RSS Feed
Yes, this is what he said! The truth is that the majority of the Democrats and their following have undermined our troops since day 1. Our troops have done their job and they have done it well. Mark Finkelstein outlined Gen. Barry McCaffreys assessment of Iraq. Today, on Hardball, McCaffrey told Chris Matthews that it would be a military mistake and political disaster for the Dems to impose a binding timetable for withdrawal. He added that in the last 45 days since Gen. Petraeus got there, “the short term indicators are immeasurably better.”
- “We have brilliant military and civilian leadership on the ground in Iraq. General Dave Petraeus, LTG Ray Odierno, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have the country’s treasure and combat power at their disposal. Our cause is just. The consequence of failure will be severe.”
- “The Iraqi people are encouraged” and “life is almost immediately springing back in many parts of the city. The murder rate has plummeted. IED attacks on US forces during their formerly vulnerable daily transits from huge US bases on the periphery of Baghdad are down – since these forces are now permanently based in their operational area.”
- “The Iraqis have finally committed credible numbers Of integrated police and army units to the Battle Of Baghdad. The strength of IA, IP, and NP units has steadily gone up aided by clever monetary and troop leader incentives. The ISF formations are showing increased willingness to aggressively operate against insurgent/militia forces. Although there is continuing political interference by politicians of both the Iraqi Administration and legislators – this is clearly a serious urban security operation.”
- “The equipment and resources for the Iraqi security forces has increased dramatically” While “Maliki has pushed to create a larger security force.” The ISF has planned 2007 expenditures of more than $7.3 billion. The Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of the Interior are the only two of 27 Iraqi Ministries that have executed their budgets at 90% plus satisfactory rates. (General Petraeus is now putting US military liaison officers in ten additional civilian Ministries to jump start their budget process.) PM Maliki has pushed to create a larger security force of more than 100,000 Iraqi Army troops.”
- “There is a very sophisticated and carefully integrated approach by the Iraqi government and coalition actors to defuse the armed violence from internal enemies and bring people into the political process. Reconciliation of the internal warring elements in Iraq will be how we eventually win the war in Iraq – if it happens. … There are encouraging signs that the peace and participation message does resonate with many of the more moderate Sunni and Shia warring factions.”
And the liberals scream when they are called troop haters! Imagine that!
See: Video: Bush quotes Iraq the Model , ASTONISHING CYNICISM SHOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS, “And Then The War Will Be A Fully American War“
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, LaTogaStrappata®, third world county, Right Celebrity, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, makimaki page, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
59 Responses to “SF Liberal: “I’m convinced that the American Military would perform just as poorly in Iran, if not worse, than it has in Iraq.””
TrackBack URL
“And the liberals scream when they are called troop haters! Imagine that!”
Please. I’m sure most of us actually do not “hate the troops”…
I don’t see why it’s so hard for some conservatives to understand what a majority of Americans already understands; you can love and support the troops and still not agree or support the war.
It’s pretty simple: one of the ways we support them is by wanting them to be safe, and in possesion of their lives and limbs.
We support the troops by not rushing them off into ill-planned and ill-advised wars of choice…
Peejz, how can your statement about liberals hating the troops possibly be true in my case, when you know that my close friend died fighting in Iraq?
It’s good political rhetoric for your weak-ass team, I suppose, but it certainly is not true.
And yes, the American Military has not done very well in Iraq…
I stand by my comment 100%.
Say what? Are you insane? The invasion was about the fastest any has been done to a substantial nation. And almost the only casualties inflicted on our troops since then are from the cowardly use of suicide bombers and roadside bombs.
So what metric do you want to look at to compare effectiveness? I bet the KIA ratio is >10 to 1.
Sorry, but the only thing these cowards and weasels can effectively do is the suicide attacks and IEDs. They do have the American Left on their side, which arguably is the most effective weapon against America they have.
Congratulations SFL your posting has earned you your own topic!!! Too bad it is the annals of shame.
Actually the troops have performed brilliantly. Now the politicians in both parties and the AEmrican left, which includes the media have not performed so well. How well the troops might do in Iran will only be known when Iran or its proxies attack the US or its interests outside of the US. The US will not attack Iran.
