too much divergence in worldview to answer this right now. Maybe I'll try later.
On 9/17/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/16/07, Dana wrote:
> >
> > But is it one of the top five problems, lol. If it's not a problem in
> > Iraq, is this perhaps just maybe because we have started a
On 9/16/07, Dana wrote:
>
> But is it one of the top five problems, lol. If it's not a problem in
> Iraq, is this perhaps just maybe because we have started a whole other
> set of problems there than al Qaeda and the Taliban? Hello, we have
> the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And as I said, the Taliban
But is it one of the top five problems, lol. If it's not a problem in
Iraq, is this perhaps just maybe because we have started a whole other
set of problems there than al Qaeda and the Taliban? Hello, we have
the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban rich on drug money os not a
good thing. You don't
On 9/15/07, Dinner wrote:
>
>
> That we're fighting the terrists (or is it just the AQ? mmm) but we don't
> care if they are getting, um, reinforcements, sow-to-speak? It's like,
> we are content to just chop the branches as they grow, for EVER, in-
> stead of ripping the damnable thing out by it'
On 9/16/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you have any idea what you're saying at all?
I wonder myself at times... there's so much to know!
The Taliban is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
No ship? Keep digging, Watson!
>From some random interweb article:
"The fact of the matter is you can
Do you have any idea what you're saying at all?
The Taliban is in Afghanistan not Iraq.
> -Original Message-
> From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:54 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
>
I didn't read al that because you missed my point. I was talking about the
sign up comment.
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:03 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus
On 9/15/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which statements?
That we're fighting the terrists (or is it just the AQ? mmm) but we don't
care if they are getting, um, reinforcements, sow-to-speak? It's like,
we are content to just chop the branches as they grow, for EVER, in-
stead of rip
On 9/13/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who decides to lose a fucking war? We haven't taken huge casualties and
> losses. We haven't lost ground or battles. Why are your ilk sodefeatist?
Just to clarify- As I've stated before, I'm not for a with-drawl in Iraq.
I think it was BS wh
Which statements?
Al Qaeda's main goal is not Iraq. Their main goal is the creation of an
Islamic state spanning half the world, from Spain to Indonesia. They see
Iraq as the launch pad for that state. Our current objectives are to prevent
Al Qaeda from taking over Iraq, stabilize the country, and
Johnson wasn't bad. A genuine laissez-faire republican. He
rationalized homeschooling law too, for another example.
> It's not like Bush2 can get elected again- why the lack of going
> out with a bang? I disliked a local politician's policy, but when
> he had no more time left, he was like "legal
Robert, I'm surprised you don't see the contradiction in your statements.
(like I'm one to talk ! =) )
Apparently we know what al-Q's main goal is - Iraq (ha! ;)
What, exactly, is *our* objective, again?
And I think it's sorta sad, that we're like "we're doing this to like, give you
a taste of t
> tBone wrote:
> Normally I'm with you, but without having served yourself, who are you to
> give that advice man?
>
I'm not giving Gen Patraeus any advice on how to, for example, station
his troops. He's the expert there.
But I'm both an American with common sense and a management
professional.
; Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:39 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > You seem invested in defeat, and you sound annoyed that Petraeus did
> such a
> > good job against Democrats
>
> (1.) The whole "
> RoMunn wrote:
> You seem invested in defeat, and you sound annoyed that Petraeus did such a
> good job against Democrats
(1.) The whole "lose as fast as possible" propaganda is not just
immature, but totally useless. You might as well say, "your butt
stinks! nah nah, na boo boo."
(2.) There a
> tBone wrote:
> Tactical retreat isn't the same thing complete withdrawal, you know this
> man.
>
Absolutely!! No, I meant the quote in a good way :) I was saying
that he was awesome because he led his team, even in retreat, as an
attack. Basically, as I understand it, during that run they ki
Just so you know, we kill them way faster than they breed.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 1:34 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> That's what I was thinking
That's what I was thinking, the dead aren't a big problem.
Maybe he believes in zombies?
Or the dead's brothers, sons, uncles and nephews. And to be proper - sisters,
daughters, aunts and nieces.
Unless you plan to kill the entire world population -1, there is probably going
to be somebody p
That's what I was thinking, the dead aren't a big problem.
Maybe he believes in zombies?
Now that would suck.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 1:08 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject:
th our ROE, which BTW is WAY more
strict than the laws of land warfare require.
