18 Iraqi brigades?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by TheBreeze on January 11, 2007 - 3:49am

Did I hear the President right? Did he say that Iraq has committed to supplying 18 brigades to help with the U.S. troop surge? Didn't the Iraqis commit to 6 brigades last time and only 2 showed up?

Jesus. This president is delusional. I hope you enjoy drinking his Kool-Aid all you rightwing nutjobs out there. As for me, I'm looking forward to Obama bringing some real leadership, forthrightness, and good, old-fashioned common sense back to the office of the presidency in '08.

I'd say this half-assed plan the president outlined tonight has almost guaranteed that a Democrat will be president in '08.

Submitted by technovelist on January 11, 2007 - 6:20am.

I'd be very surprised if a Democrat were to be president in '08. About the only way that could happen is if Bush resigns or is impeached and convicted, and Cheney has a heart attack. Then Pelosi would be president. Otherwise, I'm afraid we'll have to wait until '09.

Submitted by jg on January 11, 2007 - 9:25am.

Breeze, lay off 'nutjobs' and 'half-assed.' Pick up a vocabulary, guy.

Submitted by lostkitty on January 11, 2007 - 10:12am.

I like your vocabulary Breeze, and your comments too. I agree wholeheartedly. Nutjobs.

Submitted by deadzone on January 11, 2007 - 10:19am.

Calling Bush a nutjob is giving him too much credit.

Submitted by bigtrouble on January 11, 2007 - 10:44am.

President Clusterfuck looked like crap last night- why? Obvious- he was forced to deliver a speech that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

If the future of the nation hangs in the balance- and the problem is too few troops- and this is the last time to get it right- then how many troops do you send? Half a million is the right answer- cause you believe that you CANNOT AFFORD TO FAIL-and you institute a draft and raise taxes to pay for it-

But no- Clusterfuck tells us that our very lives hang in the balance and sends 20,000 additional troops- and really these are not additional troops- it’s the same level he had a year ago- which didn’t work. It all show. We are all just FA, another fucked american.

So, want to elect McCain? IF of course you believe we MUST not fail, the only way to "win" this war is to institute the draft, right? Kiss your boys and girls in bed tonight. '08 election might determine if that 8th or 9th grader will be sent to die for Bush's folly.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 11, 2007 - 11:06am.

Well said bidtrouble.

Could it be that Bush is setting up Malaki to take responsibility for failure? Remember this is politics and the Republicans cannot be blamed for failure in Iraq. Bush is giving Malaki 20,000 troops (which is nothing as you pointed out); then when things don't work out, Bush will simply blame Malaki and withdraw.

TheBreeze, I also like your vocabulary. Hawks would like to paint those who oppose Bush are limp-wrist pacifist ivory tower academics living in lala land -- not. We are normal Americans who see a clusterfuck where a clusterfuck exists.

Submitted by PD on January 11, 2007 - 11:16am.

Wow, a bunch of people who rejoice in name calling. It just makes a person sound SOOOOOO smart, logical and informed. Perhaps President Bush just needs to add some name calling to his vocabulary to sound smart to you folks.

Submitted by anxvariety on January 11, 2007 - 12:37pm.

I consider Bush a liberal..

Submitted by PerryChase on January 11, 2007 - 9:31pm.

The opposition to Bush on Iraq is now growing bi-partisan.

Chuck Hagel criticizes Bush on Iraq.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring Condoleezza Rice Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam veteran, 2008 presidential contender and longtime critic of administration policy in Iraq, received applause when he told the secretary of state that the president's plan is "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam. If it's carried out, I will resist it."


Submitted by LookoutBelow on January 11, 2007 - 9:44pm.

Clusterfuck, Nutjobs, Half-Assed, ANA (Another Fucked American) are all real words that do NOTHING to detract from a persons intelligence. I particularly like it. If used correctly, its a form of eloquence. I like people with passion, nothing wrong with expressing yourselves passionately in my book. Feel free, no complaints here.

If these terms offend you, you might want to grow a pair or take the rose colored glasses off, climb down off your ivory tower,  quit folding your wifes panty's for a few minutes and LOOK at what is happening to your nation. If that doesnt rouse your "passions", then god bless you.

 In addition, I dont know of ANYOTHER way to describe this current administration accurately ? 

I voted for the idiot and I am ashamed of myself and feel like a total sucker. In fact, because of this administration I refuse to travel overseas as an American .....Im just AFA  

Submitted by jg on January 11, 2007 - 10:56pm.

Yeah, you guys are tough and brilliant. I'd would have loved to see you boys on my submarine or destroyer back in the '80s. In fact, I look forward to having nice discussions with you at the next meet up.

See you then, foul mouths.

Ex-sailor who can talk like a sailor but has some decency about himself

Submitted by jg on January 11, 2007 - 11:12pm.

Perry, you call yourself a normal American?

