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 OwnerOfCalifornia on January 15, 2007 - 2:27pm.
Submitted by PerryChase on January 15, 2007 - 3:47pm.

jg, i'm curious about who you think (Republicans or Democrats) are to blame for the economy going "in the toilet" as you put it? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and won't put you on spot about Iraq 'til next year.

Republicans controlled the presidency and Congress up until recently. If their economic management skills are so good then why are we facing the prospects of the recession that you're predicting? And why are they not preparing us to face that reality?

Submitted by North County Jim on January 15, 2007 - 4:30pm.

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.

It's the demography Perry. No demographic group weds in lower numbers than professional black women.

Submitted by kristinejm on January 16, 2007 - 11:03am.

Don't post much here, anymore.

jg, you were judgmental. You quoted statistics, and yet here you had a real life example, and all you did with the opportunity was spout statistics, from a source even you admit is a biased special interest group. Real life examples are usually much more interesting, and have a chance to change opinion more readily than any summation of soulless numbers.

I am not excited by any of the Dems in '08, because I believe support for civil unions instead of full marriage rights is intellectually dishonest.

Ultimately, the tradition in America is to believe that marriage is an individual right, the right to chose a spouse and start a family. This is (currently) why we don't restrict the right based on intellectual capacity, ethnicity, financial resourses, etc. By placing restrictions on marriage (must be between a man and a woman) you are making it obvious to everyone that marriage is not an individual right, it is actually a state-sactioned priviledge.

By fighting to keep marriage (with restrictions) a state-sanctioned priveledge, the relgious right and the Republican party are not protecting marriage, they are seriously undermining it. Its as simple as Brad and Angelina saying they will get married only when everyone can get married. Who cares, right? Many long term couples feel happy with their lives, now they have the words to defer the pressure that they feel to conform to what is now obviously not the natural state of heightened commitment, but in fact a state-sponsored contract.

Gays and lesbians have had the ability to choose any model they want for their relationships. The "joy" of the community is that you decide your responsibilities, your role, not the crushing weight of history and acculturation. The intellectual leaders of the communiity have often opposed supporting the fight for marriage--why copy staight society? When hundreds (thousands) or same-sex couples lined up on the courthouse steps in MA and SF, there was no coordination; those were thousands of independent individuals, who felt the lack in their lives, who wanted marriage, and who believed in it.

By "protecting marriage", I feel society is on its way to destroying it. And, nonconformist that I am, I still believe in marriage. But for how long?

Submitted by jg on January 16, 2007 - 2:20pm.

You know the answer, Perry: the Republicans had a signal opportunity these last six years to reform Social Security, shrink government, simplify the tax code, privatize schools, etc. and blew it. Very sad to say, for me.

Same with Iraq: President Bush never gave a darn about public or media opinion (and I believe that is an outstanding trait for a leader); he should have just dictated to Al-Maliki and fought the way that we needed to (fighting and disbanding Al-Sadr, sealing the Iranian and Syrian borders, etc.). Iraq would have been swept clean by now.

Same thing for Big Bill in the '90s: if he really was a 'New' Democrat (fairly conservative, socially and fiscally), he had a great chance to get Social Security in order, etc. But, he blew it (or Monica did, ha, ha).

Ron Paul is a highly interesting character. Where I don't follow him is in his terror-fighting approach (I really think that we're at war, and must take strong measures to root out Islamo-Fascists, especially the 'sleeper cells' stateside). His economic and small government ideas make great sense, though.

kjm, may you and your partner find happiness.

Submitted by Mark Holmes on January 16, 2007 - 4:34pm.

jg, Just have to respond to your comment about 600B not equalling 600B today and the Manhattan for $28... the article clearly states that they are talking in 2006 dollars, in other words, their numbers are adjusted for inflation. Some would say this doesn't make sense, considering the number of troops involved, but think about it. We today are far more reliant on incredibly high tech (and incredibly expensive) weapons systems. At the rate we're going, if this isn't wrapped up soon, we could very well bankrupt the country. Sounds impossible? History says otherwise...countless countries, governments and empires have been brought to their knees by foreign wars. I hope the current congress can stop Bush before we join the list.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 16, 2007 - 10:16pm.

certainly are a lot of people here with a lot of style...
too bad it comes at the cost of a lack of class.

