thanks to people like CCTAU's son. MTT teams are working their butts off to do this and getting no recognition for their efforts. But while we're talking about Iraqi Army personnel, and you can lump in their policemen too, it was my impression when I left there in March '05 that all they were interested in doing was wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon to look tough. Since I've been back I have heard stories of Iraqi soldiers stepping in front of American soldiers to shield them from gunfire because they are taking their job more seriously. While I'm sure that stories like this exist I am also quite sure that a significant number still exists of Iraqi soldiers/policemen that want nothing more than to be paid for wearing a uniform. I say this because not even one week ago I saw a video clip on the news of a joint American/Iraqi checkpoint in Baghdad. The Iraqi soldiers, well equipped, were standing in the background smoking cigarettes while their American counterparts were the ones actually stopping the cars and lifting the hoods and trunks to search for bombs or whatever else. In my mind, this is completely unacceptable. We need to double our efforts on training these people and force it down their throats that they MUST take more responsibility because we aren't going to be around much longer. They have to learn to swim sometime, figuratively speaking. The military uses a crawl, walk, run mentality when it comes to training. I'd say that Iraqi security forces are at a walk phase right now with the ability to pick up a light trot. The quicker they can start acting responsibly for themselves the sooner we can start to gradually pull back. I think that's a sound plan...for what it's worth...coming from a 27 year old. As for Afghanistan, I think the focus should be more pressure placed on our NATO allies. Most unilaterally agreed to take on the burden of helping that place out and they need to up the ante (sp?). America historically always throws in more than their fair share when it comes to shouldering a burden. I think a two division committment there on our part is sufficient. Like I said, NATO allies need to cowboy up with troops and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 There is a bigger issue with training the IP. The IP get orders form the local government and the IA gets its orders from the Iraqi government. In the last year, my son has had to fight the police at times. And other times he has fought alongside them. But the IA are the ones that stepped in front of him when the shooting started. The IA are trained to the point where they could fight a ground war and hang with the t=best of them. The problem would be leadership. But I'm sure now that the dims are on charge, they'l'l start popping IA leaders out of their a$$ on a daily basis. The IP are very dangeroous. They are well funded and well equipped. Much more so than the IA. However, the IA is coming up. My son's pets got their new humvees 3 months ago and were crying they were so happy. The IP hit the road in brand new Suburbans and Yukons and a lot of firepower. But like I said, they are locally controlled. Until Al Sadr is KILLED, there will only be more strife in Baghdad. The IP ARE being trained in huge numbers. The terrorists will kill 100 and 300 will get in line. I know its not happening as fast as we would like, but hell, a new country has never been born in 5 years. Took us, what, 15 years to get a constitution. And we still had rebellions on a consitent basis to deal with. We must give it a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 1776 to 1789 was 13 years actually and a very good point. The Dems of course will execute everything immediately and in flawless fashion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
channonc 466 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Until Al Sadr is KILLED, there will only be more strife in Baghdad. If this happens, what will prevent a new leader just as ruthless to take his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.