A single, adult, bisexual male is 'normal'?

Where do you live, la la land?

Submitted by lostkitty on January 12, 2007 - 4:57am.

jg - You've pounded your bible and told us about your superior values so many times that we cant even hear you anymore. Maybe you should start swearing - it would add some color to your words.

Certainly your constant harsh judgement/criticisms of others' lifestyles is not a Christian, loving , way of behaving. Your endless attacks on people... also not very Christian.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 12, 2007 - 10:59am.

jg, I didn't say that i'm bisexual in the way you probably think. No, I don't engage in depraved sex twice a day.

I said I had sex with men, so yes, that makes me bisexual. Most humans are bisexual and have had homosexual experiences. They are just too chicken or constrained by society to admit it. I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, it's perfectly normal. You should open your eyes and see what's going on in the real world.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 12, 2007 - 11:01am.

How Republicans win if we lose in Iraq
Rosa Brooks - LA Times

Bush and the GOP are shifting tactics just like Nixon did with Vietnam -- to win the next election, not the war.
January 12, 2007

IF YOU THINK the growing similarity between Iraq and Vietnam is tragic but inadvertent, you're not being cynical enough.

During the first years of the Iraq war, any resemblance to Vietnam was the result of the Bush administration's disastrous miscalculations. But today, the Iraq war is looking more and more like the Vietnam War because that's exactly what suits the White House.


Submitted by PerryChase on January 12, 2007 - 11:09am.

Chuck Hagel interview on Charlie Rose.


Submitted by zk on January 12, 2007 - 1:00pm.


I don't know which is more amazing: your hypocrisy or your failure to see that your hypocrisy is blatantly obvious and that your attempts to put down your fellow posters only reflect badly on yourself.

Your style of debate is consistently confrontational and condescending. You mock your fellow posters by sarcastically calling them "tough and brilliant." Then you imply that they wouldn't measure up on your destroyer (when you know next to nothing about them or their toughness). Then, in the same post, you claim to have more decency than them.

While we're at it, I'd be interested in what fine distinction you make between calling someone "wild-eyed" and calling someone a "nut job" that you can do the former and consider yourself "decent," while someone who does the latter isn't decent.

I don't see any decency about you at all. I just see a silly clown who hopes that a condescending attitude and a lot of bravado can overcome a lack of intellect.

Submitted by PD on January 12, 2007 - 1:47pm.

Lookoutbelow, my comment regarding this playground type name calling has nothing to do with being offended. Additionally, even though many other people would be offended by your attempt to marginalize me through my gender, I am not.

As for growing a pair, I already have a nice (metaphorical) set that I carry around with me and whip out whenever I need a little extra testosterone. I’m thinking that mine are bigger than yours. :)

Submitted by jg on January 12, 2007 - 10:04pm.

Yep, zk, you're right about me using 'wild-eyed' and calling others to account for using 'nut job.' I agree; no difference, lack of tact on my part.

But, when I use such, it's really in a sense of parody: painting, using bright, broad brush strokes, someone with all of the overblown adjectives.

PC, bisexual has one meaning: sex with both men and women. I don't confuse such with 'sex twice per day,' which would be 'bis in die' sexual or 'bid'sexual (physicians use the shorthand 'BID' when they write precriptions, to have the pharmacist type, "Take twice per day").

An article came out recently tabulating rate of ever-having-had-a-homosexual-experience by men and women; I can't find it, but it was, I think, 4% for men and 11% for women. I was surprised at how high it was for women.

No, Perry, your experience is not the norm.

Submitted by lostkitty on January 13, 2007 - 5:05am.

jg - Your tone is decidedly different in this post than in most of your others. I hope that is because you agree about the hypocrisy of repeatedly saying you are such a devout Christian while constantly verbally attacking and passing judgement on people.... some ruthlessly.

This behavior would not make Jesus very pleased, but he would offer love and support to an angry soul who behaved in this way.

Submitted by jg on January 13, 2007 - 10:23am.

lk, with kjm, I tried to illuminate the data that adoption by gays is bad for society. kjm may be a good mother (or father), but raising kids is difficult, serious work, and society should 'idealize' the structure -- married biological or adoptive parents -- that has, over the course of time, done, on average, the best job of raising children. I don't recall making a personal attack on kjm.

ps is highly irritating, but my blanket statement about the quality of her contributions vs. her irritation-inducing-level was a bit (but only a bit) much. I stand moderated.

zk was right about my statements.

What, are Christians not allowed to say, "This is right!" "This is wrong!" or "This is irritating!" The good Lord threw the moneychangers out of the temple. The good Lord stated that some things bear supporting and others do not: (John 15:2) "Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He (God, the Father) takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it, that it may bear more fruit."