Yes it is possible to support the troops yet oppose the war. Oppostion to the war is a noble and honorable position. I don’t entirely like the way the Democrats have gone about it. The optimal way would be to defund the war and bring the troops home as soon as we can get them out. In other words, bring them out as fast as they went in. At least in the short run, this will save more American lives than setting a timetable for withdrawl would. I say in the short run becuase I’m not entirely certain that the enemy we face in Iraq will not follow us home.
“Congratulations SFL your posting has earned you your own topic!!!”
I think it’s my second!
————————-
“Actually the troops have performed brilliantly.”
Yes of course most of the troops have, but the Military as a whole has been led into this disaster by incompetent civilian leadership - The Bush Administration.
And lets be honest, sometimes the military is slow to change.
2- “And yes, the American Military has not done very well in Iraq…
I stand by my comment 100%.”
SF, that is a very general statement on which you have to give a lot of clarification on who failed in what way…
I think that the basic failure in Iraq consists in the assumption to keep people together in a united democratic state that don’t want to be together. Artificial state constructs that can only keep their integrity by oppressing people are not able to exist in its shape under a free elected government.
I think US foreign politics have not worked in Iraq- right from the start and they never could have. What happened (=civil war) was absolutely expectable. But with a good marketing any silly crap can be sold to people…
I’ll repost my response to that thread here.
I quoted here what I responded to in SFL’s thread:
“I’m convinced that the American Military would perform just as poorly in Iran, if not worse, than it has in Iraq.
Sorry, but I think it’s pretty obvious we shouldn’t be starting any wars any time in the near future… “
I agree 100%.
The performance issue is due to lack of numbers. Colin powell had the right idea- use over whelming force. But we can’t, and here is why.
Bill Clinton gutted the military- he cut 800,000 military personal and their civilian support. That sort of damage in an all volunteer army can take years, even decades to mend. We should always have a standing volunteer army of 2-3 million.
And yes- we shouldn’t start any war in the near future- at least until we redeploy our troops in Japan, Europe and elsewhere to better take advantage of them.
I will add for clarification’s sake that the military’s performance isn’t due to the troops, nor is it due to the military leadership. The issue is pretty complex- there isn’t just a single cause.
It is simply the politician’s fault. First, if Clinton hadn’t gutted the military to help prop up his false economic “sucesses”, perhaps we would be more inclined to put more than just 20,000 more troops in Iraq. After giving bush’s approach a legitimate chance, I think we need to follow the Powell Doctrine. Second it is due to Bush’s and his advisor’s (both military and civilian) not having the vision to see what would happen in post invasion Iraq, and failure to adjust quickly enough. The war was justified, the invasion went well, but it is the occupation that isn’t. I realize that the vast majority of issues is in just 4 of the 18 provinces in Iraq, but those four need quelled too. The third issue is the Democrat’s urging failure in Iraq for political gain. Every time a b9ill is voted on, there is Harry Reid making some speech that really has no place. The Democrat’s are not willing to work with the President on a solution, as it would be political suicide. it is the same reason we lost viet nam- the politician politicized the war instead of wanting to win it. This is short sighted and greedy.
There is so much wrong with SFL’s premise that I can’t begin. SFL and the other idiots of the left are free to be fools with impunity mainly because the efficiency of our troops. I don’t agree with the tactic employed in Iraq as I believe some of the insurgent held towns should have been flattened.
The insurgency and the American Left well understand unrestrained force and neither wants that used in Iraq and Iran as it would destroy their power bases and eliminate their goals.
SFL you make absolutely no sense. Bringing our troops home is not allowing them to do the job they signed up for. As for war, well, wtf did you expect us to do after 9/11? Never mind, I know, you won’t answer my question anyway. It would be just what we were doing before. Right? Of course, WT93, OK Bombing, Khobar, Cole, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and we should just suck it up.
That is a fools game and you are a fool.
10, I wonder what SFL’s tune would be if the list was Transamerica tower, Fisherman’s Wharf, …
I pray it doesn’t happen, but the Democrats are opening the door for it.
I pray it doesn’t happen either PCD but I’m not very hopeful. Terrorists have huge PR campaigns in the middle east and they pay close attention to our politics here at home. They know and understand the lefties here are working with them and if they end up in power terrorists are sure to exploit that. My worst case scenario is that there are biological threats released in major US cities.
I would also opine to say that they most likely would infiltrate liberal cities such as New York and San Francisco first. After all they would be assured no one would be paying attention to them. Remember political correctness? No profiling, no questions asked, etc.