Submitted by jg on January 16, 2007 - 10:32pm.

MH, I have the GDP data for '29-'05 and the CPI data for the same period.

National defense spending over '42-'43 was $135B. The CPI index in '43 was 17.3. The CPI index in as of Nov. '06 was 202; prices went up 12X. Thus, the $135B is more like $1.6 trillion.

I don't understand the La La Times' historic numbers. And, I certainly don't trust their numbers.

Yep, wars are expensive. But, if you believe, as some of us do, that these folks would prefer to wipe us off the face of the earth/slit our throats here on our soil (read Steve Emerson's book, "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us"; I did, and it's frightening), then bankruptcy ain't so high a cost.

And, it won't come to that, if Bush does the right thing and allows our troops take off the damn gloves.

Submitted by Mark Holmes on January 17, 2007 - 12:21pm.

jg, perhaps you're right on numbers, assuming your source is better than the LA Times - I simply choose to trust one of the top five papers in the country while you choose to not. I think if the LA Times was fudging their numbers so publicly, there would be hell to pay once people started stepping forward to refute them. And yes, these people do want to wipe us off the face of the earth; but their capability to do so has been greatly exaggerated in the past six years. As it stands, I have a greater chance of being killed by an asteroid than by international terrorists. I don't think our response has been commensurate to the risk is all. We should be doing all we can to stop terrorists, but this country faces many greater risks to its well being than terrorism. I love this country as much as you do, but simply disagree with the current administrations tactics in its response to September 11th.

Submitted by lostkitty on January 18, 2007 - 4:48am.

jg-

I would say that our chances of being killed or injured by terrorists has dramatically INCREASED in the last six years. The ranks of terrorists has dramatically increased as well.

Just ask the 22,714 Americans injured, and the 3,018 dead... oh wait, cant ask that group... Sadly, they are gone forever.

"Disagreeing" with this administration's tactics in response to 9/11 is not enough. Everyone should be outraged, furious with them & their response. Things are worse without question.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 8:36am.

"Just ask the 22,714 Americans injured, and the 3,018 dead... oh wait, cant ask that group... Sadly, they are gone forever."

Speak for yourself and to what you know lostkitty. Where do you get the authority/gall to speak for others? Especially the Americans you mention above.

Submitted by jg on January 18, 2007 - 10:06am.

lk, please feel free to present your throat and those of your family to the Islamo-Fascists. I prefer to fight, and I support politicians who prefer to fight.

I did my duty for five years on the front lines of defense of our nation, and younger brave men and women have taken my place on that front line.

Ask the folks in the military, including the injured, whether they think that they're doing the right thing. You'll be surprised at what you hear.

lk, folks who do military service are different. Specifically, they are, on average, mentally, physically, and morally superior to the general civilian population. There are outstanding folks who serve willingly, sometimes tragically:
http://www.williams.edu/home/focus/kriss...

Yeah, lk, the '93 WTC bombing (i.e., more than six years ago) was just a 'cry for help and attention' from the Islamo-Fascists? Nah, lk, they wanted to kill 75-100K Americans, and still do, and are still trying.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 18, 2007 - 10:12am.

The GOP in a Quagmire. Democrats don't have to criticize Bush on Iraq anymore. The Republican insiders are doing it for them.
---------------
The GOP in a Quagmire
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers.

But Republican opposition has intensified rather than diminished since the president's speech. What was whispered privately is now declared publicly. At last week's hearing, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's second-ranking Republican -- Chuck Hagel -- called Bush's new strategy "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

Republicans can only hope that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now.
---------------

The Democrats should be sitting back, emphasize a forward-looking, positive message of economic reform, health care reform and green energy alternatives. Let the Repubicans dig their own burial hole.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 11:03am.

