Equal Time

Spoken within hours of each other.

VP Cheney - the insurgency is in it's last throes.
Rumsfeld - it will take 12 years to defeat the insurgency.

Comments

  • 22 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Now, there's consistency if ever I saw it! x;-)
  • Is this what it means to overthroe a government? #-o

    James Sokolowski
    HRhero.com
  • Could be, but the time frames of throes and overthroes are apparently hard to predict.
  • This is a good one for conservative right-wingers to ponder. You may have notice they have not yet commented (probably hoping it will be ignored).
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-27-05 AT 03:20PM (CST)[/font][br][br]I just saw it. I was frankly wondering in the world would cause G3 to actually post a thread. I knew it could not be that he would need us to help him with anything.

    I can see quite easily how the insurgency might end at a particular point and we still have to be there shoveling and rebuilding for 10 more years. The insurgency in West Germany ended 50 years ago and we're still there. Same thing for the Phillipines and Italy.

    (Besides, these two irreplaceable guys are held in separate secret bunkers. Do you expect them to actually communicate? The Democrats subterfuge network has made their phones and email inoperative.) x:-)
  • [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-27-05 AT 03:05PM (CST)[/font][br][br]The insurgency in the South ended 140 years ago and we're still there. x;-)
  • That's a fairly liberal point of view, isn't it? Kind of like the Iraq version of the Marshall Plan to build up what was destroyed.
  • It will move along quickly now - we're negotiating with the insurgents and I'm sure they'll be reasonable.

    Hey, so what does this do to our stated policy of NEVER negotiating with terrorists? x;-)
  • I'm not sure. Don will know.
  • I didn't know we were. But I'm sure if Larry King or Wolfer Blunderblitz say we are then we must be. Or was it in Newsweek?

    It amazes me how people of some stripes actually want the United States to lose this war. It simply amazes me.
  • That's an old canard which is trotted out whenever the argument is bankrupt. Those who don't support the cause are unpatriotic etc. etc. Baloney!
  • Rumsfumble - er, Rumsfeld - acknowledged we were talking with the insurgents on "This Week with George Stephanopolous" on ABC yesterday. So, yes, it appears we have abandoned our time-honored public policy of never negotiating with terrorists.
  • I see. Your brief stint as a clerical employee in the Air Force 20 years ago enables you to trump the Secretary of Defense. I'm still learning. As always, lets have some alternative solutions proposed rather than simply continuing to bash those in charge. That's the Democrat-Liberal way; never a solution, always a complaint. Other than split and run, let's have some commentary here on workable solutions. Well.........we await. I didn't think so.
  • I'm not even going to address the attempted backhanded comment on my military service. Ain't takin' the bait, Don.

    My question is simply why we would negotiate with terrorists? Are we thereby acknowledging that we can't pummel them into submission, which seems to be our normal method of operation? Seems to me that if we go to the bargaining table, hat in hand, we have effectively admitted we can't handle it. If that's the case, own up to it and move on - but stop pretending that "we will never negotiate with terrorists." Puhleeze!

    Besides, bashing leaders is the national pastime these days. Reps bash dems, dems bash reps, everybody bashes somebody. It's more entertaining that way. x:-)
  • I was looking for your alternative solution. But, as always, none appeared. We are not negotiating with terrorists or insurgents. There was some discussion over the weekend about a cease fire. I don't consider that negotiation. But, I'm no military expert like you and G3 are. Please post your solutions. A repeat of the Viet Nam pullout would please you two to no end. That is the only way the socialists will get back into the Whitehouse. You might want to email each other so at least one of you might make sense. But, please, at some point, do post your alternative suggestion as to how the US might conduct the operations.
  • Here are some workable solutions:
    - get Congress to trump W's vetos and refuse to pass his programs or confirm his justices
    - put Cheney and Rumsfeld in the same room and let's watch them verbally backtrack and duke it out to clean up the presentation
    - to Don specifically: remind yourself that almost everything you have said against "Democrat-Liberals" has been tried by Republicans under a different administration, so put a lid on it - or at least a screen.

