Great, that should meet with McCain's approval!
140,000 going once, going twice, do I hear 150,000? 150, 150....150,000! By the BALDING white-haired gentleman with the odd goiter....Now, 200,000 do I hear 200,000?
Wonder what the Maverick's views are on a draft?
Posted by euzoius at August 31, 2006 04:53 PMOh. I saw the headline and thought it was your guess for the upper range of the jobs number coming out tomorrow.
Posted by Gary at August 31, 2006 05:13 PMDo you want to win, Steve, or do you want to pull an ostrich?
Was Shinseki right about the numbers up front? I seem to recall that most of you anti-war types used him as an example of Rumsfeld's crushing of dissent ---but now it would be wrong to up the troop levels and stand a greater chance of winning on our own terms?
This war brings out the schizoid in us all, apparently.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 31, 2006 05:47 PMToby, ever hear the ancient saying "You never step in the same river twice?"
Yes, Gen. Shinseki was right about the numbers up front.
Comprehension test: apply the ancient saying to Gen. Shinseki's 2003 advice. Analyze.
Posted by euzoius at August 31, 2006 05:57 PMDo you want to win, Steve, or do you want to pull an ostrich?
Gosh Toby, do you mean there is a metric, a condition that if met, would be called "victory?" After three+ years, someone has actually come up with a definiton of victory?
What is it?
Was Shinseki right about the numbers up front?
Anyone who suggested a plan that included invading Iraq is an idiot, no matter what logistics they had in mind.
The proper "plan" was not to do it. We do not have a general the equal of Napolean, so why would they repeat his biggest mistake?
AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO LEARN FROM HISTORY?
Posted by Repack Rider at August 31, 2006 07:04 PMRepack:
We do not have a general the equal of Napolean, so why would they repeat his biggest mistake?
Napoleon invaded Iraq?
Don't forget one of the most important lessons from the War for Iraq: the only way to enforce the United Nations' resolutions against rogue nations is to ignore that organization and expose it as the sorry front for Jew-hatred and pro-Islamofascism that it is.
Rome will have its way, ladies.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 31, 2006 07:48 PMToby, if the GOP wants to level with voters before the election and tell them that they want another 40-50,000 troops in Iraq, then I'm all for them stepping out in front and doing that.
Posted by Steve Soto at August 31, 2006 08:43 PMHow much of that 20 million is trollby getting?
Posted by TIKI AL at August 31, 2006 08:51 PMRepack: We do not have a general the equal of Napolean, so why would they repeat his biggest mistake?
Napoleon invaded Iraq?
Toby, you ignorant slut. No, of course not.
Did you ever study history? Obviously not, if you had to ask whether Napoleon had invaded Iraq. If you HAD, you would KNOW what Napoleon's biggest strategic mistake was and how we duplicated it.
It's way too late in your life to take up high school history. You have proven to be every bit as ignorant of history and strategy as Donald Rumsfeld, and you have provided an EXCELLENT example of the ignorance I accused our generals of.
Thank you. I wasn't sure there was anyone else as uninformed as Rumsfeld.
Posted by Repack Rider at August 31, 2006 08:51 PMRepack:
Did you ever study history? Obviously not, if you had to ask whether Napoleon had invaded Iraq.
No, see, I really didn't have to ask you that.
If you HAD, you would KNOW what Napoleon's biggest strategic mistake was and how we duplicated it.
Are you not using the words Russia and winter for fear of making more explicit the ineptitude of your shit analogy?
It's way too late in your life to take up high school history.
I have a BA in History, if that means anything to you, you low-grade pedant.
You have proven to be every bit as ignorant of history and strategy as Donald Rumsfeld, and you have provided an EXCELLENT example of the ignorance I accused our generals of.
Are you thinking maybe of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt? I don't know what you're talking about.
Thank you. I wasn't sure there was anyone else as uninformed as Rumsfeld.
I think you commies have gotten upset with Rumsfeld lately because his comparisons between the appeaseniks of Hitler's day and people like you are a little bit embarrassing. Is that it?
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 31, 2006 10:24 PMSoto:
Toby, if the GOP wants to level with voters before the election and tell them that they want another 40-50,000 troops in Iraq, then I'm all for them stepping out in front and doing that.
Okay, so your position on victory in Iraq really is a matter of partisan advantage. Upping the troop levels there isn't a matter of closing the deal, but of exposing the Republicans to accusations of escalation. Got it.
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 31, 2006 10:27 PM140,000 was achieved by raising the age of recruits to 40.
And BTW, what are we trying to "win?"
Little Boots initially said this was a 4 week conflict to rid the world of Saddam. That was accomplished 3 1/2 years ago.
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say our country has a mission to engage in nation-building?