SFL, you can’t make a general statement like that. The military has done the job they were told to do. The problem isn’t the skills or competence of the military, it’s the failed policies, strategies, and lack of planning on behalf of this administration during their run-up to war.
p.s. Peejz, when do I get my own topic devote to me?
Look they let Sa Fran Liberal out from his wacky weed smoking house long enough to be even for irevelent:razz:
TT…I would offer that when you have a political party legislating failure of our troops you should expect nothing less. Clinton took away their funding and now the democrats are continuing their efforts to destroy our military. The difference is that they are using the misguided excuse that our troops have failed. And that my friend is where the trouble begins.
15- Okay, that sentence is so badly riddled with typos/word errors, some here might think you are drinking at this early hour of the morning.
Can someone please point out where the troops have lost a military battle in Iraq? Just one is all I am asking for.
Karl Rove Rapping it Up… Video of the Day
My hero! …Why are Libs so humorless?
17- Give me some material man!!!!
16- Clinton reduced the size of the military because of the end of the cold war. We didn’t need to have the same hulking military footprint as we did then.
Likewise, our military is spread across the globe in areas we no longer need to be at the levels they are. Germany, Japan, etc. There were plenty of available troops, most of who have mundane duties of hanging out at safe foreign assignments.
Finally, this was supposed to be a “coalition” so why should we have had to put more of our own troops in? We have 140,000 now just from us, and we had some 30+ colalition members. Where are all there troops???
18, Peejz the battle the troops have lost is the one they have with the Cemocrat party. The rules of engagement do not let the troops fight back in that one.
When the troops do speak against the Democrat party, the Democrats go to the courts and the Pentagon to punish the troops. IE. DFL retribution for daring to have a few commercials run in MN before the election supporting the troops.
20- I’ll give you Japan, for lack of understanding of the base, but you might want to rethink that stance on Germany. Ramstein is a hopping base and much more than meets the press goes on there.
10- “Bringing our troops home is not allowing them to do the job they signed up for. As for war, well, wtf did you expect us to do after 9/11? Never mind, I know, you won’t answer my question anyway. It would be just what we were doing before. Right? Of course, WT93, OK Bombing, Khobar, Cole, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and we should just suck it up.”
Bonbon,
I think the basic error in this argument lies in the mismatch that you assume to be able to fight a globally operating enemy with a single or a couple of local strikes. Apart from the circumstance that islamist (and other extremist) terror organisations have already existed before 9/11 in more than just a couple of training camps in Afghanistan, the western military actions of the last five years drove the terrorists to spread their networks even more decentralized-> even harder to hit.
As you will probably ask how to fight terrorist instead, my response would be to solve the political or economical reason for the terror. As the facts show- the overall military strategy does not work!
20- Who said we didn’t need the hulking military? Right after Clinton took office, the Trade Center was attacked. Prior to him coming in, we knew of the challenges we faced. When the cold war ‘ended’ ,it was a chapter, but not the entire book,that ended. It didn’t mean we would never face another enemy again, nor did it mean that we didn’t already know of the challenges ahead.
Rather than gut the military, it might be a better plan to gut the government.
Which government funded area toils more on a day to day basis?
a. Ramstein Air Base
b. Government offices in Washington DC
23-it isn’t a political or economic reason for the terror, it is a religious reason.
18.
There have been no military battles fought in Iraq (as history has defined them), so there really hasn’t been any lost. Thus, we haven’t won any either. This is guerilla/counter insurgency/counter terroris urban warfare. There are no “military battles”.
20.
History has proven Clinton to be wrong. Absolutely dead wrong.
22
Ramstein is needed as a hoping point, but last I checked we had 80,000 troops there. Do we need that many for a “hopping point”?
Are you aware that many of those 80,000 troops (AF and Army) stationed there, are going in and out of Iraq and the Gulf Region? Sandys husband is on his 2nd tour and he is stationed at Ramstein.
Ted, we are no longer fighting wars like your father did, and the definition of military battles has changed, so yes, there have been military battles, as well as guerilla warfare.
[…] Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Conservative Thoughts, LaTogaStrappata®, third world county, Right Celebrity, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Overtaken by Events, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, makimaki page, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. […]
26, Ted, Please rethink your answer to 18. What do you call the seiges of Fallujah and other cities? Some of those battles did make the MSM when they thought the stories could be spun to bolster the anti-war Democrat agenda.
