SpeedRacer 1 #51 July 17, 2007 QuoteSo, I bleive what I beleive because I am confident that if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. How does this work? Why couldn't they still attack us here? UK & Spain got attacked when they were in Iraq. How does the presence of our troops in Iraq DECREASE the likelihood of being attacked here in the USA? and does it actually decrease the likelihood of attacks here more than it increases it? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 July 17, 2007 Quote if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. As with Speedracer - this is one point that I've never agreed with. Terrorism is tactical, so certainly it could be run on a multi-location basis. The only way an organized war would be effective would be to cut off funding and support from a centralized location. And I don't think radical terrorism is centrally organized below a certain level. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #53 July 17, 2007 Quote So, I bleive what I beleive because I am confident that if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. Here's something interesting - i agree with you on this. However, to quote an intelligence report released today: The threat from Al Qaeda has increased in recent years as the network behind the September 11 attacks has gained strength and become entrenched at sites in remote northwestern Pakistan, intelligence officials said. We're in the wrong fucking country!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #54 July 17, 2007 Quote We're in the wrong fucking country!!!!!!!!! I have been saying that for a while now. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 July 17, 2007 Quote Quote Unarmored and body armor. Those talking points were destroyed years ago. So, you have to bring them back to support your postition?? what a bunch of shitYou do love framing questions in misleading ways dont you! I notice you didn't answer my questions:You did not have questions. You have accusations that have been bebunked and are not supportable How exactly did they do that? By discussing the progress of the war and possible new courses of action? And what do you suggest out congress do, ignore the war?To do what they said they would do. Trust the "new" general they aproved by unanimus vote and let him report back in SEPTEMBER And oh, by the way, if my talking point about unarmored vehicles was blown out of the water years ago, why did Gates ask for more armored vehicles 2 hours ago??? Hmmmmm?It is not that they had what they wanted. It is more the Bush acusations that I am talking about. Just like the New Orleans shit the incompitient left Mayor and Govenor tried to hang on Bush and FEMA http://www.yahoo.com/s/629336 Pentagon asks money for armored vehicles By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 37 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to ask Congress Tuesday for permission to shift as much as $1.3 billion from other military programs to speed up the purchase of bomb-resistant vehicles for troops in Iraq. According to military officials, the Army would like to reallocate about $800 million, and the Marines want roughly $500 million, to buy the Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles that have been saving lives in roadside bomb attacks. Gates is expected to go to Capitol Hill with senior Army and Marine leaders to formally request that the money be reprogrammed, the officials said on condition of anonymity because the meeting has not yet taken place. Military officials said the shift in funds would not affect any day-to-day war spending or the troops in battle. The Pentagon has come under fire in recent months, particularly from Congress, for perceived delays in getting the armored vehicles to the troops. Gates has said that getting more of the armored vehicles to the troops is a top priority. And he has demanded an accelerated effort to get them to Iraq in large numbers to replace the more vulnerable Humvee utility vehicle used by soldiers and Marines. The additional money would help contractors get more of the vehicles to the field faster, the officials said. They did not say exactly how many more or how much faster the work could be done. On July 11, the Pentagon's Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which includes high-ranking representatives from all of the military services, agreed that the military needs to buy as many of the reinforced vehicles as the contractors could churn out. The group previously endorsed the need for nearly 7,800 MRAPs, which included about 2,500 for the Army. The projected cost would be about $8.4 billion. Army officials have said they could use as many as 17,700 and the Marines want 3,700. In its memo, the council said the Pentagon wants to "reach a maximum production rate as soon as possible," but the final number to be bought will depend on the changing conditions in the war, feedback from commanders and any possible changes in the military's mission in Iraq. To date, no U.S. forces have been killed while riding in the MRAP carriers, which cost about $1 billion each and have a unique V-shaped hull that deflects blasts outward and away from passengers. They are considered lifesavers against the No. 1 killer in Iraq — roadside bombs. The military officials said it is hoped that Congress would eventually restore much of the funding, which is being shifted from other accounts for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. A significant amount of the money for the Army, for example, was initially earmarked for maintenance and refurbishment of equipment that was scheduled to come back to the United States with units that had planned to come home after one-year deployments. Gates, however, extended the Iraq tours to a maximum of 15 months, and as a result there have been savings in some of those repair accounts. ___ On the Net: Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil Nothing new, they are always asking as they should. But to acuse a president of not supplying them. That is just political posturing. Which you suck up like a sponge"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #56 July 18, 2007 Quote >Simple, dont you think? Yes, really a simple question, but one you cannot answer - because underlying your posts is, I think, a lot of hatred towards liberals. So you say the most damning things you can about them, like "the democratic party wants US soldiers to die." When it's pointed out that most americans, including a lot of GOPers. support the same thing, you back off and change the subject, because (I think) you realize that what you said is absurd. To put it another way, a democrat could, just as accurately (which is to say, not at all accurately) say that "you people want to keep the troops there until they're all dead." And he would be just as right - and the argument would be just as useless. US soldiers are dying by the thousands. Do you want to stop that? I do. Do all liberals go to "I know what and how you think" and "I can put words in your mouth" and "I know where you get your ideas" school together? Really, you can do better than telling me what I am thinking can't you? So, I read the "hatred" comment and I stop reading cause you don't have any idea what I think. But to answer the line at sentense 1. No, I don't hate you, you are the ones that hate. I just think you are wrong. Too much feeling not enough logic."