Yerdaddy supports Bush [Watch out for that pig!]

[Yerdaddy]

<p>OK no time for all the links and&nbsp;the 1000 word&nbsp;post and all that usual bullshit. Clock's ticking here. [Read today's paper for the details about the shit I'm mentioning here.]</p><p>Here's the deal: Bush's response to the Iraq Study Group Report and other suggestions for what strategy to take on Iraq is to say fuck the ISG, fuck the democrats and fuck his usual group of loyalist generals. Instead he's more or less going with Sens. McCain and Warners' idea of a temporary surge of troops with specific tasks and a jumpstarting of the reconstruction process. This is a good thing. It's a Hail Mary and it can't and won't make us win the war. We lost. But, it's the best idea on the table for a last-ditch effort at damage control. And it's better than just beginning the inevitable withdrawal of troops tha the Democrats are making a big show about right now in Congress. It's not much better. But it's better. Here's why:</p><p>One of the biggest fuck-ups we've made in Iraq over the last four years is that we've short-changed the reconstruction tasks from the beginning - in terms of both money and expertise. (It borders on criminal, in my opinion.) Reconstruction <em>is</em> the hearts and minds&nbsp;campaign that is critical&nbsp;to any counterinsurgency war according to&nbsp;commanders on the ground (and even Iraqi tribal sheikhs and numerous other people ten times smarter and more honest&nbsp;than the Bush adminstratinon). </p><p>If the Bush plan is truly to try to jump-start recontruction with an influx of money and send in 20,000 specialized troops to do the tasks that have been shortchanged over the last four years, then we should be supporting it. </p><p>One other reason I think this is worth trying is the fact that there's a chance that Bush is actually listening to his new&nbsp;new Sec Def and the new Sec Def is now listening to the uniformed military on the ground. Dispite the platitudes coming out of the White House from the beginning, he has&nbsp;NEVER listened to the uniformed military&nbsp;in Iraq&nbsp;unless they were hand-chosen by Rumsfeld. This MIGHT have changed. And it's worth a shot.</p><p>But what the dems are doing is working on two assumptions - two true and one false: that we've lost the war (true); that there's nothing we can do about it (false);&nbsp;that YOU, the general public,&nbsp;want the boys to come home (true). So they're trying to make a show of beginning to pull out now rather than later. They don't have any faith in the Bush administration to do something right in Iraq. I <em>almost</em> can't blame them. And if Bush gets something right just before the inevitable &quot;Operation Blame the Iraqis and Leave&quot; he's going to milk it politically for all it's worth. &quot;See? Ah know what ahm a doin!&quot; But who gives a shit? He can have all the political points he wants if he finally gets something right. It's worth it. </p><p>So, I encourage all you politicos to read the articles from the last two days since Bush anounced his plan and the dems response and, if you agree with me that he's got the better idea, call your reps' offices and tell them you support the White House on this one. (There's a million websites with the Congressional phone listings. ) If you say you're a democrat and opposed to their plan it carries more weight. If you throw in that you fully support the need for investigative hearings about the administration's handling of Iraq it holds more weight. If you keep it short and sweet, but sound like you know what you're talking about, it holds more weight. Emails work too.</p><p>That's all. </p><p>[EDIT: <a href="http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,3659/type,1/" target="_blank">Here's a link to a useful Cordesman&nbsp;analysis directly related to the subject.</a>]</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 1-10-07 @ 11:13 AM</span>

