State of the Union Reaction

[BrandonJ1780]

I haven't seen too many officers in Army dress blues, but with their rank sewn there at the top of the shoulder (and on a thick-lookin' soldier, the thing looks as big as a yellow strip on the highway), my first thought was "Custer rides again..." May be old-school, but it's an improvement on the greens.

 

[BigRed389]

I haven't seen too many officers in Army dress blues, but with their rank sewn there at the top of the shoulder (and on a thick-lookin' soldier, the thing looks as big as a yellow strip on the highway), my first thought was "Custer rides again..." May be old-school, but it's an improvement on the greens.

Especially when you add the black old school cav hats.

 

[xmid]

I think Webb did well ... even though I think he's gone overboard lately with some of his hysterics during the senatorial campaign.

Webb? Webb is for sale. He's not the same person you read in his books or his biographies, and I know you know that Sir. That James Webb is dead and voters should view him as a "new" man on the scene with no reliable history.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Webb? Webb is for sale. He's not the same person you read in his books or his biographies, and I know you know that Sir. That James Webb is dead and voters should view him as a "new" man on the scene with no reliable history.

That makes me sad ... so I can't think of him as a Vietnam Marine grunt officer anymore? What makes people flip like that? (I know, I know ... money and power, just to name a few) :weeping_1

 

[MasterBates]

Yes, it is unfortunatly a phenomenon when politicians come to DC.

Many people who were good on the local level, when they get to DC, regardless of what they say or write become unthinking robots just toeing the party line. Regardless of which party they are in.

I trust voting records more than what they say. They can say anything they like, but how do they VOTE.

 

[Godspeed]

As far as the political issues in the SOTUA are concerned, I fully agreed with Bush on nearly every issue. It's certainly not new to the SOTUA, but I think sending more troops overseas to get the job done is a bold, smart move.

Giuliani was dead on when he talked about the Democratic response (for those of you that caught it). He stated that the democratic method to solving the problems in Iraq, although rational in some senses of the word, all rest upon a foundation of a retreat (in some fasion or the other, be it a phaseout or staged reductions). A reduction in US forces in Iraq is viewed by our enemies (Al Qaeda, Taliban, and fundamentalists in the Middle East) as a massive victory. In a sense, any reduction in troop levels is great news for them, 'we are starting to give up.' Bush's point on the power vaccuum in the Middle East made perfect sense. Leaving an unstable Iraq (with a government still struggling to stand on its feet in the opposition of insurgents and other malicious organizations in the area) would openly invite terrorist based organizations inward, possibly pulling the whole region into a chaotic war. In my eyes, by ordering more troops overseas, we just cranked up the heat, and demonstrated that we aren't giving up. If there exists any method to strike at the heart of our enemies' morale in the region, this would seem to be it.

I think Webb, although a very well accomplished and credible, solely banked on the emotional (my father, me and my son have served, blah blah blah) appeal of bringing troops home to serve his argument. Politicians, including Bush do this all the time, but I wanted to at least hear some sort of alternate "democratic" plan for Iraq.

"We miss our troops and need to bring them home to their families," is a very powerful and emotionally appealing argument, but I think focusing on it as a cornerstone of our strategy grossly neglects our responsibilities overseas, as well as the future of our homeland security. I haven't heard any sort of alternate method to win the war in Iraq from any dems. Simply "Bush is mismanaging the war."

This country may not be too happy as a whole with the 'extensive' use of our forces over the past 6 years. But this country has gone almost 2,000 days without ONE terrorist attack on its soil. Someone is doing something right, thats for certain. We are bringing the fight to them. I say keep on kicking ass and taking names.

 

[Herc_Dude]

^^^Thats some good stuff right there, nice work ^^^

 

[Brett327]

Concur. I could really get behind Giuliani if properly motivated. He might just be the centrist-conservative I've been dreaming about.

Brett

 

[squorch2]

Webb? Webb is for sale. He's not the same person you read in his books or his biographies, and I know you know that Sir. That James Webb is dead and voters should view him as a "new" man on the scene with no reliable history.

Any facts? Or can I make a blanket assertion that you're up for sale too?

