Army to 3rd Infantry: Drop Dead

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Hopefully not literally. Yes, this is a move guaranteed to quell doubts and generate excellent PR!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Bring it on, I say. They are plenty tough!

― fletrejet, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Way to "support the troops" Pentagon.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuck people, I hate people

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Well honestly what would you have them do? Pull out all of our troops? This is just Rumsfeld (with characteristic lack of humility and general pigheadedness) realizing that all the prewar promises were a load of horseshit.

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

you don't have to pull out all of our troops, just the 3ID. They've been out there forever. They thought they were coming home months ago. This is bullshit. Fuck Rummy. Fuck him right in the ass.

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

But would there be a force available to replace them? If yes, then you're right--but why would Rumsfeld do this? Just to save on the hassle and costs of replacing them with another division?

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually I suspect that due to the rotation of infantry divisions in other places (Afghanistan & Balkans) there probably isn't a force ready to replace the 3ID right now. That doesn't change the fact that this is a giant clusterfuck and that Rumsfeld should be out of a job immediately. I am so fucking sick of this bullshit. We've got the DPRK breathing down our neck, we can't rotate the troops out of Iraq because of manpower issues, and Bushy wants to send people into Liberia now. Nevermind Latin America and the Philippines. Never mind $5B a month to keep these shenanigans up, or the highest rate of unemployment in nearly a decade. Let's go on some fucking adventures.

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 20:13 (twenty-two years ago)

$450 billion deficit!! Let's cut taxes and send our troops all over the fucking globe!!

(I'm sorry but I've really been fuming about this more or less constantly for over a week now)

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

there aren't that many u.s. troops in afghanistan. there's a shitload in germany tho.

― dyson (dyson), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:02 (twenty-two years ago)

>there aren't that many u.s. troops in afghanistan. there's a shitload in germany tho.

But those troops are important to keep France from getting too uppity.

― fletrejet, Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:10 (twenty-two years ago)

They interviewed some of the men in the third on ABC news tonight...said "what would you do if Donald Rumsfeld was here right now" and a couple of them came right out and said they wanted him to be fired, some said they would punch him out, etc.

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

was fragging another victim of "Vietnam syndrome"?

― amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 15 July 2003 23:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar sooooo fucking OTM

― James Blount (James Blount), Wednesday, 16 July 2003 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

so millar, do ya now think it might've been a bad idea for the u.s. to, like, invade another country¿ you seemed all for it earlier.

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 18 July 2003 01:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think "all for it" is the correct terminology for it; arguing with h"the h stands for hippie!"stencil isn't necessarily the same thing...

(j/k stence, you know I still love you)

― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 01:54 (twenty-two years ago)

From what I gathered, millar was pro-war because he believed that there really were WMD in Iraq. Then when it became obviouse that there weren't any, he realized that trusting the Bush administration was kinda dumb.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - you realize Clinton bombed Iraq under the same pretenses?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

and bombed Sudan under even sketchier intel than the yellowcake rumour?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:10 (twenty-two years ago)

also recommending military personnel not trust their civilian authority (aka calling for a military coup): classic or dud?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:13 (twenty-two years ago)

that's a terrifying thought – in regards to the u.s. at least.

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:15 (twenty-two years ago)

>haha - you realize Clinton bombed Iraq under the same pretenses?

Well yeah, Klin-ton wasn't too great, but lobbing a few cruise missiles isn't anywhere near as reckless and idiotic as invading and occupying a country on false pretenses.

>also recommending military personnel not trust their civilian authority (aka calling for a military coup): classic or dud?

The rightwingers encouraged this under Klin-ton - now it coming back to them. But a coup? No, i don't see US soldiers turning there guns on US citizens.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, rightwingers encouraged it - I guess it's ok then!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

you realize Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than both Bushes combined right?

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd rather he speak for himself (and he will) but my understanding was less that there weren't any but that the intelligence was so badly (mis)handled that he was pissed at the interference.

