My view on Iraq War. Surge - Well, it is about time!

[mattskramer]

They had all of the armor and supplies that they thought that they would need.

Well. They didn’t think enough and they did not bring extra equipment, did they?

Because its not possible to do so.

How is it not possible? Here it is - step by step:

(1.) You think of possible actions that the opposition might take.
(2.) Then you think of ways to defend against such actions.
(3.) Then you get the needed equipment to defend against such action.
(4.) Repeat step 1 until you can't imagine another action.
(5.) Then you double up on the number of supplies.

Given what you've demostrated here, the only thing that's certain in this case is that the war would never have started, as you dont have the capacity to plan even the movement of troops to their start lines.

Oh well. We disagree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is possible, though very expensive, to prepare for every possibility.

Really?
How do you know that you havent missed a possibility?

There is a simple solution for that.

None of which wll reduce thw whining and crying from people like you that will charge the Bush administration with waste, mismanagement, war profiteering, cronyism and poor planning. In fact, this will only increase those charges, as what you suggest will mean that evern MORE people make money off a threat that never materialized.

No. It is common sense to be fully prepared before going to war.

Your defintion of "fully prepared" isnt valid, and you arent competent to judge what "fully prepared" means.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well. They didn’t think enough and they did not bring extra equipment, did they?

They did.

How is it not possible? Here it is - step by step:
(1.) You think of possible actions that the opposition might take.
(2.) Then you think of ways to defend against such actions.
(3.) Then you get the needed equipment to defend against such action.
(4.) Repeat step 1 until you can't imagine another action.
(5.) Then you double up on the number of supplies.

Your flaw -- well, your most obvious flaw -- is step 4.
And step 5 is impossible.
Not that you'll ever figure out why.

Oh well. We disagree.

Yes...because you dont have a clue.
You even admitted so yourself.

 

[mattskramer]

Really?
How do you know that you havent missed a possibility?

For the purposes of war, when not a single soldier can come up with another possible scenario, you have accounted for all possible scenarios. I know that it is not a perfect definition but it is better than what resulted. Gee. Injured soldiers might need a good hospital. The enemy might attack with a bunch of IED’s and military weapons. I mean that those two scenarios alone seem to be quite obvious things that Bush’s team did not fully consider when they went into the Iraq war.

None of which wll reduce thw whining and crying from people like you that will charge the Bush administration with waste, mismanagement, war profiteering, cronyism and poor planning. In fact, this will only increase those charges, as what you suggest will mean that evern MORE people make money off a threat that never materialized.

There you go with putting words into my mouth. I speak for myself. Liberals don’t speak for me and I don’t speak for liberals. I grant you that it may have been politically disadvantageous to prepare for war in such a manner. Aside from that, I am not opposed to spending a lot of money for war supplies in preparation of a legitimate a necessary war. (I don’t see the Iraq war as a legitimate and necessary war.) At the same time, there would need to be good purchasing and accounting practices. I vaguely remember the criticisms Reagan faced when the military supposedly bought $600 hammers and $1000 toilet seats. Anyway, provided that the war is necessary to our national defense, and if there are good purchasing and accounting practices, I have no objection to us being twice as prepared for every eventuality as necessary to go to war and get the job done.

Your defintion of "fully prepared" isnt valid, and you arent competent to judge what "fully prepared" means.

We disagree. Apparently, Bush and Rummy did not know what it meant to be fully prepared. Otherwise, at the very least, there would not have been such a mess at the federal hospital. I mean, come on. To have hospitals ready for our injured soldiers – is that so unforxeeable?

 

[mattskramer]

They did.

They did not plan ahead to bring enough extra equipment.

Your flaw -- well, your most obvious flaw -- is step 4.
And step 5 is impossible.
Not that you'll ever figure out why.

So explain to me how it is impossible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For the purposes of war, when not a single soldier can come up with another possible scenario, you have accounted for all possible scenarios.

No. You haven't

And, further, that you would ask every soldier for every scenario that he could think of, plan for them all and then double your preparations is absurd on its face.

You -obviously- don't have a clue, you -obviosuly- don't have a clue that you dont have a clue, and you-obviously- won't even admit the possibility that you don't have a clue.

I won't waste any more time here.

 

[mattskramer]

No. You haven't

And, further, that you would ask every soldier for every scenario that he could think of, plan for it and then double your preparations is absurd on its face.

You -obviously- don't have a clue, you -obviosuly- don't have a clue that you dont have a clue, and you-obviously- won't even admit the possibility that you don't have a clue.

I won't waste any more time here.

Okay. I guess that we simply disagree to disagree. I think that I answered any question you had.

I’m still waiting for your reply to my question concerning the federal hospital. Would you at least concede that Bush should have seen to it that hospitals such as Walter Reed would be up-to-date, in good order, and prepared to receive injured soldiers at least before we went to war? It is a simple yes-or-no question.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/06/walter_reed/

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. I guess that we simply disagree to disagree. I think that I answered any question you had.

