Murtha again

[jimonica]

Re: Murtha again

Definition of a chickenhawk;<br /><br />One who is gun-ho for war as long as someone else or someone else's sons and daughters are doing the fighting. One who was of age to fight while the country was at war but managed ways to stay out of the fight for lame excuses.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Murtha again

^...Anal cysts? A condition caused by being full of shiite?.....JK

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Murtha again

Originally posted by jimonica:<br /> Rf, <br /><br />I agree, I don't think just because you served it makes you an expert in politics.<br /><br />Military service sure seemed to matter when Clinton ran.<br /><br />Now that we have chickenhawks running the country it doesn't matter. Can't have it both ways.

Which one is it? Military service matters to you, or it doesn't? You keep bringing it up and citeing examples, so it looks like it matters.<br /><br />

Originally posted by jimonica:<br />Please explain how me being up front is a "cheap way to play dirty". Could it be because I cut off a criticism before it took place?

Why? Here's why- you blast off a critique and then distance yourself from it. If it matters to you, fess up. I'll still love ya. If it doesn't matter, then why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[oddjob]

Re: Murtha again

I thought a chicken hawk was that little hawk on loony tones that was always after the big rooster..."I say,I say boy you needs to cut n' run!" he,he..<br /><br />

I know conservatives have a great stake in painting liberals as bunch of peacnik wussys. But if you go to.....<br />

Liberals do that service for us all by themselves, we just report on it. Your free to protest and advise we cut and run and we are free to report it. <br /><br />Clinton served two terms. So I dont see your point about draft dodging/being an issue for the presidency. Bush was in the national guard not Canada.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Murtha again

Originally posted by oddjob:<br /> I thought a chicken hawk was that little hawk on loony tones that was always after the big rooster..."I say,I say boy you needs to cut n' run!" he,he..

roflmao

 

[jimonica]

Re: Murtha again

Rf,<br /><br />Just pointing out a little hypocrisy.<br /><br />My position stands.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Murtha again

Well, I'm glad you finally admitted what I was accusing you of....

 

[chugger]

Re: Murtha again

Originally posted by KenImpZoom:<br /> Your aruguments are ruined by your personal attacks on the people. I suggest you edit them out for clairity.<br /><br />Ken

You must have this forum confused with another one.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Murtha again

and yet no one discredits any of the facts I posted. they attack me but not the facts. <br /> I made no personal attacks on anyone in the above posts. but if after 3 years in country we still dont have the borders secured and we left them wide open at the time of the invasion will anyone admit there may have been some planning SNAFU? <br /> and who made the SNAFU? and who Fired the planners that asked for more troops ?<br /> <br /> and if I am wrong on the judgement calls of the secretary of defense and the national security advisor point out the things they did right?<br /> seems even FOX news is worried about domestic safty.<br /> as far as winning battles goes you can win every battle and still lose the war, its happened.<br /> problem is we are at war and they are not.<br /> they are using harrasment and gurrilia tactics taught to them by someone in the 80's.<br /><br /> but if you go back a few years you will see I was for continued diplomatic resolutions and I posted my concerns on invading that much hostile border space with to few troops. <br /> so instead of attacking me attack the facts as I can find them. if you dispute it please state why. maybe I learned some things wron when studieing some of the economy of force doctrines.<br /><br /> the fact is we are there. the second fact is we either have to fight to win, which means more boots not less, or we may as well bail now. <br /> but to "stay" the course will most likly mean a beached ship.<br /> <br /> I dont mind a disssagreement as long as the dissagreement will give some reasons not just a blast.<br /> aint no way this war should have drug on 3 years. <br /> we have air superiority, equipment superiorty, communications and logistics superiority, only thing we dont have and never had was Boots on the ground superiority, all I ask is why not?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: Murtha again

Rodbolt, why do you persist in calling opinions facts?<br /><br />another fact, both Rice and Rumsfeld have shown incredible poor judgement for 3 years and show no signs of getting better and should resign to save whats left of the current CIC. <br />- This is indeed an opinion. No need to respond. No facts to refute.<br /><br /><br />another fact, we had insuffiecent troops and equipment in march of 03. No this is an opinion. <br />- Our military whose full time job it is, is to win wars, says we have enough. Or we would have more.<br /><br /><br />fact, at the current troop strength we cannot "win" we can put out fires and move at will. but we cannot control the theater . <br />- Fact??? Nope just another opinion. See above explaination.<br /><br /><br />Murtha is just wrong calling for an immediate pull out, only if Bush does not support our troops place an additional 100-150K troops in country. <br />- Just another opinion.<br /><br /><br />the iraqis are at least 3 years from being able to police themselves and that is using the villige idiots (rumsfeld) and the lap dog(Rice) own estimates. <br />- Missed again, you could have said 3 days and it would have been right. How long did we stay in Germany? <br /><br /><br />we are in the wrong country fighting the wrong war but it does not obviate the fact we are there and have been almost 3 years.<br />any disagreement yet? <br />- Clearly an opinion. 80% of Americans supported this war when it started and it is the yellow spined types that want to cut and run.... Snatching defeat from the hands of victory.<br /><br /><br />Perhaps Teddy can find John Johns little play book from the Bay of Pigs, but the FACT is that didn't play out so well. Especially if you were one of the Cubans waiting for the promised air support.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Murtha again