[…] Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, basil’s blog, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and LaTogaStrappata®, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe. […]
Evan Sayet at the Heritage Foundation
h/t LGF It’s a long video, about 47 minutes, but well worth your time. You can read more about Evan Sayet at his website and his blog. Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random
27.
To my knowledge, those folks don’t count as being stationed there, as they are “deployed”. I could be wrtong. (Hey, it happened once back in ‘72
)
And yes- I agree with your premise that we are no longer fighting wars like my father did. Traditionally, war consisted of battles as history has shown. We no longer fight battles. And that is where we diverge. We have a series of skirmishs. Battles are fought against recognizable and definable legal enemy combatants and are organized in a militia type of system along a war front. We are now fighting a series of skirmishes against a loosely organization of mainly illegal combatants along no definable front.
28.
Fallujah was not a battle, although labeled as such by the MSM and the military. It was urban warfare aimed at clearing an area of said illegal combatants. It went street to street, again with no definable front or enemy (what I mean by “definable” is in traditional terms of legal combatants).
29, Ted, I will defer to FAO or John Galt on this definition.
Ted, I do believe that you may be falling into the same trap military general staffs have fallen into for centuries, that is fighting the last war using definitions and tactics from previous wars.
Ramstein AB is “hopping” more than ever since we just closed Rhein Mein AB. We’ve taken over the key airlift missions of that base and have become “the hub.”
Not to skip over anything any of you have said but….*chuckle chuckle*…..I’d love some of you BRAVE SOULS to come where I live and tell these military folks they haven’t performed very well.
hahahha…
I’ll go make the popcorn…just give me heads up…m’kay?
31, Sandy, got an extra lawn chair? I’d like to watch former conscripted private and military genius, Mattias Roggenbuck, get a full dressing down.
The Culture War: Part Three
I ended Culture War: Part Two with the statements that the Left has convinced too many people to fight against their own interest, and it’s time people started recognizing what their true interest really is. Along with writing about the…
31,
I don’t think anyone said anything about the individuals in the military and if they did they are wrong.
You have to remeber, the military is ran by civilians. These folks are politicians. It is the politicians that hamstring our military more often than not.
Global Warming: The Pigeon’s Response
I’m no hard scientist, but I don’t need a PhD in -istryology to know pumping tons of filth into the air can’t be a good thing–and that’s just from me starting my ‘71 Dodge in the morning. Just breathing smog is bad enough, irregardless of climat…
Foods that curb your appetite……….
Mmmmmmmm…..wheat grass and chlorophyll smoothies…….LOW calorie soup……
These are foods that will curb your appetite so you can be thin. According to Nine foods that curb your appetite.
Sorry Folks……find me one …
Do you know the cheat code?
When I start seeing too much resemblance to work is when I pull chocks and take a break. I think smart gamers have a built-in sense of when “fun” gets too much like “life.”
31- Thanks for clearing that up!:wink:
I don’t think anyone said anything about the individuals in the military and if they did they are wrong. That is exactly what SF said: “I’m convinced that the American Military would perform just as poorly in Iran, if not worse, than it has in Iraq.”
HOAX: Israeli soldiers unleash a dog on an elderly Palestinian woman
Here’s a simple video: we have what appears to be a Palestinian woman, although she could be a Moroccan Jew, they dress alike; we also have a dog attacking her and Israeli soldiers who are trying to disengage the dog’s grip on her arm.
Of course the U.S. military has performed poorly in Iraq and it isn’t hard to figure out why!
First they are ordered into a mistake of a war by a leader they have no confidence in. Then whe they start taking casualties because they dont have good equipment they are told that’s just the way it is you go to war with th army you have, not the one you want. Now they know the American people want the U.S. out of Iraq! So of course they’re performing poorly!
We hear every day reported successes of the Iraqi Freeedom Fighters, and more casualties for our beleagured armed forces. Outnumbered, isolated, shunned and despised by the Iraqis. Of course they are performing poorly!
Arrr! …for th’ Blogworthy folk!
Haul in the gangplank me hearties….we have a new religion on deck!
…
What is that noise?
It sounds like people digging themselves into a hole.
Al Garza, National Executive Director of the Minuteman National Defense Corps. will be on BlowOUT Apr. 9th
***THIS IS A TOP POST. SCROLL DOWN FOR CURRENT POSTS AND OR UPDATES***
I am honored and pleased to announce that Al Garza will be on my radio show, BlowOUT on April 9th. Al is an extremely busy man, but has graciously agreed to come on my show April …
35-
That doesn’t necessarily mean the individual men and women in the military.
