[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey RSU,
Up to your old tricks again?
[/quote]
If questioning Reverand Bush is tricky, then I guess so.
…More like Tommy Franks’ old tricks, I guess.
RSU -
Well, smartass. How much fucking money and resources do you thing we need to send a SMALL force (comprised of mostly special operations forces) through the damn mountains? The Afghanistan front has become much smaller now, and understandingly so, much cheaper. Now it’s a question of spec ops finding his ass. Operation Enduring Freedom isn’t a large enough campaign to where we need to focus all of our attention on just that and ignore all the rest of the shit that’s going on in the world. Besides, I think we as the most power and capable nation in the world can “multi-task”. You highly underestimate the capabilities of the military. RLTW
rangertab75
Perhaps there is another way to define success in this situation, rather than just your black-and-white of catching Osama bin Laden or not catching Osama bin Laden?
For instance, in terms of al Queda, the immediate post 9/11 goal may be defined as cutting al Queda off from its state sponsor and taking away the bases they were using for training. That was accomplished once the Taliban were taken out and any remaining al Queda people left in Afghanistan were forced into hiding in Afghani caves. They continue to hunt for al Queda in Afghanistan, but the manpower needs were much different once the Taliban forces were routed. Perhaps we learned from the Soviet mistakes what was needed and what was worthless overcommitment of forces in that area.
Then, Iraq was a different priority, but one that could be moved to once the above was accomplished. Taking out a dictator who was a destablilizing force in the region, a sponsor of terrorism and a dictator who had been documented to possess WMD and who everyone thought had WMD and who acted as if he had WMD was the priority.
That furthered the terror war not only by taking away another state sponsor, but, as CD Darklock said, giving an example to other terrorist-sponsoring regimes in the area, as well as putting us in a strategically sound position w/r/t the next likely threat, Iran.
To the extent al Queda is getting succor from other states, perhaps we will have to move on to them next – will you be in support of that, to further our goal of taking out al Queda and other terrorist groups? Perhaps the Russians will help… we shall see.
But we need to address the threats where they exist at the time, not be stuck with some definition of priorities that would have us put huge forces in Afghanistan for what would amount to a manhunt for a guy hooked up to a kidney dialisis machine when the newest intelligence says others in al Queda, in other countries, are leading the terrorists now.
RSU:
“You should know by now I don’t care what you think.” Ahh, but you do son! If you didn’t care you would not have spent the time responding!
As you move along in life and get some years under your belt you will realize that writing several paragraphs in response to a post means that what you have read has somehow touched you. Hence, you care! (thanks for caring 
Let’s move on to yet another one of your oh so foolish statements. You stated that you honestly feel that the world is not a better place with Sadam in jail. I find that to be an immature statement for even you!
Most of your liberal friends will tell you that while they were not in favor of the war in Iraq, the world is still a better place with Sadam out of power. Do you simply like to be disagreeable, or are you that naive? Never mind I know the answer.
Finally, young man, the parellel that I have drawn between World War Two and todays war against terrorism is a good one! What you and your liberal Professors fail to realize is that our President (yes he is your President too, don’t you love it?) has kept our shores safe from further attack. We did this because President Bush brought the war to them! He really is a good President, don’t you think? (Ha ha)
The amount of fanatics that were rolling into Iraq would have been, instead attempting to enter the US. Furthermore, (looks at watch) sorry no more time, class is dismissed.
Good reply Jeff. Telling him that if he makes claims, he will be wrong without using any evidence to substantiate yourself. Honestly, I can’t understand why anyone would disagree with you about anything. Not when omniscient JeffR can just say “you’re wrong.” Give me a break.
Todd
Why do you guys encourage RSU?
A few months ago he actually struck me as an intelligent guy that could articulate his arguments quite well.
As of late, he seems to have been prescribed the same brain necrosing drug that AlGore and the rest of the ABB crowd are on.
It eats away at any hint of rational thought, and turns you into a mantra muttering idiot.
todd,
Thanks for reading other posts that have already debunked what he was going to reply.
Notice he didn’t respond to the questions?
I guessed what he would say.
Oh, care to enter the argument.
Good luck,
JeffR
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why do you guys encourage RSU?
A few months ago he actually struck me as an intelligent guy that could articulate his arguments quite well.
As of late, he seems to have been prescribed the same brain necrosing drug that AlGore and the rest of the ABB crowd are on.
It eats away at any hint of rational thought, and turns you into a mantra muttering idiot.