I said that Perry was not normal; I did not say he was evil and I did not condemn him to hell. Jeepers, I have mixed success getting my wife and kids to follow my lead (PC vs. Mac, fish vs. pasta); I certainly don't have a direct line to St. Peter.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 13, 2007 - 12:23pm.

jg, I'm not in the least offended by your comments. I'm entertained by them. In some ways i agree with you -- we should encourage that "good" and discourage the "bad." However, I find quoting the Bible and the holier-than-thou attitudes to be over to top.

My Catholic education taught me good manners and discipline but I never believed all the religious stuff.

Your way of thinking reminds me of Victorian/Edwardian society where people projected prim and proper images but would do wicked things in the dark.

Submitted by PD on January 13, 2007 - 12:43pm.

You all expect JG to be tolerant of you and/or alternate lifestyles yet you are not tolerant of his conservative view. Thats a nice little taste of hypocrisy.

Further, before anyone begins to harangue me and accuse me blindly defending JG, I do believe that I am on record as saying that I am in favor of civil unions. I'll even go a step farther and say that I believe homosexuality is a natural state for a low percentage of the human population.

Submitted by jg on January 13, 2007 - 1:29pm.

PD, I agree with you, that homosexuality probably is a normal state for small proportion of the population. My druthers are to keep it in the background, not as a publicized, or lionized (i.e., marriage or taught as 'normal' in school), choice. Let 'em be; heck, Falwell, the Pope, and other orthodox Christian leaders don't go around preaching the stoning, burning, and hating of 'em.

If they want to will stuff to each other, great. But, allowing them to adopt makes no sense to me, as, on average, it is a dangerous choice for children. That's what Christianity is really about: protecting the weak, ill, and less fortunate.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 14, 2007 - 3:01pm.

jg, i'm writing my answer here not to clutter the stadium thread.

Bravo, Barbara Boxer! She did a great thing to raise the issue of who pays the price of war -- certainly not the leaders who send soldiers to war. It's important for the public to confront this issue. Thanks to Barbara Boxer, voters in Middle America, who voted for Bush, are now realizing they are being betrayed by the very person they voted for.

jg, do you think it's "normal" for Condi Rice to stay single at her age? She has a hot bod for her age, huh? Maybe there's more to it than you think.

As far as the Chargers are concerned, they can pay their own way; or somehow pass on the cost to their fans. Elderly retirees, or other members of the public who aren't fans shouldn't be asked to subsidize millionaires.

Submitted by powayseller on January 14, 2007 - 4:01pm.

Perry's personal adventures have nothing to do with Bush's war plan. Shifting the focus from Iraqi Brigades to insulting Perry, is a last resort for those who are unable to defend the plan on its own merits. But then, maybe they are encouraged by a recent comment that name calling shows "strong social skills"?

Submitted by PerryChase on January 14, 2007 - 9:44pm.

War costs are hitting historic proportions
The price tag for the Iraq conflict and overall effort against terrorism is expected to surpass Vietnam's next year.
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
January 14, 2007


WASHINGTON — By the time the Vietnam war ended in 1975, it had become America's longest war, shadowed the legacies of four presidents, killed 58,000 Americans along with many thousands more Vietnamese, and cost the U.S. more than $660 billion in today's dollars.

By the time the bill for World War II passed the $600-billion mark, in mid-1943, the United States had driven German forces out of North Africa, devastated the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Midway, and launched the vast offensives that would liberate Europe and the South Pacific.

The Iraq war is far smaller and narrower than those conflicts, and it has not extended beyond the tenure of a single president. But its price tag is beginning to reach historic proportions, and the budgetary "burn rate" for Iraq may be greater than in some periods in past wars.

Submitted by jg on January 15, 2007 - 9:05am.

Yeah, you're right, Perry, $600B from the '40s equals $600B today.

Yeah, and you should be able to buy Manhattan today for $28, too, huh.

Unless the $600B is an INCREMENTAL cost figure, be careful.

And, now that we get to take the gloves off in Iraq, we're gonna win within the year.

Like housing, gold, and the stock market, I feel confident in my views and am biding my time. We'll see.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 15, 2007 - 11:41am.

And, now that we get to take the gloves off in Iraq, we're gonna win within the year.

The setup is perfect now. If our war effort succeeds this year, we can thank Bush for his steadfast leadership in the face of heavy domestic opposition (even from his own generals), but if we fail, we can blame the whole mess on the Democratically-controlled congress and the "blame-America-first" crowd. Either way we will have been right and we will always have been right!

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Submitted by jg on January 15, 2007 - 1:36pm.

Concho, I think that either way, win or lose in Iraq, Republicans lose the presidency. If the economy is in the toilet in Nov. '08 (and I think it will be, big-time), Republicans will lose, no matter how well things went in Iraq.

I say this as the Republican precinct representative in my neighborhood. I'm not happy about it, but that's the way it will be, I think.

I just hope it ain't Osama or Clintong who takes the White House; c'mon Joe Lieberman!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.