Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SCD]

Isn't it common sense in guerilla warfare to simply hang back and chill when the enemy floods yon occupied cities with extra troops? The Surge just struck me as an incredibly lame "well, what the fuck else can we do?"

True.  The only counter to that is to have the streets patrolled by a strong, competent military and police force comprising of the loacals. 

This is what is happening more and more. 

Also, It appears that the Iraqis want to see the US phased out

If that goes as planned, it would be an honorable way to leave.

[Thad]

If you consider it honorable to veto a bill containing timetables and then turn around and support them a year and a half later, then yeah, there's nothing more honorable than using human lives for election-year leverage.

[Brentai]

I was going to say "Name me a President who hasn't" but I figured that would be overly pessimistic and it would be fairly trivial to do.

On the other hand, I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.

So just out of curiosity...

Name me a President who hasn't.

[Thad]

Ray Bolger.

[Royal☭]

Ray Bolger is looking out for Ray Bolger.

[Brentai]

If you don't want people jumping on your rhetoric, don't use it.

[Thad]

Yeah, how silly of me.  I forgot the "all politicians are crooks" response excused everything ever done by everyone.

[Brentai]

It means being that manner of hypocrite comes part and parcel with the job.  Our boy on the BLU team has proven himself fully capable of it on a number of occasions now.

If you're angry that he vetoed timetables, say that.  If you're angry that he turned an about-face on it for the sake of popularity, I say again, in all seriousness this time, find me somebody who wouldn't.  And then tell me what office he holds.

(And if you're just angry that SCD is  , well, can't help you there.)

[Thad]

It means being that manner of hypocrite comes part and parcel with the job.  Our boy on the BLU team has proven himself fully capable of it on a number of occasions now.

All of which, as I already pointed out, is an irrelevant straw man.

If you're angry that he vetoed timetables, say that.

Wha...?

I HAVE said that.  Probably dozens of times.  In fact I just said it just now, in the post you're currently criticizing.

If you're angry that he turned an about-face on it for the sake of popularity, I say again, in all seriousness this time, find me somebody who wouldn't.  And then tell me what office he holds.

Feingold was the sole dissenting vote on PATRIOT.  Kucinich made unpopular decisions as mayor of Cleveland that are so respected in hindsight that he made Congressman.  Even Lieberman, irredeemable little pissant that he is, has made it abundantly clear he won't back down on the war even when it hurts him politically.  Ted Kennedy came out of the hospital after having a brain tumor operated on to participate in a close vote, and I'll tell you right now that HE'S not worried about whether he'll get reelected.

Of course, three of those four have run for President and not even gotten the nomination.  So maybe you could rephrase your point to say that people like that don't win national elections.

All of which is still an irrelevant straw man.  I don't like that Bush commuted Libby's sentence.  I also don't like that Clinton pardoned Symington.  That's not a fucking contradiction in terms.  The fact that every politician is an asshole doesn't mean I can't point out when one's being an extra special super asshole.

(And if you're just angry that SCD is  , well, can't help you there.)

Well yeah, he referred to this as "honorable".  Which is of course a euphemism for "face-saving".  Bush and McCain don't deserve to save face.  They're as good as mass-murderers in my book, and the fact that Hillary Clinton is too doesn't fucking excuse it.

In Clinton's case, her inconsistency on the war was a, if not the, factor that cost her the nomination.  And if McCain benefits on November 4 for switching his stance to what Obama's has been for the past four years, well, something something stupidity of the American people.

[Kazz]

In Clinton's case, her inconsistency on the war was a, if not the, factor that cost her the nomination.

I think the fact that she is Medusa, Queen of the Gorgons did not help.

[Thad]

If by that you mean "lots of people hate her for no rational reason", then yes, that's true.

I've always thought there were plenty of rational reasons not to like her.

[Brentai]

Of course, three of those four have run for President and not even gotten the nomination.  So maybe you could rephrase your point to say that people like that don't win national elections.

Name me a President who hasn't.

Sorry about the confusion, I'll try and be less specific next time.

(And before you open your damn pie hole, yes, you did answer my second question, but go figure out who turned that into "all politicians are crooks" in the first place.  Then look up the definition of "strawman" one more time.  Then reread that post and try and figure out if it was meant to be some sort of ineffective, waffling attack, or a snarky remark that turned into another futile attempt to open dialogue that you had to shoot down.)

[Thad]

I don't know what the hell you're actually asking, or what you want me to say that I haven't already.  "Name me a President who hasn't" isn't a deft rhetorical tactic, it's completely fucking beside the point.  "Every President does it" is not equivalent to "It's honorable", no matter how literally you parse my sarcasm.

But all right, since you're demanding an answer to your irrelevant question and insisting that this will somehow open up dialogue: Carter's handling of the Iranian hostage crisis was a key contributor to his defeat in 1980 -- but every hostage came home safely.

You want to tell me with a straight face that that's equivalent to starting a war based on lies and then stonewalling attempts to end it until the last possible moment -- which also just happened to be right before an election -- then be my guest; I imagine that will make for an interesting thread.

It just doesn't have much to do with this one.

[Brentai]

Never really said it did.  I know I'm sarcastic a lot, but "just out of curiosity" really does mean what it says on the tin.

Totally good answer, though; I was hoping you'd have dug up something like that in the first place, instead of bitching about a broad topic being derailed.  I'm gonna go play TF2 now, irritated but satisfied.

[Kazz]

Then Brentai set fire to me, so I came back here.

o/` It's the circle of liiiiife o/`

[Thad]

Well hell, if it was just a random musing all along, I'm sure we could start a list.

The John Adams miniseries made a point that he basically sacrificed reelection by refusing to join France's war against England.  Though that's not exactly recent history.

[Thad]

So okay, here's one for those few of you in the "the surge is working!" crowd.  Reuters:

Satellite images taken at night show heavily Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Baghdad began emptying before a U.S. troop surge in 2007, graphic evidence of ethnic cleansing that preceded a drop in violence, according to a report published on Friday.

The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

Emphasis mine.

[SCD]

Er, sorry That I missed that multiple weeks ago.  I'll throw a picture of why on the photo thread for measure..

When I said honourable, I meant honorable in the sense that the Iraqis are dictating the terms of America's departure.  Given the overall clusterfuck and destroyer of economies home and abroad that war has become, it makes me perpetually optimistic of that place. 

[Spaco]

Has this been brought up, already? AAAAAAAHHHHH 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYxTzDFofZQ

[SCD]

That is fear mongering. 

Bad fear mongering.


Deploying to Active Status is a 'army' term and not a Government term and only does a few things:

-Places all soldiers on Notice to Move
-Gives reason to increase training tempo. 

However, in a state of emergency only can the national guard "deploy" in actual real-world terms.  This is why during Katrina, while there was NG units on the ground, there were Canadian Navy Assets on the ground before the US army could do anything.  (I hear the sailors brag about that every time katrina came up at a pub for the last few years)

Now, chances are you might see army elements in the event of emergency doing support tasks such as construction or laying out command infastructure, however in an immediate state of emergency, it will be  only NG boots carrying out actual patrols or Law enforcement duties -

-Unless it is approved by all houses/martial law.  Then the checks are out the window