Come on rodbolt, stop listening to the liberal press and think for your self.<br /><br />I do agree with one point, our borders security is a joke. The president should take full responsibility on this one. Those anti terrorist funds were spent on the wrong things. Instead of planning and preparing for an attack, why not prevent the *******s from getting in the USA in the first place.<br /><br />Trust me, President Bush is not on my top president list, but I think they have done the best they could do in Iraq.<br /><br />Ken

 

[jimonica]

Re: Murtha again

The best reason I heard for more troops is because we go in and secure a town and then leave. As soon as we leave the insurgents come back. <br />That is the same thing that happened in Vietnam. <br />They would secure a village then leave and the North would come right back in.<br />If we had more troops we could keep them in the area and go on to the next.<br />The problem is that would probably require a draft and the Repubs don't have the stomach for that. If we aren't going to give them the proper troops then I say the next best thing is the Murtha plan.<br /><br />Just so everyone understands Murtha's plan is not cut and run. Its a pull out to the Iraqi border or a bordering country, using a smaller elite quick strike force when and if things get too hot.

 

[JB]

Re: Murtha again

I saw Murtha on CNN this morning.<br /><br />He based his argument on two "facts": 1. 80% of Iraqis want us out., and 2. We are the targets of the "insurgents".<br /><br />Neither is a fact. Both are distortions.<br /><br />1. Yes, Most Iraqis want us to go home, but only AFTER they are able to secure their own country. That is NOT what he is proposing.<br /><br />2. Count the attacks against Iraqi civilians, police and politicians vs. the attacks against armed coalition forces. The target of the "insurgents" is clearly the move toward independent self government and those who are involved in that move. They are giving up on driving us out. It is costing them too much. Every time they take us on they get their heads handed to them.<br /><br />More and more of the clashes between the baddies and our guys/gals are the baddies trying to survive long enough to prevent a western style government from getting established and stabilized.<br /><br />So, Rep. Murtha: Wrong again.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Murtha again

pointer. go back and look at rummy and rices latest speeches, they are now saying 3 years or so more . why?<br /> Rumsfeld pretty much ran the war the first year, its why powell and some others bailed. thats what powell and 2 other generals said in person.<br /> there words I think were micromanaged.<br /><br /> the fact about not enough troops. there again its only from the "shopping" rumsfeld did. if we had put enough boots on the ground to secure the areas we invaded and secure the Iraqi borders there would be no outside terroist cells in Iraq. they were not there in 03.<br /><br /> do you actually belive the Iraqis could support themselves in 3 days? .<br /> Jimonica<br /> exactly what I am trying to say<br /> rumsfeld and his buds F***ed it up royal. mostly due to no military experience and a reliance on there own propaganda, by rummy's own words he said after the shock and awe campaingn it would be a six week war. he forgot the basic tenent of warfare, to conquer you MUST occupy.<br /> in vietnam we kept enough troops on the ground to win most the battles, never enough to win the war.<br /> <br /> JB <br /> from what I am reading thats about right.<br /> while the Iraqis dont particularly want us there they dont wish us to leave until the region is stable again. even the Iraqis are worried about the amount of forign terroists our lack of troop strength allowed in.<br /><br /> my worry about any published timeline is not a stepping up of attacks but cells that just go in hiding, lulling the country into a sense of false security.<br /> having a rapid reaction force a few hundred miles away is about the silliest idea I have heard yet. its shades of vietnam all over again.<br /><br /> but so far all I have been is flamed, no one has yet to dispute any of my arguments with anything but opinions.<br /> they know they cannot take us on in battle, its a matter of hit and fade away cause they know we cannot control the area as we dont have enough and have never had enough boots on the ground.<br /> if your gonna fight fight as though ya want to win.<br /> name me one war that the side that practiced limited warfare won.<br /> just one instance.<br /><br /> I am not a brillant tactician, but if my enemy said we will leve in six months I would severly curtail my limited forces as to save my ammunition and troop strength. attack only when its safe,<br /> anyone ever read about the battle of orinsky? sems a small force decimated a large one then left. it was classic.<br /> that battle is still studied.<br />its a classic example of when everything goes wrong, its analogous to the fire on the USS forestal in 67, they did everything wrong but saved the ship. both are still used for training today.