I know the soft touch has its place, I just don't think we're there yet.
> -Original Message-
> From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:27 PM
"The only way we win in counter insurgency though is if we get the people on
our side."
Killing them doesn't work?
- Original Message -
From: "Judah McAuley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12
Oil is at $80 because of speculation and profiteering, but it would still be
at $70 without those factors. I'd like to see it closer to $50, and
stabilizing Iraq will help to do that.
I am not concerned about opium production in the short term. We can't wipe
out their crops without substituting so
: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:40 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> Nope. They are wrong.
>
> At the sharp point of the stick, it is about killing. Fast. And
> brutally. Shock and awe as they say.
>
> Basic soldiers are not policem
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Nope. They are wrong.
>
> At the sharp point of the stick, it is about killing. Fast. And
> brutally. Shock and awe as they say.
>
> Basic soldiers are not policemen, they are not public works engineers,
> they are not nannies or babysitters. They are there to break things.
Nope. They are wrong.
At the sharp point of the stick, it is about killing. Fast. And
brutally. Shock and awe as they say.
Basic soldiers are not policemen, they are not public works engineers,
they are not nannies or babysitters. They are there to break things.
"Hearts and minds" is for a diffe
Loathe wrote:
> I was an enlisted airborne infantryman for 8 years and 3 deployments. I
> spent 2 1/2 years in a special purpose unit.
>
> I it really does all boil down to killing at that level.
There are good people in the military trying to change that mindset.
Hearts and minds, my friend. K
I like the analytical approach but I think you are tactically incorrect.
Iraq's oil supply to the rest of the world has been non-existent for
several years now as a result of the war. The market has adjusted to the
lack of output by Iraq by increasing production elsewhere. Increases in
prices i
You seem invested in defeat, and you sound annoyed that Petraeus did such a
good job against Democrats who had already made up their minds about defeat
four years ago. He has managed to turn a mess created by Rumsfeld et. al.
into a reasonable chance of success. The progress is there for everyone t
12:06 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> Loathe wrote:
> > Tactical retreat isn't the same thing complete withdrawal, you know
> this
> > man.
>
> Tactical is often a matter of subjectiveness. Just because you call it
>
Loathe wrote:
> Tactical retreat isn't the same thing complete withdrawal, you know this
> man.
Tactical is often a matter of subjectiveness. Just because you call it
something doesn't mean it is so.
> He's also the highest decorated marine and probably killed more people than
> you know.
Kille
Our motives are pure? Did I say that? Our motives are economic (oil) and
ideological (democracy and plurality v. extremist Islamism). A regional war
starting in Iraq could disrupt half of the world's oil supply and bring
several countries under the sway of Al-Qaeda. That is exactly Al-Qaeda's
state
low that man to hell,"
said one marine, "and it looks as though I may have to."
> -Original Message-
> From: Loathe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:55 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> T
o get at more of those bastards."
http://tinyurl.com/32uw9z
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:04 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> > tBone wrote:
>
> tBone wrote:
> Yup, and used their intestines to lace his boots.
>
If I remember my history right, wasn't he the guy who, in the longest
retreat in American history said, "we're not retreating, we're just
attacking in a different direction."
Because wan't that his east coast NK retreat?
~~
Yup, and used their intestines to lace his boots.
> -Original Message-
> From: Chesty Puller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:06 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> The real Chesty would have killed them
The real Chesty would have killed them all in his quest for a CMH.
- Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Gruss Gott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>> Chesty wrot
> Chesty wrote:
> Shouldn't the goal of war be to annihilate our enemy? That would be so much
> easier than winning their hearts and minds, and cheaper as well.
>
The problem, as the real Chesty knew, is that the enemy has to be
defined. In Iraq only 5% of it is.
We've got about 5% Al Queda (wh
> Dana wrote:
> eh. The beating will continue until morale improves.
>
It would appear that there are many Americans who feel that there is
no irresponsible use of the American military given the remotest
connection to something "in America's interest" or even just something
that seems moral like
es.. everybody already
>> > hates
>> > us, what's the difference? Our troops are more important than saving
>> > face.
>> >
>> > - Matt
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: "Loathe" <
ore important than saving face.
> >
> > - Matt
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Loathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "CF-Community"
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:16 PM
> > Subject: RE: Today's Patraeus
we did something?
> >
> > I flip out, I'm nuts, blah blah blah.
