Dr Guy Dr Guy

These are the ones that Support our Troops

▼

These are the ones that Support our Troops

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column
from JoeUser Forums

We here it every day.  "we support the troops, not the war.".  And I think some of them are sincere.  And we try to believe that the Mainstream Media is of a like mind. We try, but then for those of us how think that, we are just fooled again.  Fooled by the MSM we try to excuse at every opportunity.

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on

The rest is just standard ignorant diatribe.  It is linked so read it at your will.

In one respect, he is much better than his masters.  He is honest.  Small consolation tho for caring people.

politics
10,240 views 34 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is not about a Bush cover up it is about how Bush abused his power to appoint people that stole and wasted your tax dollars. This was the$ 20 Billion that Kerry voted for and then against. He voted FOR it when Iraq was to repay the $20 Billion to rebuild. He voted against the Bush insistence that the American tax payer pay the Bill. This report shows how Bush wasted OUR money. You can BS all you want about how I bash Bush. The things this President has done deserve every word. I have asked JoeUsers that say they support Bush to document just what he has done in almost 6 years that has helped the majority of Americans. EVERY specific policy he has proposed has support of about 1/3 of Americans. His overall rating per FOX (fair and balanced) was 41%. Clinton at this time in his second term was a bit over 60%. Bush is a looser with much more to come. Just wait! Anyone that supports him and his policies are as worthless as Bush!
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, conservatives had a picnic over "I did vote for it and then against it," oblivious to the "nuance" that "for" meant repealing the tax cuts in order to support the war appropriation.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit
On the Blog that had no responses that just means there is no argument with the facts I presented.


No, it just means people are tired of hearing the SOS from you.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Timetables are part of any effective planning. Open ended policies are NOT used by successful enterprises.


I agree, but you're need for leadership to keep a promise is to static, making it unreasonable under the circumstances. After leadership sets a time line, you're failing to consider the unknown variables that are incident driven, that affect other down stream time lines which might require leadership to dynamically respond in a completely different direction temporarily.

A side question COL; As I run my business interests, am I affecting my overall time line with a dynamic incident response to your statment?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'll just let his articles sink to the bottom, thank you very much.

I guess that is why he pops over here since I have already stopped posting on his.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, conservatives had a picnic over "I did vote for it and then against it," oblivious to the "nuance" that "for" meant repealing the tax cuts in order to support the war appropriation.

When Bush mangles a sentence, we all have fun at his expense.  Clearly, Kerry mangled his sentence as well, but in this case, we are supposed to understand what his intent was.  Why the double standard?

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

No, it just means people are tired of hearing the SOS from you.

Even Snowball and Napolean got tired of the bleating sheep.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

After leadership sets a time line, you're failing to consider the unknown variables that are incident driven, that affect other down stream time lines which might require leadership to dynamically respond in a completely different direction temporarily.

That is why status reports were created.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is why status reports were created.


Not sure of your knowledge of in country combat scenarios so I'll offer these thoughts.

SOG runs by the most demanding time and Intel lines and they often change during an operation due to unknown variables. To add confusion, many in country teams are co-lead by CIA ground operatives taking Intel and leadership direction from not only a different chain of command but different and dynamic Intel sources, all relying on communications.

Invision scenario changes to multiple SOG ground teams spread across Iraq and to some extent their Intel is relied upon by general troop operations. Each team requires a dynamic situation response, some in communication with local ground command, while others using the most high tech equipment have spotty even poor communication for days, not including foot travel time line adjustments

Those same ground units might have new Intel that indicates a time line change for them, equally affecting larger command general troop activities in days ahead. Which means local command waits until incursions are complete and a compilation of reports can be made then delivered to in country command so they can adjust time lines accordingly. What was planned as a one month operation, ends up being a 3 months, and that's only one scenario. Imagine multiple scenarios, culture variables and include rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, since combat results can affect those time lines as well. In the end, what was hoped to be a one to three year time line, becomes a 5-7 years.

Commercial status reports verses in country war status reports traveling to the Pentagon from different time zones have greatly different values.