    Re Iraq - I hate the war. I think W & Co. put us into it deliberately via misrepresentation and miscommunication from sloppy agency work and has overcommitted us between Afganistan (which I understood) and Iraq, forgetting it's a big world with other countries that need help - like the U.S.A.! Do I support our troops anyway? Absolutely. A friend's son (and a few others) are over there and it would be nice for him to come home intact to his new wife. His time was up months ago and he's caught in Bush's trap and can't get out.
  • The only hope for this country is that "W" WILL get his supreme's in place. Switch from CNN to Fox and there will be hope for you yet. You do not have to waddle around in this liberal progapanda. I asked for sensible alternatives regarding exit strategy and how to keep this country from sliding into the liberal cesspool of 'no God', no religion, no family values and all we get from you and others is a liberal rant about the more speedy approach to destruction of this country. Michael Moore has indeed penetrated The Forum. Don't make it a personal attack against me, as the liberal approach typically will do. Offer up suggestions that make some degree of sense and that the majority of Americans will support. Peace x:-) Now we will see the usual liberal blurbs from the left that offer nothing really to the discussion other than Barney Frank/Ted Kennedy/Pelosi soundbites.
  • Okay, Don. Here are my thoughts. Remember, you asked for solutions and I'm going to propose mine. If you don't agree with it, say "I don't think that's a good idea" and be done with it, leaving out the liberal-conservative high-velocity verbosity, ok?x:-)

    Ramp up Iraqi security forces ASAP and don't dink around. They need to take charge of their own security so we can get the Sam Hill out of there!

    Empower the Iraqi government (such as it is) to MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT OUR INTERFERENCE! Don't use a carrot-and-stick approach and tell them they won't get any cookies if they don't play the game our way.

    Set a timeline for withdrawal of all American troops (trust me, the Brits and other members of our illustrious "coalition" will be right on our heels). You don't have to publicize it - just have the plan in place and begin to execute it, if you're so concerned about tipping off the insurgents.

    Petition the United Nations (I know you think that's a bad word) to assist in transitioning Iraq from military to civilian control. The only way the transition will have any legitimacy from a world perspective is if other nations see that the construction of the new government is perceived to actually have the support of other countries.

    Throw a whole bunch of money at them to rebuild infrastructure since we turned their country into a parking lot. Leave the reconstruction up to them - they have the brainpower and the manpower to do it if they really want to.

    Finally, GET THE H-E-DOUBLE-TOOTHPICKS OUTTA DODGE AND LET THEM HAVE THEIR COUNTRY BACK! We can provide advice, guidance, money - but phone it in and stop sending active duty, Guard and Reserve troops to hold their hands through the whole process! Many Oregon Army Guardsmen are on their second and even third tours over there (involuntarily) and I, for one, would like to see them come home with all ten fingers and all ten toes (not to mention other assorted appendages) intact so they can come back to work for MY COMPANY!






  • Parabeaglex2 - well said.
    Living Don - One pattern of Bush's that keeps getting us into trouble is that when it comes to religion and form of government, it's his way or no way (Christianity & democracy). I happen to believe in both, but I also acknowledge that there's more than one way to skin a cat and historically, more than one way to successfully run a country. He needs to stop telling them (per Parabeagle) "they won't get any cookies if they don't play the game our way".

    Something I thought of this morning - HR scenario.
    One of the things that makes nursing less than appealing is that when a shift is over and the next either hasn't shown up or deliberately wasn't scheduled - they are told they have to stay until replacements show up - up to a 24hr shift. We are currently experiencing a nursing shortage.

    In the military, when recruited they sign contracts to serve a specific period of time. Under current conditions, the President has power to extend that term at will. There are currently few replacements for the guys and gals who are supposed to be coming home so they are being extended 8-12 months over their contracted period. And military recruitment in all or almost all of the service branches is down.

    Does anyone else see a pattern here?
  • When one country defeats or controls another in war, there is something called 'the spoils of victory'. This is historical, not Republican, not conservative. Spoils of war include the properties of the country right down to its oil fields. It also includes gaining the right to make the rules. Notwithstanding Parabeagles comments, there has never been a war after which the victor walked off and said, "OK, here's some money, we gotta catch a train, now, do what you like."

    But, your attitude is probably about the same as mine was between '69 and '75.
  • But was not this war (ostensibly) about liberating the Iraqis, not defeating them or occupying their country? That's what I was told early on. I remember vividly a soldier who was disciplined early in the war when they took over a town from the Iraqi Army and the soldier raised the American flag - a sure sign of "the conquering hero." His commanding officer ordered him to take the flag down, stating that we were not an occupation power, but a liberator of the Iraqi people. The soldier was disciplined for his indiscretion, the commanding officer apologized to the townsfolk and even Bush backed up the commander's actions.

    So the concept of "to the victor goes the spoils" does not apply here (at least not officially).
Sign In or Register to comment.