Olbermann tears in to Bush

RolandTD20Kdrummer

apologies if it has already been posted...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3630438645

jlew24asu

thanks for posting something that is months old. what I find funny is that dems were crying for a long time that Iraq needed more troops, when bush agreed they slammed him for it.

even flow?

jlew24asu wrote:

thanks for posting something that is months old. what I find funny is that dems were crying for a long time that Iraq needed more troops, when bush agreed they slammed him for it.

You really need the draft to make it's way back into your society down there. And spare nobody from it's wrath. Rich and powerful people having to send their kids to get maimed and killed would surely change the American way of life and the way their military likes to tour the world.

Dustin51

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

apologies if it has already been posted...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3630438645

Thanks. Olbermann's a smart mutherF'er. I wonder if he will ever run for an office. I'd vote for him.

jlew24asu

even flow? wrote:

You really need the draft to make it's way back into your society down there. And spare nobody from it's wrath. Rich and powerful people having to send their kids to get maimed and killed would surely change the American way of life and the way their military likes to tour the world.

there is no need for the draft. good job fear mongering though. well done

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

thanks for posting something that is months old. what I find funny is that dems were crying for a long time that Iraq needed more troops, when bush agreed they slammed him for it.

he is being slammed because he is sended too few troops too late in the game. Had the administration listened to many of the generals prior to the war we would have gone in with the appropriate troops levels. Sending in an extra 20,000, when in reality you would need more like an extra 200,000, nearly 4 years after the fact is just plain stupid.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

thanks for posting something that is months old. what I find funny is that dems were crying for a long time that Iraq needed more troops, when bush agreed they slammed him for it.

I can't remember video clips past a couple months anyways unless they're exceptional.

I think it would take many hundreds of thousands to make any significant difference in Iraq. Basically it would just be like pouring fuel on an already growing fire.

jlew24asu

I admit there were not enough troops to start. but the recommendation from most is more troops. thats what was sent. I can only imagine the bitching that would be going on if 150,000 more troops were sent right now.

Iraq still needs help, 20,000 troops is alot of troops. lets not forget that Iraq is actually building an army of their own. more and more are coming online.

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

I admit there were not enough troops to start. but the recommendation from most is more troops. thats what was sent. I can only imagine the bitching that would be going on if 150,000 more troops were sent right now.

Iraq still needs help, 20,000 troops is alot of troops. lets not forget that Iraq is actually building an army of their own. more and more are coming online.

If 150,000 troops had been sent I would have said it's about time. A bit late but at least the administration is making an effort to fix the problem. 20,000 troops is a lot but it is far too few and at this point the militias and insurgents are so entrenched and have infiltrated the Iraqi infastructure so deeply that a slight troops surge isn't going to resolve the problem. The problem is the Iraqis themselves. No progress will be made until religious differences are put aside.

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

If 150,000 troops had been sent I would have said it's about time. A bit late but at least the administration is making an effort to fix the problem. 20,000 troops is a lot but it is far too few and at this point the militias and insurgents are so entrenched and have infiltrated the Iraqi infastructure so deeply that a slight troops surge isn't going to resolve the problem.

I'm not so sure about that. maybe i'm more optimistic. yes insurgents are still carrying out suicide bombs in crowded markets killing innocent woman and children, but in places like sadr city, "they" are cooperating.

mammasan wrote:

The problem is the Iraqis themselves. No progress will be made until religious differences are put aside.

couldnt agree more

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. maybe i'm more optimistic. yes insurgents are still carrying out suicide bombs in crowded markets killing innocent woman and children, but in places like sadr city, "they" are cooperating.

The surge is not a permanent thing. What is it like a 6 month tour. What is to stop the insurgents, jihadist, and militias from laying low for a couple of months and starting a new when the troop levels die down. Another huge problem is Iraq's neighbors. Not only are the Iranians pumping in all types of aid, but so are the Syrians and even the Saudis.

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

The surge is not a permanent thing. What is it like a 6 month tour. What is to stop the insurgents, jihadist, and militias from laying low for a couple of months and starting a new when the troop levels die down. Another huge problem is Iraq's neighbors. Not only are the Iranians pumping in all types of aid, but so are the Syrians and even the Saudis.

good thing is that we actually agreed to attend a summit with Iran and syria to help solve iraqs problems. thats better then war at this point.

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

good thing is that we actually agreed to attend a summit with Iran and syria to help solve iraqs problems. thats better then war at this point.

A peaceful resolution is always better than war. We shouldn't just focus on Syria and Iran. Yes they are probably the two most problematic ones but Saudi Arabia is pumping tons of money and aid to help the Sunnis. I think it's high time we start putting Saudi Arabia on the same short leash we have Iran and Syria on.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

mammasan wrote:

A peaceful resolution is always better than war. We shouldn't just focus on Syria and Iran. Yes they are probably the two most problematic ones but Saudi Arabia is pumping tons of money and aid to help the Sunnis. I think it's high time we start putting Saudi Arabia on the same short leash we have Iran and Syria on.

...sounds like the makings for WW3...