[A.J.]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>One of the biggest fuck-ups we've made in Iraq over the last four years is that we've short-changed the reconstruction tasks from the beginning - in terms of both money and expertise. (It borders on criminal, in my opinion.) Reconstruction <em>is</em> the hearts and minds&nbsp;campaign that is critical&nbsp;to any counterinsurgency war according to&nbsp;commanders on the ground (and even Iraqi tribal sheikhs and numerous other people ten times smarter and more honest&nbsp;than the Bush adminstratinon). </p><p>That and the fact that there was no surrender (conditional or otherwise) by the former regime.&nbsp; After Saddam was yanked from the spider hole, his ass should have been signing surrender papers.&nbsp; This might have spared us the insurgency that has erupted and eased reconstruction.</p><p>Speaking of reconstruction, part of the problem that didn't work is because the contractors hired to put in new phone and power lines, etc. were getting kidnapped and/or beheaded.&nbsp;</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>A.J.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>One of the biggest fuck-ups we've made in Iraq over the last four years is that we've short-changed the reconstruction tasks from the beginning - in terms of both money and expertise. (It borders on criminal, in my opinion.) Reconstruction <em>is</em> the hearts and minds&nbsp;campaign that is critical&nbsp;to any counterinsurgency war according to&nbsp;commanders on the ground (and even Iraqi tribal sheikhs and numerous other people ten times smarter and more honest&nbsp;than the Bush adminstratinon). </p><p>That and the fact that there was no surrender (conditional or otherwise) by the former regime.&nbsp; After Saddam was yanked from the spider hole, his ass should have been signing surrender papers.&nbsp; This might have spared us the insurgency that has erupted and eased reconstruction.</p><p>Speaking of reconstruction, part of the problem that didn't work is because the contractors hired to put in new phone and power lines, etc. were getting kidnapped and/or beheaded.&nbsp;</p><p>True, but that doesn't explain away monstrous corruption, no pre-war planning, and the fact that guys were getting jobs running ministries because they were frat brothers with the guy doing the hiring. </p><p>And is a surrender paper signed by a captured leader who looks like Foster Brooks dragged out of the lake even legal? I don't think it would have meant shit.</p>

[phixion]

<p>my personal opinion: too little far too late.</p><p>i was against the war from the start, but if u wanted to wage this war then u had to fill iraq with every available military personnel that is available. fill the nation with millions of soldiers, draft if necessary. either we choose to act decisively or not at all. wars are fought politically as well as militarily, and if u cant win politically (which we cant) then you cant win. we cant win politically because we destroyed their political infrastructure, this is a lose lose situation. all i think the additional personel will do is provide more casualties and create more angry iraqis. this idea wouldve been great a few years ago. </p>

[Jujubees2]

<font size="2"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">I don't agree that sending in more troops is the answer (I believe it&rsquo;s a bit like the Concord Fallacy &ndash; continuing to invest resources into something only because you already have a lot invested in the project).&nbsp; Aren't the Iraqis supposed to be getting ready to take over defending themselves?&nbsp; So by sending in more troops, we are telling them they we don't think they can do it and, as a result, they will never do it.</span><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana"></span> <p><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Verdana">It's obvious that the situation in Iraq will never be solved with guns and bombs.&nbsp; It will&nbsp;only be resolved with diplomacy.</span></p></font>

[DJEvelEd]

I feel a draft.

[KennethC]

<p>I was waiting for Yerdaddy's take on this, because I had the same feeling that the&nbsp;Bush plan could actually work (even though I obviously lack Yerdaddy's knowledge, articulation and sartorial sense). If Bush can pull off&nbsp;his Marshall Plan gimmick and put the Iraqi people back to work, it seems like it could do wonders for maintaining stability. People (regardless of religion or ideology) would rather work than fight. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[NewYorkDragons80]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>A.J.</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>One of the biggest fuck-ups we've made in Iraq over the last four years is that we've short-changed the reconstruction tasks from the beginning - in terms of both money and expertise. (It borders on criminal, in my opinion.) Reconstruction <em>is</em> the hearts and minds campaign that is critical to any counterinsurgency war according to commanders on the ground (and even Iraqi tribal sheikhs and numerous other people ten times smarter and more honest than the Bush adminstratinon). </p><p>That and the fact that there was no surrender (conditional or otherwise) by the former regime. After Saddam was yanked from the spider hole, his ass should have been signing surrender papers. This might have spared us the insurgency that has erupted and eased reconstruction.</p><p>Speaking of reconstruction, part of the problem that didn't work is because the contractors hired to put in new phone and power lines, etc. were getting kidnapped and/or beheaded. </p><p>True, but that doesn't explain away monstrous corruption, no pre-war planning, and the fact that guys were getting jobs running ministries because they were frat brothers with the guy doing the hiring. </p><p>And is a surrender paper signed by a captured leader who looks like Foster Brooks dragged out of the lake even legal? I don't think it would have meant shit.</p><p>&nbsp;I wouldn't say that there was no pre-war planning, it just got dicked over by us playing catch-up when regular Iraqi policeman and soldiers stayed home for fear of being associated with Ba'athism.&nbsp; As far as planning goes, I think the plan was that they would put up a fight or wave the white flag and make themselves available for new assignments.&nbsp; I don't think it's unreasonable to have that expectation, but there should have been some kind of contingency plan for additional support to establish security.</p><p>&nbsp;I also think we should have supported either Prince Ra'ad of Prince Sharif Ali bin Hussein to reign as a constitutional monarch and work out a peace agreement the way their great-grandparents did in the 1920s.&nbsp; That way, the Sunnis would have had a permanent symbolic figure in government at all times, because we should have fucking known the Shi'a were going to sweep the elections, especially when almost all the unrest is in Sunni-Arab provinces.&nbsp; That isn't Monday-morning quarterbacking, I've been saying that since before this war started.</p>

