T Nation

George W and Surge

Not the strongest endorsement… :wink:

i didnt even know they still made that drink…

Well, it’s out of stock at the momment, so it must still be popular!

The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.[/quote]

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

[quote]orion wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

[/quote]

Or maybe he is attempting to bring the troop level to a level that will accord for the US to win in Iraq.

You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

Or maybe he is attempting to bring the troop level to a level that will accord for the US to win in Iraq.

You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

[/quote]

Sure, but you won`t and everybody knows it…

Since that is no longer an option, how do you justify sacrificing people for it?

You really think 20000 more are going to do much good?

No, you don`t…

Help me out, i thought Surge was supposed to be essential?

Or some peri work out drink.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?
[/quote]

Dude, please. Don’t try to turn this around and make it about me. This is Bush’s war, and there was no plan for success after the initial invasion. The president has a major credibility problem now. J

ust a few weeks ago Bush told the press “Absolutely, we’re winning”. A few weeks later we have a show about trying to find a new path for success. They haven’t been telling the truth about Iraq for 4 years… that’s why a lot of people still mistakenly talk about ‘winning a war’ in Iraq, when what we are actually trying to do is hold together three different factions, and prevent Iraq from disintigrating.

That’s really not something that you “win” with an occupation army. I’m not even sure how realistic the mission is. If it can be accomplished, it will take diplomatic finesse, international cooperation, and willingness to make compromises… all things that Bush’s team are weak at doing.

The time to be talking about the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions and the difficult political situation holding them together in a post-Saddam Iraq, should have happened BEFORE Bush rushed into attacking Iraq, not afterwards.

Yeah, I hope “we win” in Iraq. I also hope I win the lottery. Pardon me for being a realist. Bush royally screwed the pooch in Iraq, pardon me for not getting over it already.

[quote]orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

Or maybe he is attempting to bring the troop level to a level that will accord for the US to win in Iraq.

You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

Sure, but you won`t and everybody knows it…[/quote]

Wow, now that’s some good old fashioned European pessimism right there.

Seriously, that’s like saying I’ll never reach a 600lb squat, no matter what. We both know however that with appropriate training, and the right “surge” in intensity, I could reach that goal.

[quote]
Since that is no longer an option, how do you justify sacrificing people for it?

You really think 20000 more are going to do much good?

No, you don`t…[/quote]

Yes I do.

Like I said, I’m an optimist. And I think that it just might be possible that the increased intesity in the war effort just might do the trick. As long as we can do something about those pesky Syrians and Iranians that keep screwing with Iraq’s success.

The quickest way to lose the race is to stop running.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

Dude, please. Don’t try to turn this around and make it about me.[/quote]

Well, since we are discussing your post, I see nothing wrong with making my reply post about your post.

Agreed. Post invasion Iraq has been handled terribly, no argument there from me.

I just get sick and tired of hearing the catch phrase “win the peace”. What a load of shit. Like any military in the history of the world went in to battle with a plan to “win the peace”. An army goes in to battle with a plan to kick ass, period. GW simply mismanaged the post war cleanup something terrible.

I hate to be captain obvious bradley, but yes we are trying to “win” in Iraq,by holding together three different factions, and prevent Iraq from disintegrating.

And what exactly haven’t they been telling the truth about? Do you mean to say that since they haven’t been in front of the tv with your level of pessimism and repeated the gloom and doom of the MSM, that they’ve been “lying”? That’s intellectually dishonest I think.

I think that Iraq is a unique situation indeed, but didn’t we make it work in Japan and Germany in post WWII? I believe that it should be possible to do it again as long as we can figure out how to keep Iran and Syria from meddling in Iraq. Seriously, that’s a huge problem for us right now.

I’ve already stated that the administration screwed the pooch in post invasion Iraq. Many mistakes were made, however does that relegate the US to a policy of “fuck it, let’s just go home. It’s getting too rough.” I think we have an obligation to put Iraq on the right track and not leave it to be devoured by Iran, Syria, etc.

I think we need to focus on winning w/r/t our efforts in Iraq, and not losing.

Your “realism” smells more like pessimism. The reality is that we can win, with the right plan and support. We’ll see if Bush can get that done. I certainly don’t envy the job in front of him, what with having to deal with the “anybody but Bush, or ANY of his policies” party and the MSM.

Tough job indeed.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

Or maybe he is attempting to bring the troop level to a level that will accord for the US to win in Iraq.

You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

[/quote]

Dems don’t want to win. They get power when America loses. Just look at the people, like Ahmani-jihad, who were thrilled when the Dems won in '06; he now knows that all he has to do is wait.

Let’s hope the Chinese can do a better job of policing the world than we did.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Agreed. Post invasion Iraq has been handled terribly, no argument there from me.[/quote]

The war was totally unnecessary in the first place… the “biggest strategic blunder in American history” according to some, across the political spectrum.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report on how the White House manipulated intelligence to sell the invasion to Congress and the public, should be coming out soon. The Republicans were able to supress a lot of things from the public, while they controlled Congress. That’s over now.