Actually, the Stratfor elves have a very interesting piece up that you should catch before it goes into the archives:

http://www.stratfor.com/corporate/index.neo?page=center&storyId=220022

To quote a key point:

There is another way to look at what happened. The United States had multiple reasons for going to war with Iraq. The least important was WMD, but it chose to use that excuse because it required the least effort to make. The administration would have gone to war with Iraq regardless of WMD, but it believed, based on reasonable evidence, that there were WMD. In other words, the Bush administration did not tell the whole truth about its motives for invading Iraq, but it did believe that there were WMD in the country.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:38 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, WMD was used a la getting Capone on tax laws - the thoery it would (haha) get it some legitimacy internationally and that the argument had effectively already been made over the previous twelve years, ie. a new UN resolution would be nice but technically isn't needed (considering all the congressional resolutions circa operation desert fox theoretically Bush coulda bypassed congress on the grounds "you already oked this", still can't have too many rubber stamps!, particularly if it ends up going badly (and it's still an exaggeration to pretend this campaign has gone badly - despite Rummy's bungling) - difficult to sell impeachment if you okayed it with the same intel (or less!) (hasn't stopped Bob Graham from hypothetically calling for impeachment). still the reasoning was always tied into a neo-con vision of an active, engaged us foreign policy and an attempt to remake the mideast, which if/when Iraq becomes a democracy will be well on it's way to happening. I've always been a containment guy, but I'm hardly going to pretend all of the moral argument is on my side, and I'm not going to worry about fitting my argument into any sort of short term or long term electoral strategy since I'm not running for anything. (ie. I can understand why a politician might adapt his reasoning to the day-to-day situation since getting the upperhand and winning an argument actually means something there, but for average schlubs I can't unless it's to prove you can be just as much of a hack as your average talk radio caller)(or to score points for your ego)(ding ding ding!).

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:55 (twenty-two years ago)

>oh, rightwingers encouraged it - I guess it's ok then!

I never said it was ok, just pointing out that the rightwingers were being very shortsighted - soldiers critcizing a *republican* president? never!

>you realize Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than both Bushes combined right?

Yes I realize that for most/all of Klin-ton's time in office there were ongoing bombing runs on Iraq. Again, its nothing compared to an invasion and occupation.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:56 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - cuz it accomplishes less? ('hey, I mighta dropped more bombs and killed more people - but at least I didn't overthrow Saddam!')

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:58 (twenty-two years ago)

>haha - cuz it accomplishes less? ('hey, I mighta dropped more bombs
> and killed more people - but at least I didn't overthrow Saddam!')

Because we are not then obligated to spend money and lives to rebuild Iraq, because it doesn't cause the rest of the world to distrust and hate us even more, because it doesn't create thousands of new terrorist recruits, because etc etc. It was just a stupid idea. I am not defending Klin-ton, I didn't like Klin-ton, but I would prefer Klin-tons diddling around to Bush's foolhardyness.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 03:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Because we are not then obligated to spend money and lives to rebuild Iraq, because it doesn't cause the rest of the world to distrust and hate us even more

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean nevermind that the 9/11 terrorists were practicing well back into the Clinton years.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

You can belittle me based on my former position all you like - I'm not running for office, I can afford to flip-flop like a normal human being if I feel the need to do so.

The biggest thing that aggravtes ME abt the current situ is that I have a very high level of govt clearance, and I was LIED TO. Excuse me, I took an oath that I would die for my country, I submitted to a polygraph test, and I subject myself to random monthly drug testing to make sure I'm not fucking around in my spare time - you feel the need to tell ME a pack of LIES? Yeah, I'll go back to work for the federal government. Like WHATEVER DUDE. FUCK YOU. FUCK ALL OF YOU FOR LYING TO ME (and making me look like an idiot besides).