Well we will never win a war by trying to not lose it.

How atypical of our state of politics and illuminating the (low) caliber of our politicians, putting their own political well being before such a critical issue.

How sad that so many here buy into that mentality and start gloating over who catches the fallout of the blame game.
Who, what and how much are you willing to sacrifice for the opportunity to be able to label Bush, Rove, Republicans(!) "neocons" as those who are evil, stupid, war-mongering etc. etc. in the annals of history? to be able to crow "I/we
was/were right and you were wrong?

I am sure that when I to step into harms way, you will be right BEHIND me. When you strip my corpse, consider the courtesy to send my wedding ring to my wife.

Here's a link I like to visit;

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

Submitted by lostkitty on January 18, 2007 - 11:02am.

I did not speak for them - I did not say one word about whether or not any of those Americans agreed with the situation or why they are fighting or not.

Do not put words in my mouth.

The #'s of killed and wounded in this thing is FAR larger than we'd have had with a different response to 9/11. This administration has made things worse. there is no denying it. The numbers tell the whole story.

JG- I have been a military spouse for almost 2 decades... no need to spew that condescending BS at me.

Of course they want to kill Americans - and now they have thousands upon thousands of brothers in their ranks to help, where before there were only a few isolated groups!

Submitted by NeetaT on January 18, 2007 - 11:15am.

I believe in a bellicose nation; a nation that takes the fight to the enemy and subjugates that enemy. I believe we should send 200,000 more troops including me to the fight. What a weak nation we have become. I can't believe our nation doesn’t harbor more people with my attitude. I guess most people have an insouciant attitude towards attacks on our nation.

Submitted by PerryChase on January 18, 2007 - 11:30am.

It'll probably take 500,000 soldiers in Iraq and and outright colonisation of the country to "win." A return of the draft would kill the war efforts in a minute.

As Zbigniew Brzezinski (a foreign policy hawk) said, "the fact is, the American effort in Iraq is essentially a colonial effort. We're waging a colonial war. We live in the post-colonial era. This war cannot be won because it is simply out of sync with historical times."

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 12:26pm.

LOL ZB? I wouldn't use much of his deeds/words to validate my position. I didn't care for him when he worked for Carter and even less now. I guess short-sightedness transcends party lines eh?. I'll add, I don't see the definition of colonialism applying to our presence it Iraq. As you can see, he either won't or can't see what's happening.

Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 18, 2007 - 12:29pm.

Al Qaeda's goal has always been to goad the US into an expensive occupation and foreign war. They want to bog down and bankrupt the US in Iraq just like they bogged down and bankrupted the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Their gameplan is exactly the same as it was then, and so far we've let them rope-a-dope us just like they did the Soviets. Bin Laden has even stated this publicly, but we're all too busy watching "American Idol" and "Saw II" to listen.

Now back to sleep everyone. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace.

Submitted by SHILOH on January 18, 2007 - 12:31pm.

Using adjectives..name calling, creates emotion. Passion is good but still, solutions and action are required. What I'd like to hear is some real solutions...rather than accusing your target as being "dillusional." Can you offer a solution other than sitting back, doing nothing and speculting on what's been done? Can anyone offer a strategy to proactively intercept the kind of terrorism that hit 9/11? Or do you believe Bush is responsible for 9/11 too?

Submitted by PD on January 18, 2007 - 12:37pm.

Some observations from posts on this thread and the Obama thread:

Americans who root for failure in Iraq because they want egg on the face of republicans are a disgusting group. A true patriot would only want outcomes that strengthen our nation, not those that weaken the nation but give their political party leverage.

Carl Rove didn’t invent a new book of political tactics. Politics is and has always been a cutthroat business. I’m sure Caesar didn’t think the people stabbing him were just being nice.

