Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You name it. Sky's the limit. What's your plan?

What if my plan is to stay with slightly controlled chaos that no one can use any meaningful metrics on?

What make any of you think the Bush Admin wants out of this region, let alone Iraq, anytime soon?

Perhaps some of you need stronger coffee?

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-11-30 5:53 pm)

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You name it. Sky's the limit. What's your plan?

What if my plan is to stay with slightly controlled chaos that no one can use any meaningful metrics on?

Then you are insane and a barbarian.  Either one really disqualifies your opinion.

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

What if my plan is to stay with slightly controlled chaos that no one can use any meaningful metrics on?

Then you are insane and a barbarian.  Either one really disqualifies your opinion.

I suppose that's based upon the notion that nations follow the 10 Commandments?  My, aren't you a cute, naive little thing.

You people need to watch and listen more clearly, and realize all anyone is talking about is reducing troops levels or "pulling back."

No one with any credible authority on the issue is talking about a "pull out" or a complete withdrawal.

And since you guys need the obvious explained to you, we are not leaving Iraq until Iran is squared away.  The thread is based upon a false concept of Iraq not being part of the larger action in the region.

Because most of you seem unable to see the big picture.

Connection and obliviousness in one package.

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Then you are insane and a barbarian.  Either one really disqualifies your opinion.

I suppose that's based upon the notion that nations follow the 10 Commandments?  My, aren't you a cute, naive little thing.

You people need to watch and listen more clearly, and realize all anyone is talking about is reducing troops levels or "pulling back."

No one with any credible authority on the issue is talking about a "pull out" or a complete withdrawal.

And since you guys need the obvious explained to you, we are not leaving Iraq until Iran is squared away.  The thread is based upon a false concept of Iraq not being part of the larger action in the region.

Because most of you seem unable to see the big picture.

Connection and obliviousness in one package.

Oh sure, because you understand what they are tyring to do based upon... ?


60 to 70,000 troops will be in this region for probably the better part of 20 years.

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

I suppose that's based upon the notion that nations follow the 10 Commandments?  My, aren't you a cute, naive little thing.

You people need to watch and listen more clearly, and realize all anyone is talking about is reducing troops levels or "pulling back."

No one with any credible authority on the issue is talking about a "pull out" or a complete withdrawal.

And since you guys need the obvious explained to you, we are not leaving Iraq until Iran is squared away.  The thread is based upon a false concept of Iraq not being part of the larger action in the region.

Because most of you seem unable to see the big picture.

By all means enlighten us.

Enlighten yourself.

That difficult, eh? Poor li'l guy.

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

What if my plan is to stay with slightly controlled chaos that no one can use any meaningful metrics on?

Then you are insane and a barbarian.  Either one really disqualifies your opinion.

I suppose that's based upon the notion that nations follow the 10 Commandments?  My, aren't you a cute, naive little thing.

You people need to watch and listen more clearly, and realize all anyone is talking about is reducing troops levels or "pulling back."

No one with any credible authority on the issue is talking about a "pull out" or a complete withdrawal.

And since you guys need the obvious explained to you, we are not leaving Iraq until Iran is squared away.  The thread is based upon a false concept of Iraq not being part of the larger action in the region.

Because most of you seem unable to see the big picture.

Too harsh, and not enough hints.  A good amount of belittling, though.  I'd give it a 4 / 10.  Not your best work, I know you can do better!

[edit:bad speeling, another "l" for belittling]

Last edited by JakeTheTall (2006-11-30 6:13 pm)

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

Connection and obliviousness in one package.

Oh sure, because you understand what they are tyring to do based upon... ?


60 to 70,000 troops will be in this region for probably the better part of 20 years.

Which "they"?

So you have no basis for even your confusion about the issue?  How quaint.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

By all means enlighten us.

Enlighten yourself.

That difficult, eh? Poor li'l guy.

In your case, it seems you'd rather be told the truth then do the work yourself.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way, so you deserve to be confused.

Try some books and policy memos, for starters.

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Enlighten yourself.

That difficult, eh? Poor li'l guy.

In your case, it seems you'd rather be told the truth then do the work yourself.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way, so you deserve to be confused.

Try some books and policy memos, for starters.

No, I'm trying to find out your opinion on the issues.

Your ever-present bitch-ass 'tude makes figuring out your actual stance an awful lot of work. I don't suppose you might care to lighten up a bit?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

That difficult, eh? Poor li'l guy.

In your case, it seems you'd rather be told the truth then do the work yourself.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way, so you deserve to be confused.

Try some books and policy memos, for starters.

No, I'm trying to find out your opinion on the issues.

Your ever-present bitch-ass 'tude makes figuring out your actual stance an awful lot of work. I don't suppose you might care to lighten up a bit?

You want to start by explaining just what actions taken by Bush et.al. that have indicated he wants to win/leave Iraq?

gas huffer wrote:

You want to start by explaining just what actions taken by Bush et.al. that have indicated he wants to win/leave Iraq?

I think he's trying to win because he's doing roughly what I'd do if I wanted a unified, peaceful Iraq with a non-theocratic and pro-U.S. state, and thought it could be achieved through military force.  And because he will be an historical laughingstock if Iraq turns out the way it looks like it will.  Just because there is no way to win this war doesn't mean Bush isn't trying. 

Now, if by "leave" you mean 100% pullout, I agree that it's suspicious that Bush won't say no to an indefinite base presence.  But you don't need a chaotic Iraq for that.  Look at South Korea, Germany, or, until lately, Saudi Arabia.  In fact, the attack on Khobar Towers is part of the reason we left.  Same thing happened quicker in Lebanon and Somalia.

What evidence is there that the Administration is intentionally sabotaging Iraq?  The fact that it's oh-so-smart that it could fix things if it "really" wanted to?

Last edited by charon (2006-11-30 9:04 pm)

charon wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

You want to start by explaining just what actions taken by Bush et.al. that have indicated he wants to win/leave Iraq?

I think he's trying to win because he's doing roughly what I'd do if I wanted a unified, peaceful Iraq with a non-theocratic and pro-U.S. state, and thought it could be achieved through military force.  And because he will be an historical laughingstock if Iraq turns out the way it looks like it will.  Just because there is no way to win this war doesn't mean Bush isn't trying.  Same thing happened quicker in Lebanon.

Now, if by "leave" you mean 100% pullout, I agree that it's suspicious that Bush won't say no to an indefinite base presence.  But you don't need a chaotic Iraq for that.  Look at South Korea, Germany, or, until lately, Saudi Arabia.  In fact, the attack on Khobar Towers is part of the reason we left.

The "if" on Iraq needs to be considered on a "when" basis.

Unless you think a "peaceful" Iraq is going to happen with the current situation in the region, which is a laughable notion imho.

And my guess is the reasion we left the Sauds has more to do with oil than anything else, stemming from the turmoil you have noted.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-11-30 9:01 pm)