State of the Union Reaction

[Brett327]

Wow, these would make some great Jack O Lantern templates.

It looks like Kerry's head is already made out of a pumpkin, no?

Brett

 

[A4sForever]

....So I stand by my 1993-2001 timeline.

Then you must be intellecutally challenged ...

1. WTC attack #1 on FEB 26, 1993 is not part of 1993 ?? ... in your 1993-2001 window??? Which calendar are you using???
Roman?? Gregorian?? Muslim?? Confucian?? Klingon??? Sesame Street??

2. USS Cole -- not US 'property' ?? ... don't try that one in a court of maritime law -- sinking US flagged ships is how wars get started.

3. Nairobi? Even though I like Mombasa better ... you lose on that one, too.

4. Bojinka?? I (my flight) was one of the targets. US registered airliners are also considered US "hulls" and attacks on them are considered attacks on US "property" (see #2 above). There's a lot of classified stuff that you weren't privy to re: Bojinka .... The dry run(s) had already worked at the airport and on a previous flight. Nobody died??? A Jap was killed on a 747 over Minamidaito Island near Okinawa. Or doesn't HE count ?? ... 'cause most of the pax on my flights were Japanese and I was always tasked with their care and protection, as well as my crews' welfare. The plot failed and ended ONLY because the Manila bomb factory caught fire. The system (?) was clueless until the fire exposed the plot ... repeat: it only failed because the terrorists screwed up their witches' brew in their Manila apartment. No proactive or protective "system" involved here ... just pure dumb luck. But I'd rather be lucky that good any day ...

5. OKC?? So you tell me ... who done it?? McVeigh?? Nichols?? Useful idiots ... don't make me laugh. And even if it WAS 100% "domestic" for the sake of argument .. I guess that doesn't count when trying to defend the Clinton administration??? You know, the "system" and administration that was already "watching" domestic terrorists and protecting us from domestic extremists .. ??? Ruby Ridge ... Waco ... the NRA ... me.

Please .... spare me from ideologues ... no hate ... just sadness ...

 

[A4sForever]

...I like Mombasa better ... ..

*sigh* .... Navigating the mean streets of Mombasa, circa 1974 ...

 

[squorch2]

Note that I said "foreign attacks on American soil." So the "property" thing is a non-starter. The exclusion of the Cole is simple consistency - do you believe ATFP issues are part of GWOT? Then 2003-present has been a pretty spectacular failure. If not, then exclude the Cole bombing.

Again, Bojinka didn't happen because the system worked; I don't get how failed plots count against anything. I guess the various successes that have been touted in this and past SOTUs mean we're losing, too.

So we can move on, I'll change it up - 1993-1998. 5 years. But since failed plots still mean that the "streak" is broken, I guess the Bush admin's streak ended in 2006 in Syria.

As for the OKC conspiracy/useful idiot thing... I have about as much use for conspiracy theories in OKC as I do in 9/11. Unless you'd like to entertain the theory that Mossad was behind that...

I'm not an ideologue, just willing to call out BS when I see it.

 

[A4sForever]

.... .... I'm not an ideologue, just willing to call out BS when I see it.

... and you probably know it well, as you are full of it. One just can't argue with a donkey. Nor a person who is blinded by hatred. Don't know why I tried ...

Out.

 

[squorch2]

I can see I have been trumped... respectful disagreement is now hatred.

 

[Intruder Driver]

Squorch, Do you believe John Kerry earned his 3 purple hearts in 90 days in a legit manner?

 

[A4sForever]

I can see I have been trumped... respectful disagreement is now hatred.

O.K. ... gotcha' ... I'm so stupid. My mistake.

My opinion(s) are ... "BS" and therefore worthy only of being "called out" ... but your "disagreement" is "respectful" ...???

... I think I've met you, in a time far, far away .. or at least your predecessors.

Some things just never change ... in or out of the Navy.

 

[squorch2]

Oh, I don't think your opinions are BS. They're your opinions. I do think that factual errors or misrepresentations are definitely worthy of being called out.

 

[Intruder Driver]

Squorch, you're getting politically correct now. If you think they're bullshit, call it that way. Don't back down. Don't get kumbaya on us. You're supposed to be in Naval Aviation; not the Congress. I personally think your logic is seriously flawed...actually, bordering on seriously fvcked up. That last administration was about as astute from a security point of view as Carter's, and that bastard graduated from my alma mater.