“I’m convinced that the American Military would perform just as poorly in Iran, if not worse, than it has in Iraq.”
Perhaps SFL can clear it up. If he meant what you say, then he is wrong. If he meant what I interpreted as saying then he isn’t.
But let’s face it, the overall performance of our military has been hamstrung for the reasons I listed above. They can only do as well as the strategy implements, as well as their numbers will allow and as well as the civlilian leadership let them. So far, IMO the military has been let down by these three facts. It is unfortunate, as the individual men and women in the military hasn’t really failed, but America’s citizens have failed our military.
The Military is performing poorly in Iraq? That’s news to me. That’s not what the military members there are saying nor the reporters who are actually leaving the Green Zone to see what is actually happening on the ground. Want to know who the military had no confidence in as a leader? Bill Clinton. How can a military have confidence in a CinC who has stated that he loathes the military? It almost made me sick when they presented the flag from Dad’s coffin to Mom in the name of Bill Clinton.
Want to know WHY our troops didn’t have all of the equipment that they needed when this started? Try 8 years of the Clinton administration and all those years of Democratic control in Congress.
When I was on active duty, body armor and kevlar helmets had been standard issue to combat units for over 5 years, and we still didn’t have them, because enough money hadn’t been allocated to replace those that the front line units were using and buy them for the second tier divisions as well. Those things have a lifespan of a few years, but they weren’t able to buy enough to issue to the units who were supposed to have them before having to replace the ones that were already in service when they hit the end of their life cycle. We still didn’t have them when I got out 3 years later. The Marines were the only military service to actually be able to issue armor to all of their members because of the corps small size. The Democrats have consistently and repeatedly cut spending to the troops for the last 30+ years whenever they’ve had the power to do so. They’ve also insisted on troops receiving substandard equipment as well. The Beretta 92 FAILED the military 9mm pistol trials with a potentially fatal flaw, while the S&W entry failed for a minor field expedient repairable flaw that could’ve been solved by the addition of after market grips, or if necessary a little mil spec duct tape. The Sig Sauer 226 passed all of the tests. The Sig was deemed too expensive for purchase. The Beretta was given a waiver for a potentially fatal flaw (slides broke in half if full power ammo was used)for political reasons while the Smith and Wesson entrant was denied a waiver and hence the contract due to a minor problem despite being a superior weapon to the Beretta. 6 months after fielding, all special operations troops traded in their issue Berettas for new Sig Sauers and the contract for compact 9mm handguns for undercover Criminal investigators was issued to Sig. The US Navy Seals still carry Sig Sauer P226s, and Marine Force Recon has gone back to using refurbished 45s dating to WWII and more recently new commercially purchased 45s. There were trials being undertaken to replace the M9 Beretta with a pistol in the much more effective 45 ACP round, but for some unknown reason, the Army participation was dropped and tens of thousands of the less effective, less safe Berettas were ordered. I wonder if that decision has anything to do with the fact that the Beretta plant is located in Democratic Maryland and they don’t produce a pistol in 45?
While individual Democrats may in fact support the troops, don’t tell me that the Democratic party as a whole does. History simply doesn’t bare that out. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 1 wrote, “Ambition, Avarice, personal animosity, party opposition and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of the question.” 220+ years later and the same damn motives lead people to support decisions that they KNOW to be detrimental to the health and welfare of our troops and this country, but still they support those decisions.
While the loss of the lives of our troops in Iraq is unfortunate, at least that loss is the result of enemy action versus the greater loss of life due to training accidents during the Clinton adminstration that were the result of, supposedly friendly, inaction. While the military is in combat, its needs for material support take on much greater urgency and receive much greater attention. During times of piece, those needs go unheeded or ignored. We had vehicles we couldn’t get replacement parts for because the money wasn’t there to buy them. The last month of every fiscal quarter we had to rob peter to pay paul to keep our equipment operational. I had to carry an address and phone list for every motor pool and supply room on the entire installation to insure that I could keep my assigned vehicles running safely. I became so wired into the unofficial supply network that the Battalion CO nicknamed me Lt Scrounge. We had to inspect/ patrol our motor pools every few ours at night to prevent people from other units from stealing parts from our vehicles to repair theirs. We had to allow a vehicle to sit idle because of a defective brake line for a month before being allowed to go get one from the local Chevy dealership. A task that, unlike my counterparts in other units, I undertook to get my vehicles operational as quickly as possible. Many of those vehicles were idle for months before the ordered repair parts arrived through regular supply channels.