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #57 July 18, 2007 And how do you feel about the latest NIE, telling us that AQ has grown stronger during Bush's Great Iraq Adventure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 July 18, 2007 Why? Because the Army has *FINALLY* figured out that the HMMWV was *NOT* designed to be a forward line of battle vehicle, regardless of how much armor you hang on it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo, I bleive what I beleive because I am confident that if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. How does this work? Why couldn't they still attack us here? UK & Spain got attacked when they were in Iraq. How does the presence of our troops in Iraq DECREASE the likelihood of being attacked here in the USA? and does it actually decrease the likelihood of attacks here more than it increases it? Because if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick up by the time their kids are walking.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #60 July 18, 2007 Quote And how do you feel about the latest NIE, telling us that AQ has grown stronger during Bush's Great Iraq Adventure. They can say what ever they want. Does not change the need or reason to be there. Most of the issues you and I and many other go round about and not measurable so, we debate subjectivly at best. One fact remains however. The Senate confirmed the general without one desenting vote. He said he will report back in Sept. Anything done now by the Dems is pure politica posturing. The Islamic radicals want us believing or dead. This is rule number 1. It was that way before Bush and it will reamin that way after Bush. If we do not find a way to stop them they WILL find ways to kill us. rule number 2? You can't change rule number one by playing nicey nice."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #61 July 18, 2007 QuoteBecause if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick up by the time their kids are walking I guess you really believe Al Queda cant act on multiple fronts.....The actions of this administration by going into Iraq...have lost us support AROUND THE WORLD... making it far harder to go after the people who ACTUALLY attacked us. Those actions have been by far the greatest tool of radicalizing a whole generation of young numbnuts who now want to kill an american or two (or more if possible) so they can get their 72 virgins for their heavenly little stiffies. There really isnt much from stopping these idiots from coming to a mall or airport or train station right here right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #62 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo, I bleive what I beleive because I am confident that if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. How does this work? Why couldn't they still attack us here? UK & Spain got attacked when they were in Iraq. How does the presence of our troops in Iraq DECREASE the likelihood of being attacked here in the USA? and does it actually decrease the likelihood of attacks here more than it increases it? Because if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick up by the time their kids are walking. You do realize the contradiction between that statement and the other right wing claim that the fighters in Iraq are coming from other places? We are not forcing them to fight in Iraq. They fight in Iraq because they choose to. When they choose to go elsewhere, they will.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #63 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo, I bleive what I beleive because I am confident that if this fight is not taken to them it will come here. How does this work? Why couldn't they still attack us here? UK & Spain got attacked when they were in Iraq. How does the presence of our troops in Iraq DECREASE the likelihood of being attacked here in the USA? and does it actually decrease the likelihood of attacks here more than it increases it? Because if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick up by the time their kids are walking. You do realize the contradiction between that statement and the other right wing claim that the fighters in Iraq are coming from other places? We are not forcing them to fight in Iraq. They fight in Iraq because they choose to. When they choose to go elsewhere, they will. and they have already: look at the attacks in the UK & Spain. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #64 July 18, 2007 QuoteBecause if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick up by the time their kids are walking. This was the theory. Looks like it was wrong. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12056280Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #65 July 18, 2007 >Because if they are kept busy THERE, there are less opportunities for them >to create havoc HERE...the basic principle is something most parents pick >up by the time their kids are walking. So sort of a "put a bunch of broken glass and nails in another room, so they don't get hurt near me" approach? In any case it doesn't work: ----------- Al-Qaeda strengthening in Iraq, report warns Last Updated: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 | 8:08 PM ET CBC News The United States is under a "heightened threat" of attack by al-Qaeda as the group strengthens its network in Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials say. That assessment was made in the declassified section of the National Intelligence Estimate released Tuesday. Al-Qaeda, responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, remains the "most serious terrorist threat" to the U.S. and is "driven and intent" on attacking the country, officials said. "Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," said the report written with the co-operation of various U.S. intelligence agencies. --------------- Bush Aides See Failure in Fight With Al Qaeda in Pakistan Published: July 18, 2007 WASHINGTON, July 17 — President Bush’s top counterterrorism advisers acknowledged Tuesday that the strategy for fighting Osama bin Laden’s leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan had failed, as the White House released a grim new intelligence assessment that has forced the administration to consider more aggressive measures inside Pakistan. The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since the Sept. 