[Jujubees2]

<p><font size="2">Now it seems that the additional troops&nbsp;won't&nbsp;have the latest&nbsp;armored vehicles.&nbsp; And why not?&nbsp; Because &quot;<strong>At each step along the way for the past four years, the key policymakers have assumed we were just months away from beginning to withdraw&quot;</strong> from Iraq, said Loren B. Thompson, a national security analyst at the Lexington Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Arlington, Va. &quot;As a result, they never made long-term plans for occupying the country effectively.&quot; </font></p><p><a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.armor10jan10,0,2049191.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines">http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.armor10jan10,0,2049191.story?coll=bal-iraq-headlines</a></p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<p>The strategy may or may not be a good one. McCain (and many retired generals) have been saying since day 1 we didn't have enough boots on the ground to secure the place. The problem with reconstruction, as AJ said, is lack of security. The reason we dont have an internal political solution is lack of security. The reason we dont have the Iraqis policing themselves is also related to the infighting, which cant be remedied without first getting them to stop killing each other. Again, lack of security. </p><p>My problem with this is I dont trust this President to properly execute any plan, no matter how well or poorly concieved. He doesn't operate based on results (despite his MBA in business), he operates based on cronyism. His appointment of Gates (from Bush 1), while widely supported in Washington, is further evidence that he is still operating from the same playbook he always has. If he was a results oriented president, all of this would have happened years ago. It may be too late at this point. Or perhaps the Iraqis have seen enough violence and thirst for a settlement of any kind, anything to stop the bloodshed. But I dont think this president practices the accountability needed to solve difficult problems. After 4 years, he only changed course because the electorate forced him to do so. </p><p>A brilliant plan in the hands of an idiot is worthless. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <span class="post_edited"></span>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-10-07 @ 7:02 PM</span>

[Yerdaddy]

<p>Now&nbsp;you're&nbsp;all going to see why Yerdaddy has become an adjective referring to length of political posts: no sex! Yesterday I picked myself out a nice Thai girlfriend and now I have no time to post. (Did anyone have &quot;no sex&quot; in the &quot;Why does that freak post all that shit in the politics forum&quot; poll? You're the big winner. </p><p>About 10 words of English but she's just adorable. </p><p>Oh yeah, couple points I did want to make:</p><p>1. Bush's plan probably will not do much, if any, good. More than likely it will just&nbsp;postpone our surrender. But the democrats' plan&nbsp; is just to surrender and get it over with. For reasons in the original post I'm going with slim chance over no chance.</p><p>2. We will be back. We know this is going to spill over into the region. Every foreign terrorist in Iraq will go home well-trained. All of Iraq's neighbors (especially Saudi Arabia) are at great risk right now. What was 1991 Gulf War about? Protecting Saudi Arabia. We're only pulling out because the only response the American public has to &quot;you're losing a war&quot; is &quot;Fuck it! Get out!&quot; Just like our (the public's)&nbsp;only response to an international problem is bomb em, go to war, or nuke em. And the longer this goes on the&nbsp;more we'll want our boys and girls home.&nbsp;&nbsp;So the first party to deliver that wins that public sentiment. But is it saving our soldiers' lives to bring them home now? NO. We're going to pull out, let the problem fester and send them back in. What's worse: a problem, or a festering problem? Not all the troops will be out. Some will be there for at least 10 years. The death toll won't stop going up.</p><p>Gotta go! Herrroooooo!</p>