Sure you did.
But your answers dont have any basis in reality.
If you had any practical knoweldge of the subject - and you admit, you do not - you'd understand just how asinine your 'standards' are.

 

[mattskramer]

Sure you did.
But your answers dont have any basis in reality.
If you had any practical knoweldge of the subject - and you admit, you do not - you'd understand just how asinine your 'standards' are.

My standards are damn high because war is death – “War is hell” and I think that a nation better thing long and hard, and be more than fully prepared before going off to war. Would you answer my question – Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready? Come on. At least criticize him for that if for nothing else about the war.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My standards are damn high....

And absolutely outside reality.

So, you can keep trying to hold this, and every other, administration to those asinine standards, but people that DO have a clue will simply laugh at you.

So, keep up with the talking points - your masters are SO very proud.

 

[mattskramer]

And absolutely outside reality.

So, you can keep trying to hold this, and every other, administration to those asinine standards, but people that DO have a clue will simply laugh at you.

So, keep up with the talking points - your masters are SO very proud.

Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready? Come on. At least criticize him for that if for nothing else about the war. That is not too high a standard, is it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready? Come on. At least criticize him for that if for nothing else about the war. That is not too high a standard, is it?

More talking points. Sigh.
Pretty disappointing, coming from someone that claims to think for himself.

 

[mattskramer]

More talking points. Sigh.
Pretty disappointing, coming from someone that claims to think for himself.

No. I heard about it in TV. I became curious about it, so I looked it up on the Internet. I looked for explanations. I looked for apologists. I looked for critics. I examined both side of the issue (questions and answers from both sides). I put my feet in “both shoes” and thought about it from each angle. Then I came to the conclusion that Bush should have planned ahead at least in this area – figuring that many soldiers might need good care at fine hospitals. I am speaking for myself after I looked at the issue from both sides.

Your turn. Instead of criticizing me, will you answer the question?

Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready? Come on. At least criticize him for that if for nothing else about the war. That is not too high a standard, is it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. I heard about it in TV. I became curious about it, so I looked it up on the Internet.

Yes - just like you looked up your steps for planning military campaigns.

There's no sense in discussing talking points with a 'useful idiot'.

 

[mattskramer]

Yes - just like you looked up your steps for planning military campaigns.

There's no sense in discussing talking points with a 'useful idiot'.

I thought about the steps for planning military campaigns by myself. I doubt that you would find such ideas anywhere else. Therefore, I doubt that they are “talking points” or “parrotings”.

I’m not interested in a discussion. I’m wanting to know your answer to a simple yes-or-know question: Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready?

You are set on criticizing me instead of answering a straightforward question, aren’t you?

In case you are wondering, I’m not solidly anti-Bush. I like several things about him. I thought that the action he took below (see link) was a good thing.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/18/bush_hails_spirit_of_volunteers/5483/

Your turn. Instead of criticizing me, will you answer the question?

Don’t you think that Bush should have seen to it that the hospitals were fully ready? Come on. At least criticize him for that if for nothing else about the war. That is not too high a standard, is it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I thought about the steps for planning military campaigns by myself. I doubt that you would find such ideas anywhere else.

Any guesses as to to why?

Want to guess why they dont teach your procedure at any command and staff college anywhere on the planet?

 

[Dr Grump]

You're right -- none of this has anything to do with the issue being duscussed. You might as well be telling us how much you love 50cent and hate Carrie Underwood.

It took me a few days to figure you out, but now I get ya, which is why I added the qualifier at the beginning of my post to you on this subject. You talk black and white. Your call I guess. Your loss too...because you are dead wrong above. My point directly relates to yours - whether you like it or not. Having such narrow definitions in your debating style does nothing to add to your POV. In fact, it detracts from it because using such a narrow focus means wider issues that are very pertenant to the debate are overlooked, unilaterally dismissed or buried. I will know to ignore you in the future. You are not interested in debate, you are only interested in scoring cheap, meaningless points.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It took me a few days to figure you out, but now I get. You talk black and white. Your call I guess. Your loss too...because you are dead wrong above. My point directly relates to yours - whether you like it or not..

Uh huh. Sure. Keep thinking that.

 

[Dr Grump]

Uh huh. Sure. Keep thinking that.

Well, since you can't/don't see the forest for the trees, I'll spell it out for you. FDR was not criticised because he was involved in a popular, necessary war. Bush is not - thus he is criticised. See how easily the point is proved...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, since you can't/don't see the forest for the trees, I'll spell it out for you. FDR was not criticised because he was involved in a popular, necessary war. Bush is not - thus he is criticised. See how easily the point is proved...

And that lends credibility to the criticism, of the lack thereof, because...?