I’ve seen the good, the bad and the ugly of military supply and when it comes right down to it, CONGRESS is responsible when our troops don’t have the gear they need and it takes time to equip new units and maintain the operational level of others. There is a document called “The Modified Table of Organization and Equipment.” It oulines EVRY Congress controls the purse strings and if they’d stop spending money on worthless pork projects and put it into outfitting our soldiers, they wouldn’t be short of gear. There’s also the simple fact that not every company is capable of producing adequate quantities and quality of equipment to meet demand. A company that might be able to produce 10,000 units a month, may not be able to produce 100,000 units a month, and to expect them to upgrade their facilities and capacities for a single contract is ludicrous. There is a reason why KBR gets so many military service contracts, they have the capacity to actually fulfill the requirements of those contracts.
Want to know who the military had no confidence in as a leader? Bill Clinton. How can a military have confidence in a CinC who has stated that he loathes the military?
I was formerly an officer in the USAR. In 1997 I resigned my commission out of disgust with Klinton and what he was doing to the military. I finally had enough and knew I could no longer serve under such a degenerate, disgraceful CIC.
Sorry hit the submit key by accident. The MTOE describes exactly what every unit is supposed to have personnel and equipment wise in the entire military. There is NO excuse for ANYONE in Congress to say they don’t know what a military unit is supposed to have or how many of a given item the military needs to meet demands. It’s spelled out in black and white in one VERY thick book. Instead of building a $250,000,000 bridge to an island with only 50 residents in Alaska, or sending $25,000,000 to a spinach grower for not keeping his crops safe to eat, maybe they should spend that money to actually provide the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines defending this country with the equipment they need rather than their congressional districts with pork. Exactly how many Robert Byrd libraries does West Virginia need anyway?
The MTOE—that brings back a lot of memories. That’s one thing for sure about the military: every aspect, from how to wear the uniform to tactics to how to maintain equipment, is specified precisely in a TM, AR, or other sort of document.
25- “it isn’t a political or economic reason for the terror, it is a religious reason.”
The reason for the terrorists themselves is a religious reason. But the motivation for the people in the region to passively support/approve the terrorists or even become themselves in terrorists, is not the religious one.
In other parts of the world also terrorism/sts exist for other reasons and there you don’t have such strong ties between terror-like fighting people and the civilian population. It is not natural for people who are pleased with their situation and are able to care for their family without threats like hunger or war, to voluntarilly bring themselves in a position that hold that risk of getting harmed. If you have nothing to lose, you are more willing to listen to people that promise to change your bad state.
Congrats SF Liberal .. obviously you get under the skin here enough to have engendered your own thread!
Well done!:smile:
43-The difference between the 2 of you is that he can articulate his position.
SFL, I’m not certain that praise from Eben is something you’d really want. Eben also praises and admires Rosie O’Dumbbell…
…been camping this past weekend. Pinnacles National Mounument south of Salinas. Great hiking, and I even got to go into a cave…
so…
“Perhaps SFL can clear it up. If he meant what you say, then he is wrong. If he meant what I interpreted as saying then he isn’t.”
I did already.
Look at #6
I said: “Yes of course most of the troops have (performed brilliantly), but the Military as a whole has been led into this disaster by incompetent civilian leadership - The Bush Administration.”
I’m pretty sure that erases all doubt about my support for the actual troops themselves.
I stand by my statement, but I suppose I should amend it a bit:
“I’m convinced that the American Military - led by the Bush Administration - would perform just as poorly in Iran, if not worse, than it has in Iraq.”
————————————
“Congrats SF Liberal .. obviously you get under the skin here enough to have engendered your own thread!”
Yeah, it’s actually my second.
No really, most of the gang here, I’m sure, are probably real nice people if we were to met them in “real life”…I hope nobody takes me serious enough to let me get under their skin.
46- Sounds like you had a great trip! Thanks for sharing.:smile:
Yes you did clear up what you meant, and it was appreciated. The amended version is more to your way of speaking so thanks for that.
Nope, you don’t get under my skin, and I wouldn’t lead a post with your words if I didn’t feel you couldn’t handle it. You add much to a conversation and you take it all in stride.