[Gvac]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Now you're all going to see why Yerdaddy has become an adjective referring to length of political posts: no sex! Yesterday <span style="background-color: #ffff00">I picked myself out a nice Thai girlfriend</span> and now I have no time to post. </p><p>Be honest - It's a 10 year old boy, isn't it? </p><p>You depraved right wing wackos are sick!&nbsp;</p>

[Bulldogcakes]

<strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Now you're all going to see why Yerdaddy has become an adjective referring to length of political posts: no sex! Yesterday I picked myself out a nice Thai girlfriend and now I have no time to post. (Did anyone have &quot;no sex&quot; in the &quot;Why does that freak post all that shit in the politics forum&quot; poll? You're the big winner. </p><p>About 10 words of English but she's just adorable.</p>Ah yes. Thai women. Some of the most beautiful asian women in the world. &nbsp;<img src="http://www.thai-pix.com/pixs/Mirantee/Thai-sexy-lady-mirantee-017.jpg" border="0" width="225" height="250" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Nalinee/Thai-sexy-girl-Nalinee-008.jpg" border="0" width="415" height="504" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/BO/Thailand-Sexy-model-girl-bo-01.jpg" border="0" width="276" height="420" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Kwanjai/Thai-sexy-girl-Kwanjai-009.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="370" /><br /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Lew-Plee-Earn/Thailand-sexy-lady-Lew-Plee-Arn-006.jpg" border="0" width="578" height="449" />&nbsp;&nbsp;Am I trying to derail this thread? YesSiam!&nbsp;<p>&nbsp;</p>

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>Gvac</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Now you're all going to see why Yerdaddy has become an adjective referring to length of political posts: no sex! Yesterday <span style="background-color: #ffff00">I picked myself out a nice Thai girlfriend</span> and now I have no time to post. </p><p>Be honest - It's a 10 year old boy, isn't it? </p><p>You depraved right wing wackos are sick!&nbsp;</p><p>She's 18&nbsp;I'll have you know! I checked. Granted that a bit old for a duck in a minidress, but I wanted to be safe.&nbsp; </p>

[sailor]

<strong>Bulldogcakes</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Yerdaddy</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Now you're all going to see why Yerdaddy has become an adjective referring to length of political posts: no sex! Yesterday I picked myself out a nice Thai girlfriend and now I have no time to post. (Did anyone have &quot;no sex&quot; in the &quot;Why does that freak post all that shit in the politics forum&quot; poll? You're the big winner. </p><p>About 10 words of English but she's just adorable.</p>Ah yes. Thai women. Some of the most beautiful asian women in the world. <img src="http://www.thai-pix.com/pixs/Mirantee/Thai-sexy-lady-mirantee-017.jpg" border="0" width="225" height="250" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Nalinee/Thai-sexy-girl-Nalinee-008.jpg" border="0" width="415" height="504" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/BO/Thailand-Sexy-model-girl-bo-01.jpg" border="0" width="276" height="420" /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Kwanjai/Thai-sexy-girl-Kwanjai-009.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="370" /><br /><img src="http://thai-pix.com/pixs/Lew-Plee-Earn/Thailand-sexy-lady-Lew-Plee-Arn-006.jpg" border="0" width="578" height="449" /> Am I trying to derail this thread? YesSiam! <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="2">this site really needs nsfw pics.&nbsp; (i understand why we can't have them, but still...)<br /></font></p>

[DJEvelEd]

<p>&nbsp;<font size="2">this site really needs nsfw pics.&nbsp; (i understand why we can't have them, but still...)<br /></font></p><p>&nbsp;NSFW:</p><p><a href="http://membres.lycos.fr/classpaclass/hpbimg/coke_diarrhea.JPG" title="NSFW">http://membres.lycos.fr/classpaclass/hpbimg/coke_diarrhea.JPG</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[DJEvelEd]