You'll never get me to say that knocking Saddam out was a bad idea - that was a perfectly honourable exercise and it isn't as if it was particularly difficult thanks to our technology and training and the quality of people out there - but right now it's becoming painfully evident that this whole operation was a political farce of high scale and it RUINS MY MIND to think that my colleagues are busting their asses and getting killed over somebody's ridiculous concept of force management and globocop policy.

I'd punch Rummy in the face too. With a steel wedge. Apologies for doubting the hippies. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. FUCK.

Bait and switch. Bait and fucking switch. George Tenet is a far better man than any of the shitdirt cuntsacks he's scapegoating for right now.

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:13 (twenty-two years ago)

my scapegoats gotta first name/it's R-O-B-E-R-T/my scapegoats gotta second name/it's J-O-S-E-P-H

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:18 (twenty-two years ago)

anything that chinks the armor is fine by me, but I hope the Dems remember that post-Lewinsky scandals tend to cost the hunter, not the game.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I love you, Millar.

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:25 (twenty-two years ago)

ts: genuine angst vs. glib cynicism

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:26 (twenty-two years ago)

OK I have to go to bed so I can get to work on time tomorrow but here's the rundown on my thoughts re: Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and our horribly mismeasured responses to it in faraway places:

FUCK YOU PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK WHY CAN'T YOU READ A FUCKING BOOK OTHER THAN "HATRED FOR DUMMIES" FUCKING SHIT CHRIST WITH SYPHILIS YOU MAKE ME SO UTTERLY FUCKING ILL I CAN'T STAND IT I'VE NEVER KILLED ANYBODY DESPITE FEELING QUITE HOMICIDAL AT SEVERAL POINTS IN MY LIFE SO WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU JUST FUCK OFF AND OPEN A MARKET STAND SELLING CANTELOUPES LIKE EVERYONE ELSE YOU FUCKING UPPITY FUCKING EGOMANIACAL POWER HUNGRY FUCKSTEAKS WITH YOUR FUCKING DELUSIONS AND YOUR FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK FUCKFUCK FUCK FUCKFUCK FUCK FUCK.

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a little tipsy, given

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:30 (twenty-two years ago)

>You can belittle me based on my former position all you like - I'm not running for office, I can afford to flip-flop like
>a normal human being if I feel the need to do so.

I am not belittling you. There is nothing wrong with changing your position based on new facts.

If the whole Iraq situation turns out well, and Iraq becomes a functioning democracy and all, and I would have to admit that it wasn't as bad an idea as I thought.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 03:37 (twenty-two years ago)

it's funny how I've gone from being rather highly optimistic abt this whole enterprise to being pretty much 24-7 fuming rage in the space of a little over a month. I suspect that this follows the pattern of several people in the military, since we're the ones that get to take pride in any success while also being the first to eat shit when anything goes wrong.

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:40 (twenty-two years ago)

>I mean nevermind that the 9/11 terrorists were practicing well back into the Clinton years.

The arab world has hated us for decades, but i meant our allies and the rest of the world. I hate to defend Klin-ton, but for example when he toured Africa he was very warmly receieved, when Bush did he was met with indifference or scorn.

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 03:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Why are you still arguing about Clinton?

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:47 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, not sure how much it'll really help in 04, but the "Bush is a liability/not trusted by the rest of the world" argument's got legs and the 16 words scandal / yellowcakegate could play into it.

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean nevermind that the 9/11 terrorists were practicing well back into the Clinton years.
no one involved in 9/11 was from iraq. but, al qaeda's certainly got some new recruits there now, methinks.

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:18 (twenty-two years ago)

haha - farouk hijazi's from iraq!

