Troop-surge proposal fodder for ’08 presidential hopefuls

All life matters to all of us here on BB. That is not the issue. The issue is it worth American lives to give Iraq a chance at freedom. If 3000 lives is not enough, how much is? How many American lives do you want to give for Iran? North Korea? Syria? Somalia? How many more American lives must be expended on top of that with incompetent leadership? Why dont you volunteer and lead the charge?

Just curious, I would be interested to know how you know so much about Vietnam.

 

No we haven't. When was the last time we went 21000 troops to support an increasingly committed and growing Iraqi army? We haven't.

It wasn't created to protect Jewish lives either, or French, but we did. And since we are there, we need to finish the job.

Doen't this statement show you don't have any "common sense"? .. Seriously, this is a argumentative fallacy that means nothing. You have defined your position as "common sense," and therefore, anything that differs from it is by definition not common sense. That's not a good way to argue.

But on to the substance, when you don't have enough people there to do the job, it seems there are two options: 1) Quit and leave; 2) Send more.

Given my aversion to quitting, I think it is great common sense to send help where it is needed. From the reports the Iraqis have increased commitment and increased training.

Furthermore, when the Dems were saying a year ago we needed more troops there for training that was common sense and now it's not??? That's crazy. If it was common sense, then it is now, it seems to me.

 

Cute, but meaningless. How is this kind of stuff supposed to be persuasive?

You wouldn't know it by the way some talk.

I don't want to give any. This is a tough issue. I could buy the case that we should have never gone in. I cannot buy the case that we should just leave. I think that would be dereliction of civil decency and morality.

I don't agree that the leadership is incompetent. I think that is a cheap charge thrown at a disagreement over policy, not a demonstration of incompetency.

Because I have a higher calling.

Not sure what the standards is so I don't know how to answer. I am not an expert by any measure. I know some.

 

Was it worth it for 116,000 Americans to die in WWI? How about the 408,000 who died in WWII or the 54,000 who died in the Korean War?
Just asking.

 

Well, Rush is just a commentator. I haven't heard him in years and it really doesn't matter what he says, anymore than what Olbermann says. These senators are in a position of authority, and to my mind, they are playing politics when they should be looking at ways to be successful in Iraq.

Sunday, it rained all day, but glad to hear yours was a good one.
Regards to yours also.

 

BiR, you apparently like to make fun of Rush....I wish you wouldn't. He cannot serve in the military, because he is deaf. He can only hear via a coclear implant in his ear.

You probably will go on making yourself feel better by slamming him, but you should probably consider this, and find a new nickname for him.

 

Vietnam was wrong-headed politics just like this one is - it has nothing to do with the skill or dedication of our troops, who are following orders from an incompetent CIC.

They used to, when I thought they would be grateful. But they have proven themselves to be ungrateful and not really concerned about unifying their country and having a democracy - all they seem to care about is their petty religious and tribal differences. So, honestly, I really don't care about them anymore. Leave them to their own devices and let them blow each other up. I'm sick of hearing about Shia and Sunni. I'm sick of hearing about Iraq.

 

By what standard is he incompetent? That keeps getting thrown out by people who have never done anything significant with their lives. What standard are they using to determine this? I think it is a political one, not an objective one.

Disturbing to say the least, but at least you are honest about not being consistently prolife.

 

I disagree. We haven't tried to clear and hold Bagdhad. Not even once.

Two reasons. Not enough American troops and, more importantly, not enough Iraqi troops.

What's different now? More Iraqi troops.

It's almost as if some don't want to try this because they are afraid it will succeed.

 

Old Rush really gets under some peoples skin. To bad Aair America doesn't have enough audience to to the same. That way both isdes could be equally bothered.

 

It's so easy that I simply cannot resist.

That is NOT what the tough-talking CHICKENHAWK used to get out of military service. The hearing impairment did not occur until recently. There was an article at salon.com a few years back that showed the reason El Rushbo claims to have prevented him from serving, and what he used as a reason. They are not the same. I seem to recall that Joe Conason touched on this issue also in his book Big Lies.

The nickname I use describes him perfectly. Rush talks a great talk, but most certainly didn't walk the walk. He is a CHICKENHAWK, pure and simple.

At the top of the third hour (2:00 EST) he was discussing the Golden Globe Awards last night, and what Tom Hanks said about Warren Beatty. Then he reminded everyone how he felt that he was a role model for our youth.

Hope all is well in Montana - it is starting to get a little cooler here in the Commonwealth,
BiR