I’m not buying into the “poor wittle democrats” theme who have been too busy cowering to stand up to the big bad meanie-weanie Republicans.

Lots of people here spout condemnation for partisan politics yet are extremely partisan themselves and wear big blinders. It amazes me that anyone would delude themselves into thinking that Obama would not be a partisan president even though his record (hard and fast proof of how he operates) says otherwise. But wait! He SAYS he won’t be partisan.

I bet a healthy number of soldiers killed in Iraq would not be pleased by people using them to beat an anti-war drum. What would Cindy Sheehan’s son really think about how his mother and the Democratic party have used him to further their cause? Cindy Sheehan’s husband of 28 years filed for divorce one week after she set up camp outside Bush’s ranch. How does he feel about what she is doing?

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 12:58pm.

lostkitty, no, you attempted to use their misfortune to validate your argument. "Just ask" remember? That implies that they would for all intent and purposes support your opinion. I put no words in your mouth.

As far as the results of our current response, it's purely hypothetical that the casualties are FAR larger than some other type of response. You don't know that, no one does.

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 18, 2007 - 12:58pm.

Cindy Sheehan’s husband of 28 years filed for divorce one week after she set up camp outside Bush’s ranch.

Of course he dumped her. How the hell is she gonna cook his dinner, fetch his beer, and wash his clothes if she's in Crawford?

Pa dum pum! Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen, I'll be here all week! Tip your waitresses...

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 1:18pm.

LOL

Submitted by PD on January 18, 2007 - 1:25pm.

I recently told my 10 year-old son that I was going to teach him how to cook. His perplexed response was, “Why? Men don’t cook.” :(

Submitted by jg on January 18, 2007 - 1:46pm.

PD, you are raising your son well!

As you know, sons can learn: our 11 year old whipped up some scrambled eggs and sausage for himself Monday morning.

Frightening, those comments by Z B--. Amazing. Thanks for the post, sns.

lk, what branch of the service is your husband in? French Army?

Submitted by lostkitty on January 18, 2007 - 1:52pm.

sdnaivesob-

And what was I 'implying' that they would agree with - in your mind?

Please elaborate.

I was talking exclusively about the numbers and what they represent.... an INCREASED risk of being killed or maimed by terrorists since 9/11.

Is it getting better? Are we getting it under control?
Is there less risk today? Are we safer? Do you feel safer?

Submitted by PD on January 18, 2007 - 2:05pm.

Really? Please provide links to terrorist attacks that have occurred within US borders since 9/11. I'm interested in these numbers.

Submitted by jg on January 18, 2007 - 2:10pm.

lk, that's a hilarious play on sns' 'handle.' You libs do have a sense of humor, sometimes.

I don't feel safer. I feel really, really irritated, mostly at Bush.

Build the Mexican wall. Find the terrorists in our midst and jail them. Take off the gloves in Iraq and kill the Sunni militiamen and Al Qaeda operatives. Use national (e.g., Syria) and demographic (e.g., young males) characteristics to screen airline passengers. To hell with what the UN or Europe or ACLU think.

Fight as Lincoln's general fought. Fight as Roosevelt's generals and admirals fought.

Only then will I feel safer.

History lesson for you products of government schools: in times of war, the Roman Senate elected a 'Dictator,' to serve for one year, with absolute power of life and death.

We don't need a dictator, today, but suspension of habeas corpus, herding up suspects in camps, etc. were tactics used on the homefront in the Roman Republic, and American Republic, in times of war. Use 'em to find the A-Qaeda operatives here stateside and so that Perry 'can feel the sacrifice' that he's been missing to-date.

Submitted by sdnativeson on January 18, 2007 - 2:16pm.

lostkitty, feel better now? You've shown that you can be nasty and obviously don't understand parts of your post (at least in the context that you communicated them) - read your post again. No, forget it, it's a waste of your time and I certainly won't waste my time trying to explain to you of how what you so poorly wrote comes across.

Comment viewing options

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