 

[squorch2]

words words words

The thing with the "surge" isn't that it's more troops - on average, it'll bring us back up to where we were before the reduction of troops back in December 2005:

(image from the Brookings Institute)

From LTG Petraeus' comments at his hearing yesterday, it's what's going to be done with the troops that is different, although I'm not entirely sure what's terribly different about it - more integrated training, perhaps, or going after the insurgency with renewed vigor - but that's about it.

The heart of the opposition to increased troop presence is also the idea behind a reduction in ground strength in Iraq (and also the "four corners" strategem) - that the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraqi cities invites increasing attacks on both the troops and "their" interests - namely, the Iraqi govt. As such, removing or redeploying them represents a genuinely new strategy, whereas the "surge" smacks of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I find it impressive - bordering on willfully ignorant - that people "haven't heard" of any alternatives to "staying the course," since I count the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group's plan, the Murtha plan, or many other lesser-known plans. Saying that "there has been no alternative" is bordering on the willfully disingenuous.

And if we're pointing to duration between foreign attacks on American soil as a metric of success, the 1993-2001 period is looking pretty good as well.

 

[A4sForever]

....And if we're pointing to duration between foreign attacks on American soil as a metric of success, the 1993-2001 period is looking pretty good as well.

Well ... I guess if we're going to overlook, amongst others, WTC attack #1, the USS Cole attack, the East African embassy bombings, the Bojinka plot (in which my aircraft was one of the projected targets), and who knows who did what to Oklahoma City (I know, I know -- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols -- those diabolical genius masterminds that they are/were ) .... all of which was "American territory" the last time I checked ... you might have a point.

What would that point be, in any case ??? Making it sound like the Clinton Administration with their point men Tony Lake and Sandy Berger "protected American soil" .... ??? Your bias is oozing out of every pore with every key stroke ....

 

[Herc_Dude]

Well ... I guess if we're going to overlook, amongst others, WTC attack #1, the USS Cole attack, the East African embassy bombings, the Bojinka plot (in which my aircraft was one of the projected targets), and who knows who did what to Oklahoma City (I know, I know -- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols -- those diabolical genius masterminds that they are/were ) .... all of which was "American territory" the last time I checked ... you might have a point.

What would that point be, in any case ??? Making it sound like the Clinton Administration with their point men Tony Lake and Sandy Berger "protected American soil" .... ??? Your bias is oozing out of every pore with every key stroke ....

Thank you thank you thank you. I can't stand when people just skim over or fail to even mention any of these ... selective terrorism memory.

 

[squorch2]

Well ... I guess if we're going to overlook, amongst others, WTC attack #1, the USS Cole attack, the East African embassy bombings, the Bojinka plot (in which my aircraft was one of the projected targets), and who knows who did what to Oklahoma City (I know, I know -- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols -- those diabolical genius masterminds that they are/were ) .... all of which was "American territory" the last time I checked ... you might have a point.

What would that point be, in any case ??? Making it sound like the Clinton Administration with their point men Tony Lake and Sandy Berger "protected American soil" .... ??? Your bias is oozing out of every pore with every key stroke ....

WTC Attack no. 1: Feb 26, 1993.
USS Cole attack - not on US soil. If we're talking about ATFP type stuff, then Iraq and Afghanistan are unqualified failures.
Nairobi bombings - got me there, I'll admit.
Bojinka plot - the plot where no one died and the system worked? That one? Yeah.
OKC - domestic, through and through, which you never hear about from the Bush administration.

So I stand by my 1993-2001 timeline.

 

[snake020]

WTC Attack no. 1: Feb 26, 1993.
USS Cole attack - not on US soil. If we're talking about ATFP type stuff, then Iraq and Afghanistan are unqualified failures.
Nairobi bombings - got me there, I'll admit.
Bojinka plot - the plot where no one died and the system worked? That one? Yeah.
OKC - domestic, through and through, which you never hear about from the Bush administration.

So I stand by my 1993-2000 timeline.

Don't forget the Unabomber (although most of his activities were pre 1993)

 

[greysword]

Sometimes they don't try very hard ...

Wow, these would make some great Jack O Lantern templates.