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)

the theory is you attack terrorism by going after the states that sponsor it - did iraq sponsor 9/11?: no fucking way, but it certainly has a record of sponsoring it (albeit not nearly as extensive as some of the countries it shares borders with). this sorta goes back to the first speech bush gave post-9/11 about how the us would no longer diffentiate between terrorist organizations and the states that sponsor them. since bush declared war on terrorism, and not just on al qaeda, it's odd he didn't just make the much easier case that 'iraq sponsors terrorists' (he could've used hussein's own speeches bragging about it as exhibit a) and saved the wmd elliot ness stuff for the un, instead of making wmds the gist of the pitch and implying extensive ties to al qaeda when the ties were fairly smallscale (albeit still existing).

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:33 (twenty-two years ago)

- farouk hijazi
okay. not a terrorist.
although i'm sure he was a vewy vewy baad man.

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:35 (twenty-two years ago)

as for going after states that sponser terrorism, that's all fine and well – but iraq, cummon – sudan, bla bla bla
we've already had this argument.
can we just hug¿

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:38 (twenty-two years ago)

oh yeah, I'm hardly endorsing it

― James Blount (James Blount), Friday, 18 July 2003 05:40 (twenty-two years ago)

An attempt to try and make things nice again. It falls apart because of course it says nothing about complaints about the legitimacy or intent of 'the task in Iraq' to start with but apparently that doesn't concern her as much.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:47 (twenty-two years ago)

you realize Clinton dropped more bombs on Iraq than both Bushes combined right?

That's because they would not give up the funk! Duh!

Ok, I apologize for ruining serious threads with my rampant reposting of that story, but it's still the highlight of my life.

― Ally (mlescaut), Friday, 18 July 2003 13:56 (twenty-two years ago)

No worries, I think we needed that about now.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

How hard do you think it is to get a job at The Onion?

― Millar (Millar), Friday, 18 July 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I have to guess they're not hiring as much after dot.com money go bye-bye.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 20:53 (twenty-two years ago)

>I have to guess they're not hiring as much after dot.com money go bye-bye.

Unlike most dot-coms, The Onion made good money selling an actual product, their book "Our Dumb Century".

― fletrejet, Friday, 18 July 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Now this is true. Some of that money is mine.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 18 July 2003 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar, I feel for you, I've thought about you a lot in the past week while the Admin did its spin control. Sorry you got chumped by your gov't. A Dem gov't woulda done the exact same thing to you, though, and anybody who sez otherwise is totally delusional as you know

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Friday, 18 July 2003 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Millar I love you.

― teeny (teeny), Friday, 18 July 2003 23:19 (twenty-two years ago)

My super-compassionate sailor when I just asked him what he thought: "they knew what they were getting into when they joined."

It falls apart because of course it says nothing about complaints about the legitimacy or intent of 'the task in Iraq' to start with but apparently that doesn't concern her as much.

Ok, I'm not sure how much I want to get into this, but-- for one, she probably had that pretty much written for her, and I can't see the army getting into whether Iraq was a good idea or not. It's my understanding that most of the time the Captain's wife (or General's, in the Army) is used as a main point of contact for a lot of stuff between the base & families in the area. And another side, one that I'd had an argument with Boy over in Australia, is that officer's wives (not that we're married, but everyone knew who I was) are paid attention to, whether you really want it or not, and most of the time what you say is credited not to you as an individual but to who you're dating/married to.

Anyway, for some reason, I'm not surprised that the White House would drop a hint to Drudge abt the reporter being gay & Canadian & then try to play innocent.

― lyra (lyra), Saturday, 19 July 2003 01:30 (twenty-two years ago)

ten months pass...

Bosko Balaban Stats For Season

Name Bosko Balaban
Team Aston Villa
Total Appearances 0
Starts 0
Substituted 0
Total Minutes Played 0
Avg Minutes Played Per Start 0
Goals 0
Avg Goal Mins When Starting 0.0
Avg Mins Played/Goal Scored 0
Goals Scored As Sub 0
Number of Bookings 0
Total Booking Minutes 0
Avg Bookings Per Start 0
Number of Red Cards 0
Total Red Card Minutes 0
Avg Red Cards Per Start 0

― bosko, Monday, 14 June 2004 03:00 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.