It’s a really nice deflection of responsibility, when people say “Oh, well Bush made mistakes after the invasion”. Occupying Iraq was a patently stupid idea from the very beginning. It never made any sense to begin with. Bush Senior knew it, Powell knew it.

I just get sick and tired of hearing the catch phrase “win the peace”. What a load of shit. Like any military in the history of the world went in to battle with a plan to “win the peace”. An army goes in to battle with a plan to kick ass, period. GW simply mismanaged the post war cleanup something terrible.

I already gave you a perfectly good recent example: Just a few weeks ago Bush told the press “Absolutely, we’re winning”. Then a few weeks later we have Bush making a show about trying to find a new path for success. Wait, I thought Absolutely we’re winning?

Bush and his team having been lying about Iraq all along. It would be faster and easier to find examples of times that Bush has been telling the truth.

Here’s a good article:
“McClatchy Report: Are Americans Getting Truth on Iraq?”
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003532412

Bush and his team refuse to answer the question “What happens if the surge doesn’t work?” They say they don’t want to plan ahead on a contingency of failure…But isn’t that EXACTLY why we are over a barrel in Iraq right now… because nobody had a plan beyond the initial overthrow of Baghdad?

Go ahead and say I’m pessimistic, that the media is full of gloom. Whatever, dude… The fact is that YOU have been supporting the president’s failure, and I haven’t.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Agreed. Post invasion Iraq has been handled terribly, no argument there from me. [/quote]

The war was totally unnecessary in the first place… the “biggest strategic blunder in American history” according to some, across the political spectrum.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report on how the White House manipulated intelligence to sell the invasion to Congress and the public, should be coming out soon. The Republicans were able to supress a lot of things from the public, while they controlled Congress. That’s over now.

It’s a really nice deflection of responsibility, when people say “Oh, well Bush made mistakes after the invasion”. Occupying Iraq was a patently stupid idea from the very beginning. It never made any sense to begin with. Bush Senior knew it, Powell knew it.

I already gave you a perfectly good recent example: Just a few weeks ago Bush told the press “Absolutely, we’re winning”. Then a few weeks later we have Bush making a show about trying to find a new path for success. Wait, I thought Absolutely we’re winning?

Bush and his team having been lying about Iraq all along. I’m not going to write out a long-assed list of all the lies… I don’t have all day.

Here’s a good recent article:
“McClatchy Report: Are Americans Getting Truth on Iraq?”
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003532412

Bush and his team refuse to answer the question “What happens if the surge doesn’t work?” They say they don’t want to plan ahead on a contingency of failure…But isn’t that EXACTLY why we are over a barrel in Iraq right now… because nobody had a plan beyond the initial overthrow of Baghdad? If the new ‘surge’ doesn’t work, Bush will want even more troops. Bet on it.

Go ahead and say I’m pessimistic, that the media is full of gloom. Whatever, dude… The fact is that YOU have been supporting the president’s failure, and I haven’t. [/quote]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Like I said, I’m an optimist. And I think that it just might be possible that the increased intesity in the war effort just might do the trick. As long as we can do something about those pesky Syrians and Iranians that keep screwing with Iraq’s success.

The quickest way to lose the race is to stop running.
[/quote]

It might.
The insurgents could also be swept away by a death ray from Mars.
See, we’re both optimists.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
orion wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
The surge Bush wants will bring troop levels back to where they were in Nov. 2005. It’s just stalling for time, so that Bush can pass the buck.

Bush can’t keep saying “Stay The Course” anymore, so merely maintaining the troops at the same level is off the menu. And Bush can’t withdraw troops and then still be able to accuse the Democrats of wanting to “Cut & Run”.

Solution: an insignificant increase in troop levels. It hits all the political angles… best of all, it allows the Republicans to claim that Bush actually has a plan.

Unfortunatly that really means that he is sacrificing American soldiers by the hundreds to buy time to let the glock run down on his presidency…

Or maybe he is attempting to bring the troop level to a level that will accord for the US to win in Iraq.

You do think it would be great if we go ahead and win this thing right?

Right?

Dems don’t want to win. They get power when America loses. Just look at the people, like Ahmani-jihad, who were thrilled when the Dems won in '06; he now knows that all he has to do is wait.

Let’s hope the Chinese can do a better job of policing the world than we did.

[/quote]

But the Republicans want to win? They went in with far to few troops.
They don’t have money to expand the military but in the mean time spend hughe amounts on upgrading the nuclear arsenal and developping new warheads. How many terrorist are you going to kill with a nuke?

HH, do you still have that bunker feeling Hitler had at the final stage of WWII? What happened man? You were on top of the world half a year ago, now 1 lost election later you’re ready to throw in the towell?

That’s what you get with these armchair patriots. No stamina.