[/quote]
rainjack:
You have a darn good point! However, how is the little fellow supposed to learn if we don’t try to at least point him in the right direction?
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Sweet–two choices: black and white, just like the commander in chief likes it![/quote]
No, I merely chose to mention two choices: “what you want” and “what we did”. As you’ve probably noticed, everybody and his brother has an idea about what we SHOULD have done, so there are lots of choices.
Yes. Once we choose someone to eliminate, that choice would be “whomever we choose”. This is not to be confused with “anyone and everyone we choose”.
I know, you wanted to pretend that’s what I was saying. Sorry to spoil your fun.
No. Did you even READ my post? I thought I was pretty clear about there being several reasons to attack Iraq. None of them was good enough in and of itself, which has led a lot of people to complain incessantly about it, but when you add up all the reasons you end up with a pretty compelling situation.
That’s why we had experts make the call. And since you’re not an expert, maybe you could think about why that is.
[quote]rangertab75 wrote:
RSU -
Well, smartass. How much fucking money and resources do you thing we need to send a SMALL force (comprised of mostly special operations forces) through the damn mountains? The Afghanistan front has become much smaller now, and understandingly so, much cheaper. Now it’s a question of spec ops finding his ass. Operation Enduring Freedom isn’t a large enough campaign to where we need to focus all of our attention on just that and ignore all the rest of the shit that’s going on in the world. Besides, I think we as the most power and capable nation in the world can “multi-task”. You highly underestimate the capabilities of the military. RLTW
rangertab75[/quote]
Hey, I didn’t make the original comments…that would be Gen. Franks…is he a smartass?
lol, I’m fooling with you…but you wonder why I refer to you all as drones?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
RSU:
“You should know by now I don’t care what you think.” Ahh, but you do son! If you didn’t care you would not have spent the time responding!
As you move along in life and get some years under your belt you will realize that writing several paragraphs in response to a post means that what you have read has somehow touched you. Hence, you care! (thanks for caring :)[/quote]
Oh, get over yourself!
[quote]Let’s move on to yet another one of your oh so foolish statements. You stated that you honestly feel that the world is not a better place with Sadam in jail. I find that to be an immature statement for even you!
Most of your liberal friends will tell you that while they were not in favor of the war in Iraq, the world is still a better place with Sadam out of power. Do you simply like to be disagreeable, or are you that naive? Never mind I know the answer.[/quote]
I can see why you’ve been confused. I should have paid more attention as I typed my response, which was:
“[quote]Yeah, ZEB, I honestly think that. Why would you even ask that? It’s like the people who say “If you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops”. What bunk.[/quote]”
I thought the sarcasm was clear, but obviously you didn’t catch it. So, to be clear, of course I think Sadaam was a bad guy who has done much deserving of punishment. Whether it was our place to enforce at that time is what I’m unsure about. My point, in my remark, was that people like you say things like “If you don’t support the war in Iraq, you must think Sadaam was a good guy” or whatever. I compared this to those who say “if you don’t support the war, you don’t support the troops,” which, I consider bunk.
Did anyone else really think I thought the world was better with Saddaam in power?
[quote]Finally, young man, the parellel that I have drawn between World War Two and todays war against terrorism is a good one! What you and your liberal Professors fail to realize is that our President (yes he is your President too, don’t you love it?) has kept our shores safe from further attack. We did this because President Bush brought the war to them! He really is a good President, don’t you think? (Ha ha)
The amount of fanatics that were rolling into Iraq would have been, instead attempting to enter the US.[/quote]
Well, on these points we disagree…deja vu.
[quote] Furthermore, (looks at watch) sorry no more time, class is dismissed.
[/quote]
Your arrogance actually does continue to surprise me! For all the talk you do about age, you sure stoop lower than those you argue with, in terms of arrogance. You seem like the type of guy that would repeat everything your opponent said in a debate, or something simliarly juvenile and obnoxious…just my impression.
Finally, one question for you: where did you graduate from and what was your major area of study?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Perhaps there is another way to define success in this situation, rather than just your black-and-white of catching Osama bin Laden or not catching Osama bin Laden?[/quote]
I didn’t intend to put it in those terms. My point, personally, was that we acted in the first place in response to the 9/11 attacks. We went after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, because they attacked us. That mission far from accomplished, we diverted crucial resources toward an effort that everyone had to be convinced (or coerced) was worth fighting. To this day, the reason for fighting that war, losing the US lives, and spending our dollars is not clear.