> >
> > When it comes right down to it my response (no retreat, no surrender) is
> > an
> > emotional one. Why did I go there and do what I did if the civilians are
> > only going to change th
ok -- I've been trying to stay out of this. Don't have time. But I
really have to ask. Why are we interested in helping Iraq rebuild
then, if rebuilding Afghanistan is not urgent?
See, even if a personchooses not to dispute the rest of what you say
-- and it's kinda hard, mind you -- that policy f
Dude you are all over the place on this post.
First, Rolling Stone is a joke. They cater to college-age stoners who just
want to be mad at "the man" or "the system". Who cares what they think? Not
me.
Of course people are making money during the war, because of the war, and
from the war, but peop
> RoMunn wrote:
> Regardless of what Bush said back on the campaign trail in 2000, we
> are in the nation-building business in Iraq.
The difference between Japan and Iraq was that Japan was a unified
country *prior* to their military defeat; Iraq isn't and wasn't.
They've got a 2000 year old war
On 9/13/07, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We never actually fought any of those countries in head-on military
> conflict. Germany and Japan, on the other hand, are liberal democracies with
> strong market economies specifically because we crushed them in WWII and
> then spent decades and
On 9/13/07, Jerry Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW I think mandatory military service is a _great_ idea, have been a
> proponent since I was a teenager, but today you would never get it
> passed, since the general public does not trust the government to use
> those resources well (or even
On 9/13/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> War does not change ideologies. If you state that you are fighting an
> ideology, then war isn't your solution, at best it can only address
> the symptoms.
+1! The problem with most of what we are doing is that it's all
about symptoms, and not
On 9/13/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're no sided?
>
> Sre.
Ya know what I mean, Loathe. The "sides" are a sham.
Shame on you for furthering the falseness.
> Listen freak. The body armor shit was resolved quick, but you wouldn't know
> that, you were here home safe.
Give me a
We never actually fought any of those countries in head-on military
conflict. Germany and Japan, on the other hand, are liberal democracies with
strong market economies specifically because we crushed them in WWII and
then spent decades and billions upon billions of dollars helping them
rebuild and
And I completely disagree with you on most of these issues.
For me, there are not 2 sides, there are many. I don't want to pull
out, and I don't want to stay. Neither help me or mine, except the
"leave" pile gets friends and family members out of immediate harms
way (and lets them start working an
> tBone wrote:
> It seems there are two sides.
> Those that want out and those that want to stay.
I would say there are realists and idealists.
Idealists are on both of your sides: some want to stay and some want
to go. That is, it's unrealistic to think the US can just leave.
It's also unreali
quot;Loathe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community"
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>I have very strong feelings on this issue and I do tend to let them run
> things sometimes.
>
> My arguments, what arguments are to be
hursday, September 13, 2007 10:42 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> I am tired of "gung-ho" Americans deciding that people who disagree
> wit hthem are "wusses", "cut and runners", and "throwing in the
> towel"
of wuss Americans
> wanting to throw in the towel.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:24 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
> >
> >
d tired of wuss Americans
wanting to throw in the towel.
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:24 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> You have great benefits?
>
What's so freaking hard to understand is how we are going to win this
war. Iraq will not become a democratic nation anytime soon, maybe
never, so even if we run all the terrorists out of iraq, all they will
do is scatter to the neighboring countries. From there, they'll wait
until we leave and th
Yeah.I have those same memories where
the lack of benefits was a serious issue.
Also, one should note that war did not end communism. China is still
alive and well and going strong.Russia is democratic in name only.
It didn't change the ideologies behind slavery either, racism is still
very much
You have great benefits?
I seem to remember some dark days where you were not all that enthused
with the treatment you had available and were getting.
Am I misremembering that? Or are you?
Pretty harsh language, there, too.
On 9/13/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the 8 years I was e
never ends.
Never quit, never surrender.
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> When do you think the War on Terror will end exactly?
&g
Yes, like we did with communism, national socialism, slavery and feudalism.
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 8:59 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> You are throw
Nope. The guns and bombs are to kill people who hold the ideology. You can't
deny the need for that service.
The effort to actually CHANGE the ideology has to occur politically,
philosophically, socially, personally..
On 9/13/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are throwing billions
You are throwing billions of dollars in troops and weapons, guns and
lives to try to change an ideology?
On 9/13/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Only when a fundamental shift occurs in the twisted ideologies that drive
> terrorism.
>
~~
Only when a fundamental shift occurs in the twisted ideologies that drive
terrorism.