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing the United States, concludes that the United States is losing ground on a number of fronts in the fight against Al Qaeda, and describes the terrorist organization as having significantly strengthened over the past two years. In identifying the main reasons for Al Qaeda’s resurgence, intelligence officials and White House aides pointed the finger squarely at a hands-off approach toward the tribal areas by Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who last year brokered a cease-fire with tribal leaders in an effort to drain support for Islamic extremism in the region. “It hasn’t worked for Pakistan,” said Frances Fragos Townsend, who heads the Homeland Security Council at the White House. “It hasn’t worked for the United States.” ---------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #66 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuote And how do you feel about the latest NIE, telling us that AQ has grown stronger during Bush's Great Iraq Adventure. They can say what ever they want. Does not change the need or reason to be there. What is this week's reason to be there? Quote Most of the issues you and I and many other go round about and not measurable so, we debate subjectivly at best. . We can measure the number of dead US boys over there. We can measure the cost in $Billions and compare it with the predictions from 2003. We can measure the time taken and compare it with "not six months". We can see where we stand and compare it with "Mission Accomplished".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #67 July 18, 2007 Quote We can measure the number of dead US boys over there. We can measure the cost in $Billions and compare it with the predictions from 2003. We can measure the time taken and compare it with "not six months". We can see where we stand and compare it with "Mission Accomplished". Too bad we can't measure someone's exact seperation from reality. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #68 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Quote And how do you feel about the latest NIE, telling us that AQ has grown stronger during Bush's Great Iraq Adventure. They can say what ever they want. Does not change the need or reason to be there. What is this week's reason to be there? Quote Most of the issues you and I and many other go round about and not measurable so, we debate subjectivly at best. . We can measure the number of dead US boys over there. We can measure the cost in $Billions and compare it with the predictions from 2003. We can measure the time taken and compare it with "not six months". We can see where we stand and compare it with "Mission Accomplished". Another nomative statement by kallend"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #69 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuote We can measure the number of dead US boys over there. We can measure the cost in $Billions and compare it with the predictions from 2003. We can measure the time taken and compare it with "not six months". We can see where we stand and compare it with "Mission Accomplished". Too bad we can't measure someone's exact seperation from reality. Just look at the post above yours. It shows it quite clearly"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #70 July 18, 2007 >Just look at the post above yours. It shows it quite clearly Exactly. All these people using facts, numbers, figures etc have no connection with reality. Now, on the other hand, these people who tell us that we should be terrified of a terrorist attack _and_ be confident that we're winning the war on terror; that we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq so they won't fight us here, even though they're separate from the Pakistan Al Qaeda; and that the more US soldiers die the better we're doing - THOSE are the people who live in the real world of Washington politics! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #71 July 18, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote We can measure the number of dead US boys over there. We can measure the cost in $Billions and compare it with the predictions from 2003. We can measure the time taken and compare it with "not six months". We can see where we stand and compare it with "Mission Accomplished". Too bad we can't measure someone's exact seperation from reality. Just look at the post above yours. It shows it quite clearly Do you believe six impossible things before breakfast, like Alice?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #72 July 18, 2007 Quote>Just look at the post above yours. It shows it quite clearly Exactly. All these people using facts, numbers, figures etc have no connection with reality. Now, on the other hand, these people who tell us that we should be terrified of a terrorist attack _and_ be confident that we're winning the war on terror; that we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq so they won't fight us here, even though they're separate from the Pakistan Al Qaeda; and that the more US soldiers die the better we're doing - THOSE are the people who live in the real world of Washington politics! They may be numbers but in the context used they are subjective. It is war, nothing changes that. The discussion of wether we should be there or not is over. We are there. Cut and run will only make it worse (subjective opinion). You demonstrate in your agruments to me that you do not have an understanding of what is at stake in the this conflict (again IMO) You have your opinion, I have mine. The generals are seeing a positive change. You and your dem friends need to get out quick before the position you have put yourself in buries your ideology. My opinion but it is base on principle not polls and certinly not the retoric and lies levied against this president. Do I think he has fucked up? Yes, I do in a major ways. But saying he is the leader of an evil money grubbing constitution desrtorying monarcky is pure bull shit. September too long to wait? The senate did not think so when they confirmed the last general. Now they are hearing of progress. Got to find a way to stop that. So, It is now Time to bow to moveon.org and the rest of the radicals (who by the way are supported by a non US citizen Mr Soros. Ever looked at what this nut case is saying???) Ya, I am not in todays reality. IF your reality is all there is I don't want it."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #73 July 18, 2007 Quote Another nomative statement by kallend "Sorry, no definition found for "nomative". WTF are you trying to say? Your posts today seem to be rather more confused than normal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #74 July 18, 2007 Quote Quote Another nomative statement by kallend "Sorry, no definition found for "nomative". WTF are you trying to say? Your posts today seem to be rather more confused than normal. Thy this my sly friend "normative""America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #75 July 18, 2007 Quote Another nomative statement by kallend And another completely vacuous response with an invented, nonexistent word by rushmc. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
