1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bush On Iraq: "We're not winning..."

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Flying Headbutt, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. Flying Headbutt

    Flying Headbutt Moderator Staff Member

    But we are sending more troops and spending more and more on this warm this year. He's like the Peter Angelos of presidents. Don't do shit right until it's way too late and you can't do it right anymore, and arrogantly and stubbornly refuse to admit you don't know just what the hell you're doing.

  2. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    I hope the people who have told us countless times how great this war will be judged by future generations will stop in on this thread.

    And no, FH, he's not like Angelos. When Angelos screws up and is too proud to admit it, it's bad for a bunch of guys playing a game. This jackass here, he's more like the drunk guy who's too proud to admit that he can't drive himself.

    Well, he's like that guy if that guy can fit a little over 3,000 people in the car with him.
  3. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    At the risk of entering one of these logical sinkhole treads, why is it too late to get enough troops in there to accomplish something? Was there some sort of "point of no return" that was passed?
  4. OTD

    OTD Active Member

    For one, there aren't any troops to put in. Most have been over there, or are about to be rotated over there, and there's a limit to how often guard and reserve units can be called up without their members staging a mutiny.

    And yes, I think we have passed the point of no return. Without getting into the merits of the war, if we'd put more troops in in the first place, and concentrated on restoring the infrastructure, we'd probably be out of there now. But Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap, and now the entire population, down to 3-year-old girls, knows how to make IEDs.
  5. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    The only way we "win" this war is to wipe out a whole helluva lot of people in this country. And even if we do that, there's no guarantee that civil war won't completely overtake the country as soon as we leave.

    Had we put enough troops in there to start with, or acted quickly when the generals on the ground told this administration of the problems, we wouldn't have this shit storm. But as it is, anti-American folk spilled into this country by the truckload during the early stages of this war, they took over certain provinces, waged a propaganda war against the US, convinced the average citizens that we were the enemy and it's now too far gone to recover. We have no idea who likes us or hates us. Every time we kill or capture one insurgent, five take his place. And no matter how many troops you put in there, it comes down to one decision: Do we kill a bunch of people, including quite a few innocent people, or do we cut our losses and the losses of the Iraqi people and leave?

    And leaving doesn't have to be a defeat. If we back a side in the sure-to-come civil war, which is already boiling over, we can still ensure that a US-friendly government takes over.
  6. Yawn

    Yawn New Member

    Hell has frozen over.

    Dog, you know, I actually think you're making sense. Amazing that once you stop your piss on Bush rants what can happen. Good job. Shias for $5 billion, Alex.
  7. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    To all the people who attempted to belittle Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911... fucking shame on you.
  8. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    accomplish something?

    it's a civil war over there. One that we fomented.
  9. dog --
    We back one side in a civil war, namely the Shia, and we guarantee a generational occupation, our own role as the Brits in a better-armed Belfast, an Iran empowered beyond our wildest dreams, and a number of other really bad outcomes. I don't think all that's worth watching Bill Kristol's head explode when the WH hosts our new ally, al Sadr.
  10. three_bags_full

    three_bags_full Well-Known Member

    So, let me get this straight. Now that he wants to do the right thing, it's now the wrong thing?

  11. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Yes, Dyepack, the point of no return was indeed passed, when this happened:

  12. TV -- I was thinking of a point in late January, 2001 myself.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page