Until then, would you use the inevitability of terrorism as an excuse not to
fight it?
I hope not.
On 9/13/07, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When do you think the War on Terror will end exactly?
> On 9/13
When do you think the War on Terror will end exactly?
On 9/13/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you really think this is over if we leave Iraq? It's not over even if we
> left every muslim country in the world. Lisbon, London, NY, DC, can't you
> see? If we quit it allows the insurgen
PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> On 9/12/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But wait, the left supports our troops right?
>
> As opposed to who, might I ask? The assholes who try
> to cut Soldiers and Sailors
Apparently he amended his answer later to "yes".
On 9/12/07, Gruss wrote:
>
>
> Gen Patraeus' unsaid answer was simple: no. No, he doesn't think the
> war in Iraq is making Americans safer. If he did he would've said so.
>
~|
On 9/12/07, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "This morning on Fox News, Sen. Lieberman was on there and I liked what he
> said. Basically, forget why we went to Iraq in the first place. We are there
> and it is what it is. Get the job done. Don't concede to the terrorists. If
> we leave now, the t
On 9/12/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But wait, the left supports our troops right?
As opposed to who, might I ask? The assholes who try
to cut Soldiers and Sailors benis while shipping them out
into the heart of danger?
Or the ones who won't let them wear good body armor
because
On 9/11/07, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and it is what it is. Get the job done. Don't concede to the terrorists. If
> we leave now, the terrorists win. I like that.
Bullshit. The terrorists have already won, dude. They've fucked the
American Way, hard, and in the ass, and it's
> RoMun wrote:
> That was a loaded question by a politician trying to score points.
Gen Patraeus' unsaid answer was simple: no. No, he doesn't think the
war in Iraq is making Americans safer. If he did he would've said so.
If I were listening to his testimony, sitting in Iraq getting ready to
g
shh, don't let the bad guys know...
On 9/12/07, Sam wrote:
>
> From
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/iraq_as_qaeda_bait.html
> Read the whole thing,it's good, but here's the part about the rest of the
> area:
>
~|
ColdF
From
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/iraq_as_qaeda_bait.html
Read the whole thing,it's good, but here's the part about the rest of the area:
Now take a look at the map of Iran, http://www.iranmap.com/ and
notice where our military are today. To the west is Iraq, where
American forces move
he elected
> government, should not ignore, nor forget, any such thing.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Sorge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "CF-Community"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:46 PM
> Subject: RE: Today's Patraeus: Wow
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
> Senator Bird is nobody. I agree with Robert. That was no question for a
> military leader. He is responsible for the war in Iraq, not Homeland
> Security. Perhaps they should have the Homeland Security
I thought that went without saying, but of course. Those were
different parts of his testimony. I have yet to form an opinion on the
policy that is proposed, but Pataeus seems to be trying to act with
integrity.
On 9/12/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No kudos to Patraeus for giving an ho
That's not what I see on the news or hear from the people I know that are
there.
> -Original Message-
> From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:07 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
&
; nothing.
>
> But wait, the left supports our troops right?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:25 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
> >
>
our troops right?
> -Original Message-
> From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:25 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Today's Patraeus: Wow.
>
> No kudos to Patraeus for giving an honest answer as well?
>
>
No kudos to Patraeus for giving an honest answer as well?
On 9/11/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's a question of military judgement asked of a military commander.
> My personal favorite (I was in and out but listened to a lot of it)
> was when he was asked if there was any evidence of
Iraq in the first place. We are there
and it is what it is. Get the job done. Don't concede to the terrorists. If
we leave now, the terrorists win. I like that.
Bruce
-Original Message-
From: Dana
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 5:46 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Today'
It's a question of military judgement asked of a military commander.
My personal favorite (I was in and out but listened to a lot of it)
was when he was asked if there was any evidence of a link between 9/11
and Iraq. To which he responded, not to my knowledge. And by the way
-- kudos to Senator By
That was a loaded question by a politician trying to score points. Petraeus
gave an honest answer. An even better answer would have been to say that
such political judgments were for the civilian leadership to make.
The counter-question to Warner's question is this- if we change course and
pull o
Sen Warner:
"Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you've laid
before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that is making
America safer?" Warner asked.
Gen Petraeus:
"Sir, I believe that this is indeed the best course of action to
achieve our objectives in Iraq."
Sen Warne
83 matches
Mail list logo
