I thought that was one pickle short, hmmmm

Sometimes it is good to get “aggressive” if you will. Not with someone like yourself, but the type that kind of do the drive-by post, a few one liners and you can tell they really don’t understand what they just posted, just something they heard and it sounds good and since most their friends believe it then it must be right.

It is a good technique to draw them out and show them for what they are, just fake and going with the crowd. On the other hand people like yourself, serotta, Bill Murray and some others I can’t think of at the moment I know are real and have core beliefs. Those are the debates I enjoy.

I have stated before that not all my views and opinions are chiseled in stone and can be changed, room for growth in this gray matter between my ears. Now, mind you I am no moderate that just changes views or opinions based on what the majority of the people think for the day but I do learn and feel that I grow in knowledge with each and every debate. The more opposite the view, and a good logical debate and foundation for the others position the more I can learn. If nothing more then just where the other person is coming from which puts me in a better position to try and explain my view and why I have the opinion I do.

I have never been the “beat around the bush” type (no pun intended, LOL) because I believe it just confuses the issue for a while. I would rather just come out and say “I agree with the war and here is why”. Now that may not mean I agree with everything, or how everything is being accomplished, but if I believe in it, and agree with the majority of it then it is much easier to just come out and say I agree with it, “except” rather then the ho-hum “Yep I kind of like this, but don’t like that”.

To me, at least for a while, it has people trying to guess where you are on the issue. Basically that is your standard requirement to become an elected official, with very few exceptions. I think it would be very hard for someone like me to ever get elected to an office because my core foundation and beliefs would not allow me to basically BS the citizens with “warm fuzzy” feelings on issues, rather a YES or NO, or here is what I agree with and here is what I don’t agree with. Then again, maybe it would be possible if people really believed me. I think anymore that people who actually go vote would love to vote for someone who is telling them the way it is and then actually goes and does what he/she just told them.

Anyhow that is not a real possible situation, I don’t have connections and I am not a lawyer…

It is fun at times since I consider myself a republican since most my beliefs lay in their camp, not all but many, to consider myself part of the “right wing”. What is fun is telling people no matter what I am always right…

So, how am I doing? Are you feeling warm and fuzzy or cold and clammy?

 

The morning has not shed much different thoughts on what's been said here.

A few short comments:

Bill, Your youngest son is 37 and my youngest son is 9. They both have the same thoughts, although yours is more articulate. My youngest wants to know why something that's happening so far away and has no bearing on his everyday life is occupying the dinner conversation. Why can't we just drop it and talk about his new bicycle. I think I am beginning to side with him on this one.

I quote 01 below because I think what he says here matches what you say Bill in your quote and follow up from the Zakaria article. A combination of underestimation on our part, and the Iraqi people's reaction to our "little war" has put us into a long term occupation.

"I think the current administration under estimated how quickly the war would be won. I also believe they under estimated how the people of Iraq would react to this win. I don’t think enough thought was giving to just how repressed people would “not” act when fearing the Saddam regime could possibly return. In other words I think the administration thought the Iraq public would just buy off on America telling them “this time we will not leave”. The people of Iraq are not stupid and they remember the last time we said we would help them, then they had an uprising and we never backed them. In conclusion untold thousands died. Very few were willing to risk that again." -01xltsport-

So, I think what you are saying 01 is that you believe Iraqi trust will come with our continued occupation, funding and guidance. Surely you are correct. We cannot afford a protracted involvement, and then lose all the advances we have made as a result.

- Zakaria-
"It is time for America to recognize that the occupation of Iraq needs fixing. This has been a massive enterprise undertaken with little planning and extreme arrogance."

Bill says:

"Personally, I do not agree with all of that quote in that the execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom required a monumental amount of planning. I think all of us served in some form of military service and the accomplishments of the initial military part of the operation would not have happened without such planning."


I would have to agree that a great deal of planning went into the military portion of the Iraq campaign. I don't think that's what Zakaria is ranting about. I think he is pointed his finger at the post invasion planning, claiming there was little or no organized effort to assure a transition from war to post war to peaceful self-goverment.

Planning for a transition in Iraq from War to Peace doesn't come with a template. You don't just plug in the numbers and people, then hit "enter" and everything works. This is a blueprint under construction, add something, if it doesn't work, remove it and try something else. This is a reactionary occupation. Planners can't foresee what's going to happen, you can only react to it as it happens. I'm not sure all the planning in the world could eleviate the mess in Iraq at this time.

 

Dadgummit, I am going to have to print all of this off to digest it before trying to reply. Unfortunately, I am also trying to not digest the posting on "Not for the squeamish" or whatever about shooting Prairie Dogs. Not to argue with Burt, but that was sickening to me.
Bill

 

I agree with you, that video just sucks and is gross beyond anything I could have ever thought of. It's one thing to take care of a pest problem, but making a mini movie about it, cruel and sick...

 

LMAO because I just got finished watching the Praire Dog post and come to this one to read replies. I'm still trying to figure out why the praire dogs appear to go straight up and not up and back when they are hit. I've gotta watch it again. The heck with Iraq, let's talk about overkill and praire dogs.

 

Why not both?
Report on the XM107 from Iraq:
"My spotter located single target carrying RPG on water tower, distance 1500 Meters. I acquired and made positive hit. Top half torso of target fell from water tower. Lower half remained on water tower."

The XM107 is the US Armys 50 cal sniper rifle.

Cutting a grown man in half at 1500 meters with one shot is shooting.

Plunking prairie dogs at 75 yards who don't even have RPGs to shoot back with is pretty wimpie

 

If we were talking about rats we most likely would not have a problem. However we are talking about “prairie dogs” since “dog” is a part of the name I think it grabs our (men mostly) at the heart, the soul because dog is man’s best friend. When someone starts shooting dogs we get kind of upset because it is like someone is shooting one of our buddies…

I bet if it was called a prairie rat we would all be “Yaaa kill the little sh*thead!!!!!!”

 

Report of collateral damage at water tower. Tower cannot retain more than 3 feet of water before newly installed "drain" hole begins working.

 

Good point!
There was nothing in the report about damage to the infrastructure.