[quote]
For instance, in terms of al Queda, the immediate post 9/11 goal may be defined as cutting al Queda off from its state sponsor and taking away the bases they were using for training. That was accomplished once the Taliban were taken out and any remaining al Queda people left in Afghanistan were forced into hiding in Afghani caves. They continue to hunt for al Queda in Afghanistan, but the manpower needs were much different once the Taliban forces were routed. Perhaps we learned from the Soviet mistakes what was needed and what was worthless overcommitment of forces in that area.[/quote]
Hey, it was Franks who said the important resources were diverted.
This isn’t how I remember it at all. It seemed much more like we were told war was necessary, and the reasons supporting that cause came later.
[quote]
That furthered the terror war not only by taking away another state sponsor, but, as CD Darklock said, giving an example to other terrorist-sponsoring regimes in the area, as well as putting us in a strategically sound position w/r/t the next likely threat, Iran.
To the extent al Queda is getting succor from other states, perhaps we will have to move on to them next – will you be in support of that, to further our goal of taking out al Queda and other terrorist groups? Perhaps the Russians will help… we shall see. [/quote]
I don’t know. But I do know I’d be shocked if the Bush Admin. attacked the Saudis! I don’t like our approach to this war…simply running through the Arab world is not going to help us in the long run – it just isn’t. There is a lot of fanaticism in that culture and it is that which boiled up into 9/11 and who knows what it may boil up into in the future.
[quote]
But we need to address the threats where they exist at the time, not be stuck with some definition of priorities that would have us put huge forces in Afghanistan for what would amount to a manhunt for a guy hooked up to a kidney dialisis machine when the newest intelligence says others in al Queda, in other countries, are leading the terrorists now.[/quote]
Many are still very unconvinced that Iraq was a threat at that time.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why do you guys encourage RSU?
A few months ago he actually struck me as an intelligent guy that could articulate his arguments quite well.
As of late, he seems to have been prescribed the same brain necrosing drug that AlGore and the rest of the ABB crowd are on.
It eats away at any hint of rational thought, and turns you into a mantra muttering idiot.
[/quote]
I’d love to hear from you what in particular in this thread I have said to deserve the name “muttering idiot.” Was it the posting of a link to an article that mentions Graham’s quoting of Tommy Franks regarding the diversion of resources? What was it?
[quote]CDarklock wrote:
Yes. Once we choose someone to eliminate, that choice would be “whomever we choose”. This is not to be confused with “anyone and everyone we choose”.
I know, you wanted to pretend that’s what I was saying. Sorry to spoil your fun.[/quote]
I wasn’t “having fun.” I am now unclear as to what you mean, and I immediately throw up a red flag at any sign of America simply flexing its superpower muscles around the world.
[quote]
That’s why we had experts make the call. And since you’re not an expert, maybe you could think about why that is. [/quote]
Which experts made which call?
What is that last sentence supposed to mean? I seriously do not understand. Perhaps it makes sense in your head as you type, but it doesn’t read properly to me. Okay, you say experts made the call…I know what you mean, but I ask which experts…then you point out that I’m not an expert and this registers perfectly well with me since, well, I’m well aware of this fact…but then what is it I’m supposed to be thinking about?
Thanks to this post…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
todd,
Thanks for reading other posts that have already debunked what he was going to reply.
Notice he didn’t respond to the questions?
I guessed what he would say.
Oh, care to enter the argument.
Good luck,
JeffR [/quote]
I have to respond to this post…
[quote]Hey RSU,
Up to your old tricks again?[/quote]
"[quote]If questioning Reverand Bush is tricky, then I guess so.
…More like Tommy Franks’ old tricks, I guess.[/quote]"
Fair enough.
[quote]
Oh, by the way, are you maintaining that there are no Al Qaeda members in Iraq?[/quote]
I do not know the whereabouts of al Qaeda roster, sorry. But, apparently neither does our government, so I don’t feel so bad. They should check in with good ol’ JeffR.
Sir, YES SIR!
Well, of course I am.
Quite naturally.
Man, you sure make some compelling arguments!
Really? Why don’t they mention that in newspapers or on our variety of 24 hour news channels? Strange…
Woah. Stop right there. It sounds to me like you’re saying “maybe we fucked up, but it’s too late to turn back now.” Is that what you’re saying JeffR? Because that’s what you’re saying.
It looks like they’ve done a fine job of this.