 

[Flash]

.......but I think sending more troops overseas to get the job done is a bold, smart move.......He stated that the democratic method to solving the problems in Iraq, although rational in some senses of the word, all rest upon a foundation of a retreat (in some fasion or the other, be it a phaseout or staged reductions). A reduction in US forces in Iraq is viewed by our enemies (Al Qaeda, Taliban, and fundamentalists in the Middle East) as a massive victory. In a sense, any reduction in troop levels is great news for them, 'we are starting to give up.' Bush's point on the power vaccuum in the Middle East made perfect sense. Leaving an unstable Iraq (with a government still struggling to stand on its feet in the opposition of insurgents and other malicious organizations in the area) would openly invite terrorist based organizations inward, possibly pulling the whole region into a chaotic war. In my eyes, by ordering more troops overseas, we just cranked up the heat, and demonstrated that we aren't giving up. If there exists any method to strike at the heart of our enemies' morale in the region, this would seem to be it.

We are leaving, sooner or later, whoever is in power. And I am willing to bet serious money we will leave a weak, divided and very violent Iraq.

I think Webb, although a very well accomplished and credible, solely banked on the emotional (my father, me and my son have served, blah blah blah) appeal of bringing troops home to serve his argument.

Yeah, my son is serving, I served, my dad served, blah, blah, blah........WTF, blah, blah, blah?! At least he has family serving over there, he has a very personal interest in the war to say the least.

"We miss our troops and need to bring them home to their families," is a very powerful and emotionally appealing argument, but I think focusing on it as a cornerstone of our strategy grossly neglects our responsibilities overseas, as well as the future of our homeland security. I haven't heard any sort of alternate method to win the war in Iraq from any dems. Simply "Bush is mismanaging the war."

Really, what is the plan now? I have hope in Lt Gen Petraeus but one man can only do so much. After the surge, what next?

This country may not be too happy as a whole with the 'extensive' use of our forces over the past 6 years. But this country has gone almost 2,000 days without ONE terrorist attack on its soil. Someone is doing something right, thats for certain. We are bringing the fight to them. I say keep on kicking ass and taking names.

I would argue that the war in Iraq has had little to do with that fact. The work of our government around the world in concert with our allies, some of the improvements at home, as well as the everyday vigilance of American citizens has done this. Not our involvement in Iraq. How has the invasion of Iraq helped our fight against terrorism? I think it has done nothing to help us. And for those who argue that we are fighting the terrorists over there instead of over there, I can argue just as effectively that we are jsut creating more.

 

[Flash]

Squorch, you're getting politically correct now. If you think they're bullshit, call it that way. Don't back down. Don't get kumbaya on us. You're supposed to be in Naval Aviation; not the Congress. I personally think your logic is seriously flawed...actually, bordering on seriously fvcked up. That last administration was about as astute from a security point of view as Carter's, and that bastard graduated from my alma mater.

P.S. BULLSHIT.........

 

[squorch2]

Eh, I like to think of it as respect for differing opinions... I figure that most people on here don't spout off nonsense without thinking about it or having heard/experienced/read something that influenced them, which I would also like to know about so I can 1) see where others are coming from and 2) modify my stance on issues as appropriate. I don't know a lot when it comes to certain issues, so I like to hear from "the other side" and why they think the way they do, hence my respect for opinions.

Wholesale assertions of "that's wrong" without facts/links/books/etc. to back it up don't really help anything except to shut down debate and the exchange of ideas.

 

[raptor10]

I find it impressive - bordering on willfully ignorant - that people "haven't heard" of any alternatives to "staying the course," since I count the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group's plan, the Murtha plan, or many other lesser-known plans. Saying that "there has been no alternative" is bordering on the willfully disingenuous.

I think what people mean is that we haven't heard anything other than "Bring the Troops Home..."

The Murtha Plan (from your link):
-- To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. (But not necessarily consistent with the safety of the U.S.)
-- To create a quick reaction force in the region. (Whats quicker than being there?)
-- To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. (Because we cant solve it with the troop levels we have now...)
-- To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq (by reasoning with suicide bombers...)

Executive Summary: Bring the troops home.

The Iraq Study group plan:
-The External Approach: Building an International Consensus (have other countries do it)
-The Internal Approach: Helping Iraqis Help Themselves (Let the Iraqis figure it out)

Executive Summary: Bring American troops home.

The Biden Plan
The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence – and to create the conditions for our forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully...

...And it would allow us to responsibly withdraw most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2007...

Executive Summary: Bring American troops home.

The reason we are in Iraq is not to protect Iraqi interests, but to safeguard American interests, anything else is idealism without realism. So to do that We (as in US) have to be over there doing the deed. The US can't afford to be seen as weak especially with escalation of ambition and capability that technology has brought the ROTW.

 

[Flash]

Executive Summary: Bring American troops home.

What do you think the plan has been from the beginning?

The reason we are in Iraq is not to protect Iraqi interests, but to safeguard American interests, anything else is idealism without realism. So to do that We (as in US) have to be over there doing the deed. The US can't afford to be seen as weak especially with escalation of ambition and capability that technology has brought the ROTW.

How do you think we look after almost four years there with the same number of troops as we started with, in a country racked by violence, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and no peace?