Posted by Christopher at September 1, 2006 05:01 AMWell, IMO the most applicable Napoleonic analogy is the Emperor's foolish invasion of Spain in 1808, which created his "Spanish Ulcer", draining hundreds of thousands of veteran troops from the Grande Armee and millions of francs from the treasury, and ultimately leading to Wellington's invasion of southern France and the destruction of the First Empire.
A classic case of military overstretch by an imperial power, in other words. Even the greatest strategic genius in military history couldn't figure out what to do about his Spanish Ulcer, but he pigheadedly refused to withdraw from Spain.
Perhaps Nero jr should bone up on the Emperor's final exile on St Helena!
Posted by euzoius at September 1, 2006 05:45 AMNow, Toby, when the Iraqi shi'ites rise up after our attack on Iran, and cut all our supply lines and make our occupation untenable, perhaps then we can look to the Emperor's disastrous Russian campaign of 1812, where he literally lost virtually the entire Grand Armee in the snows of faraway Russia!
Perhaps Nero should bring along a volume on the Campaigns of Napoleon for his next vacation (non)reading list.
Posted by euzoius at September 1, 2006 05:50 AMSpeaking of history and war. With the current Bush "dynasty", what is really scarey about Napoleonic France is that after the Russian campaign Napoleon was still able to return to power and his heirs were a strong political force in France until they lost another disasterous war, this time to Prussia in the 1870's.
Can the cult last 70+ years? I don't want 21st century America to mirror 19th century France. No more Bush presidents please.
Posted by herbal tee at September 1, 2006 06:20 AMI take your point, herbal t, but remember that the cult of Napoleon, and the attempt to "recreate" the Empire, arose because Napoleon could be plausibly viewed as a great, admirable hero in French history.
There is no "high point" for Bushism. Nero and Bushism will be seen as the greatest disaster in American history in not very long at all, IMO. The only question will be how deep is the damage.
But it's very hard to predict the future of a democracy, especially when ignorance reigns supreme.
Posted by euzoius at September 1, 2006 07:01 AMThey'll start raising troop levels, blame it on insurgents. But what they are really doing is getting what troops they have over there for the Iran War. They aren't sending troops to Iraq, dummies, they are sending troops to Iran!
Posted by T2 at September 1, 2006 07:24 AMAs much as I don't want to, I must agree with T2 on the increased troop level being intended for Iran. Just as happened in Iraq, the policy has been decided upon and now the "facts" are being arranged to justify the predetermined course of action.
A new war may save the GOP congress for another two years of gutting what's left of the American middle class and allow even higher gas prices without fear of voter backlash. The results of the 2004 election convinced the GOP that they could get away with anything. Will "creating new realities" make it happen again?
Posted by herbal tee at September 1, 2006 08:18 AMRepack: Did you ever study history? Obviously not, if you had to ask whether Napoleon had invaded Iraq.
No, see, I really didn't have to ask you that.
But you did anyway. Why?
Repack: If you HAD, you would KNOW what Napoleon's biggest strategic mistake was and how we duplicated it.
Are you not using the words Russia and winter for fear of making more explicit the ineptitude of your shit analogy?
No, although you finally picked up on Moscow as Napoleon's big mistake. I am using the words "8,000 mile supply lines," and an opponent that has no place to retreat to and nothing more to lose. Of course, Napoleon's opponents didn't also have hundreds of tons of high explosives, millions of small arms, and an unlimited supply of ammo.
I have a BA in History, if that means anything to you, you low-grade pedant.
And so does the president. So why do you confirm George Santayana's thesis?
I think you commies have gotten upset with Rumsfeld lately because his comparisons between the appeaseniks of Hitler's day and people like you are a little bit embarrassing. Is that it?
Toby, you ignorant slut. I am a United States Army veteran, and you are a fat chickenhawk who has never done a damn thing to serve your country and lives in his mom's basement while waiting for that history degree to get you a job at a convenience store. Until your sacrifice matches mine, you do not have the authority to question my patriotism.
You think it's a good idea to be in Iraq? Sign up and go there, then give me a first-hand report. Otherwise, you are a coward and a blowhard, with emphasis on the coward part.
Posted by Repack Rider at September 1, 2006 08:40 AMToby, Iraq has always been about partisan advantage for the GOP.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 1, 2006 12:22 PMSoto:
Toby, Iraq has always been about partisan advantage for the GOP.
Well, if that is a byproduct of making our country safer, then that's a reasonable reward, I think.
Oh, and before the war got sold to us as unwinnable by the media elites? The war was also a winner for certain Democrats I know ---including y'alls frontrunner for the 2008 nomination.
Posted by Toby Petzold at September 1, 2006 01:35 PMOh, and before the war got sold to us as unwinnable by the media elites?
Who is "us," chickenhawk. I never bought it for a minute.
Posted by Repack Rider at September 1, 2006 03:00 PMToby, with every claim by you that the Iraq war made us safer here at home, your credibility bank moves farther into insolvency.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 1, 2006 03:31 PM