Think about what?! What point have you made? What do you want me to think about? Jeeeezuss! You people are amazing. JeffR, I think you either are ZEB using another name, or are related to him…I’m convinced.
[quote]Thanks,
JeffR [/quote]
Blow off.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
todd,
Thanks for reading other posts that have already debunked what he was going to reply.
Notice he didn’t respond to the questions?
I guessed what he would say.
Oh, care to enter the argument.
Good luck,
JeffR [/quote]
Jeff,
I don’t think you understand what I am getting at. You have no evidence to back up your claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to March 21, 2003. There were a few low level meetings that took place outside of the country. So if you know something the rest of us don’t, why don’t you share?
There is no way you could honestly argue that our actions are aiding the recruitment of terrorists. You have no statistics to support that claim. Our only systems for measuring terrorism worldwide show that operations tempo for terrorism is increasing. (See Spain, Indo, Russia, etc.)
So I really am curious to see you come up with anything more compelling than “You’re wrong.”
Todd
[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
todd,
Thanks for reading other posts that have already debunked what he was going to reply.
Notice he didn’t respond to the questions?
I guessed what he would say.
Oh, care to enter the argument.
Good luck,
JeffR
Jeff,
I don’t think you understand what I am getting at. You have no evidence to back up your claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to March 21, 2003. There were a few low level meetings that took place outside of the country. So if you know something the rest of us don’t, why don’t you share?
There is no way you could honestly argue that our actions (aren’t) aiding the recruitment of terrorists. You have no statistics to support that claim. Our only systems for measuring terrorism worldwide show that operations tempo for terrorism is increasing. (See Spain, Indo, Russia, etc.)
So I really am curious to see you come up with anything more compelling than “You’re wrong.”
Todd
[/quote]
I meant to say “There is no way you could honestly argue that our actions aren’t aiding the recruitment of terrorists.”
Todd:
I know you are communicting with Jeff, however I can’t help but jump in. I don’t think there needs to be any proof relative to a connection.
The fact is Iraq was a terrorist country on it’s own. Therefore, it was a target.
Our CIA thought there were WMD in Iraq. There still might be, as they have not searched the entire country as yet. However, even if there are none that does not mean that Sadam was not a threat to us, and surrounding nations. We are certainly better off with him sitting in jail. No one, but perhaps some naive kid would believe otherwise!
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I’d love to hear from you what in particular in this thread I have said to deserve the name “muttering idiot.” Was it the posting of a link to an article that mentions Graham’s quoting of Tommy Franks regarding the diversion of resources? What was it?
[/quote]
RSU -
It’s the sum total of the recent sophmoric tone with which you have been writing.
Tommy Franks is talking in his book right now - I’d prefer to hear what ever he has to say from his own lips rather than what Graham’s version of what he thinks Franks said.
The only people that are giving Graham’s B.S. any credence are those who’ve drank the Kool-Aid.
Have an original thought, man.
What do you think of the ‘memo’ that CBS News ‘uncovered’ regarding GDub’s National Guard service? Try to have a koolaid-free moment here, RSU.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:
I’d love to hear from you what in particular in this thread I have said to deserve the name “muttering idiot.” Was it the posting of a link to an article that mentions Graham’s quoting of Tommy Franks regarding the diversion of resources? What was it?
RSU -
It’s the sum total of the recent sophmoric tone with which you have been writing.[/quote]
You’ll have to do better than this. Be specific, because I think you’re full of it.
Do you mean he’s writing his own book? Because it ought to be interesting to hear what he has to say, I agree. I don’t think, however, you can disregard what Graham has to say simply because, well, it goes against what you already believe.
Supposing this is so, do you think Graham stands alone? Pro-bushers dispel everyone of the, what, hundreds of books that have been written about him/his family with any sort of negative tone? This entire election is totally bi-partisan, and people are largely voting down party lines. Pro-bushers never criticize him, and likewise, anti-bushers find it difficult to find any quality of merit in him.
Good one. Continue this line of attack, which I’m not surprised you’ve taken considering I’ve already called a bunch of you drones on this thread…
[quote]What do you think of the ‘memo’ that CBS News ‘uncovered’ regarding GDub’s National Guard service? Try to have a koolaid-free moment here, RSU.
[/quote]
Why would you ask me this? Why don’t you start its own thread and give it some attention, especially since Swift-Boaters got plenty of their own threads on this little TNation political board…I’ll contribute to that thread if you start it.