<p>I love this &quot;Nuclear Posture Review Report&quot;. It basically says that we will begin to use smaller nukes. Instead of leveling a city, they will level a block, or penetrate deep caves &amp; bunkers. Our hypocracy in dealing with Iran is what will get us more terror here. We are the only country to use a nuke in a war. We want to be the only country allowed to use them. This will be our undoing.</p><p><a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf">http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf</a></p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-11-07 @ 8:51 PM</span>

[DJEvelEd]

<p>Are we allowed to invade the consulate of a foreign country?</p><p>We just invaded the Iranian consulate. I think Bush is trying to provoke the Iranians into attaking us. Great. Just fucking great! Watch for another 9/11 soon.</p>

[JamMaster]

<strong>DJEvelEd</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Are we allowed to invade the consulate of a foreign country?</p><p>We just invaded the Iranian consulate. I think Bush is trying to provoke the Iranians into attaking us. Great. Just fucking great! Watch for another 9/11 soon.</p><p>If it was the consulate....then that is like invading a country....very very bad.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think I read that it was just an office building that was flying an Iranian flag.&nbsp; I don't think that counts as soveriegn territory.&nbsp; They are holding 6 Iranians and Iran&nbsp;wants an explanation,</p><p>Here is the link I read</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq</a></p>

[JamMaster]

<strong>DJEvelEd</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I love this &quot;Nuclear Posture Review Report&quot;. It basically says that we will begin to use smaller nukes. Instead of leveling a city, they will level a block, or penetrate deep caves &amp; bunkers. Our hypocracy in dealing with Iran is what will get us more terror here. We are the only country to use a nuke in a war. We want to be the only country allowed to use them. This will be our undoing.</p><p><a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf">http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf</a></p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-11-07 @ 8:51 PM</span> <p>I am worried about Israel pulling a 1981 Iraqi style bombing run&nbsp;against Iran using tactical nukes.&nbsp; If that happens....It was nice knowing you all.</p>

[keithy_19]

<strong>DJEvelEd</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I love this &quot;Nuclear Posture Review Report&quot;. It basically says that we will begin to use smaller nukes. Instead of leveling a city, they will level a block, or penetrate deep caves &amp; bunkers. Our hypocracy in dealing with Iran is what will get us more terror here. We are the only country to use a nuke in a war. We want to be the only country allowed to use them. This will be our undoing.</p><p><a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf">http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf</a></p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-11-07 @ 8:51 PM</span> <p>So, let a country with a ruler who said he wants to&nbsp;destroy the&nbsp; Israel have a nuke. Sounds good to me. </p>

[FUNKMAN]

i say we smoke bush...

[Yerdaddy]

<strong>keithy_19</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>DJEvelEd</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I love this &quot;Nuclear Posture Review Report&quot;. It basically says that we will begin to use smaller nukes. Instead of leveling a city, they will level a block, or penetrate deep caves &amp; bunkers. Our hypocracy in dealing with Iran is what will get us more terror here. We are the only country to use a nuke in a war. We want to be the only country allowed to use them. This will be our undoing.</p><p><a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf">http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002/d20020109npr.pdf</a></p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-11-07 @ 8:51 PM</span> <p>So, let a country with a ruler who said he wants to&nbsp;destroy the&nbsp; Israel have a nuke. Sounds good to me. </p><p>That's not&nbsp;what he fucking said. You&nbsp;really refuse to listen to anyone don't you? </p>

[silera]

<p>I'm glad your making lemonade out of lemons.&nbsp; I gave up long ago on following this shit.&nbsp; However, based on the current political climate, he's not getting the troops, we're giving up and going home and leaving the fixin' to them.</p><p>Just my take.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[DJEvelEd]

<p>In case you haven't seen it already:</p><p><a href="http://www.mojoflix.com/Video/Bush-Screws-The-Country.html" title="SFW">SFW</a>...well not really</p>