[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

First, we need to set the parameters properly:

"Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents [i.e.
'future RIPers to you, toopid...], who have criticized the way the
service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them
try to wage the war their way."

Now let me intersperse what I told you *last July,* you moron:

"Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years
of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war," said a
Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"To break the insurgency we need to stop them from getting as much
support as possible. To stop them from getting support we cannot do
their recruiting for them (i.e. killing wives and kids and blowing up
some guy's building, who may not be supporting the insurgents). We
must
also provide a safe and secure environment for civilians (i.e. not
randomly blowing up kids and uncles and aunts and parents and so on,
them not getting kidnapped, etc.). We must outwit the insurgent's
*strategy* and attack their *center of gravity*, not necessarily
attack
*the insurgents.* "

(This may be too subtle for you, toopid. Let me translate into
toopidspeak for you: "Killing insurgents not always good or the goal.
That conventional warfare. This not conventional warfare.")

Message-ID: .com

""Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's
too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military
war college, who said he thinks that the general will still not have
sufficient troops to implement a genuine counterinsurgency strategy
and that the United States really has no solution for the sectarian
violence tearing apart Iraq."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"The bottom line: we don't have enough troops there to do COIN ops as
they should be done. GEN Shinseki understood this well and was
severely
undercut by rummy and wolfowitz. Since we don't have enough troops
there to do it properly, we are therefore not doing it properly, or
we
are therefore doing it properly in some areas and not in others
(sometimes referred to as a 'half-assed' job)."

"We have not committed the resources to winning. And that is not a
'Liberal problem.' (Wasn't it you [i.e. you, toopid] that was gloating
the Hillary wants
to increase troop size and become the next LBJ?) Do you [i.e. you,
toopid] suppose that
might be one reason that the 'national will' is being sapped? But by
all means 'stay the course.' rummy and bushie know best. They have
such
a stellar track record."

"Some anti-war people like me might just be people who understand
that
we are feeding the insurgency and shooting ourselves in the foot in
so
many ways that 'victory' is either pushed out much further with an
unnecessary cost in lives and dollars, or that it indeed becomes
impossible."

Message-ID: .com

"Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant caught Petraeus's eye last year by
winning first prize in an Army "counterinsurgency writing"
competition, sponsored by the general, with an essay that scorned the
U.S. military's reliance in Iraq on big "forward operating bases."
"Having a fortress mentality simply isolates the counterinsurgent from
the fight," he wrote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"In reality, there is a balance that must be weighed and decided
upon.
You cannot accomplsh (sic) the mission all hunkered down in a FOB. You
must
also protect the soldiers to the extent possible. But that does not
remove all danger. Not by a long shot."

"What you [i.e. you, toopid] are arguing for is a pretty restrictive
posture weighed
heavily to force protection. While that will limit *our* casualties,
it
severely impacts on mission accomplishment by increasing *civilian*
casualties and *civilian* propert (sic) damage. The civilians will
never
trust us to protect them when we're killing them."

Message-ID: .com

Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite
stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? I was
arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid.
Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on,
you moron. That strategy might've worked as much as several months
after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now.

I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late.
bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have
most likely done us in.

You ignorant moron.

Sincerely,

RIP

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
First, we need to set the parameters properly:

"Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents [i.e.
'future RIPers to you, toopid...], who have criticized the way the
service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them
try to wage the war their way."

Now let me intersperse what I told you *last July,* you moron:

"Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years
of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war," said a
Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"To break the insurgency we need to stop them from getting as much
support as possible. To stop them from getting support we cannot do
their recruiting for them (i.e. killing wives and kids and blowing up
some guy's building, who may not be supporting the insurgents). We
must
also provide a safe and secure environment for civilians (i.e. not
randomly blowing up kids and uncles and aunts and parents and so on,
them not getting kidnapped, etc.). We must outwit the insurgent's
*strategy* and attack their *center of gravity*, not necessarily
attack
*the insurgents.* "

(This may be too subtle for you, toopid. Let me translate into
toopidspeak for you: "Killing insurgents not always good or the goal.
That conventional warfare. This not conventional warfare.")

Message-ID: .com

""Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's
too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military
war college, who said he thinks that the general will still not have
sufficient troops to implement a genuine counterinsurgency strategy
and that the United States really has no solution for the sectarian
violence tearing apart Iraq."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"The bottom line: we don't have enough troops there to do COIN ops as
they should be done. GEN Shinseki understood this well and was
severely
undercut by rummy and wolfowitz. Since we don't have enough troops
there to do it properly, we are therefore not doing it properly, or
we
are therefore doing it properly in some areas and not in others
(sometimes referred to as a 'half-assed' job)."

"We have not committed the resources to winning. And that is not a
'Liberal problem.' (Wasn't it you [i.e. you, toopid] that was gloating
the Hillary wants
to increase troop size and become the next LBJ?) Do you [i.e. you,
toopid] suppose that
might be one reason that the 'national will' is being sapped? But by
all means 'stay the course.' rummy and bushie know best. They have
such
a stellar track record."

"Some anti-war people like me might just be people who understand
that
we are feeding the insurgency and shooting ourselves in the foot in
so
many ways that 'victory' is either pushed out much further with an
unnecessary cost in lives and dollars, or that it indeed becomes
impossible."

Message-ID: .com

"Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant caught Petraeus's eye last year by
winning first prize in an Army "counterinsurgency writing"
competition, sponsored by the general, with an essay that scorned the
U.S. military's reliance in Iraq on big "forward operating bases."
"Having a fortress mentality simply isolates the counterinsurgent from
the fight," he wrote."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/

Me:
"In reality, there is a balance that must be weighed and decided
upon.
You cannot accomplsh (sic) the mission all hunkered down in a FOB. You
must
also protect the soldiers to the extent possible. But that does not
remove all danger. Not by a long shot."

"What you [i.e. you, toopid] are arguing for is a pretty restrictive
posture weighed
heavily to force protection. While that will limit *our* casualties,
it
severely impacts on mission accomplishment by increasing *civilian*
casualties and *civilian* propert (sic) damage. The civilians will
never
trust us to protect them when we're killing them."

Message-ID: .com

Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite
stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again?

Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim
we had only one option, redeploy.
I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal
was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign
and claimed it just proved your points.

But where was your discussion
and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you.
Nothing buy naysay and negativity.

I was
arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid.

Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha
redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa.

Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on,
you moron.

oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about
your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals
and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be
wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK.
GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR.


That strategy might've worked as much as several months
after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now.

Maybe not, so we might have to try something different
when this idea fails and it may take a new CiC to lead that
effort. I don't care as long as the goal remains unchanged.

Remember a key factor in a COIN op according to
Petraus, commitment.
You got ANY left?


I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late.

You can't even express a slight hope for success?

bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have
most likely done us in.

I'm sure you're doing everything you can to assure that comes to pass.
Do you support the troops as long as they lose?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in

Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite
stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again?

Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim
we had only one option, redeploy.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would
you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****?

LOL!

I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal
was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign
and claimed it just proved your points.

What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

But where was your discussion
and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you.

Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank,
toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with
your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic
as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up,
either.

Nothing buy naysay and negativity.

I forgot: we give candy to kids.

As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types
of hallucinogens that you apparently do.

I was
arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid.

Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha
redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa.

Duh.

What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to
study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to.

Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'?

Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on,
you moron.

oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about
your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals
and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be
wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK.
GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR.

LOL!

No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing
your ignorance and stupidity.

So why don't you GET A GRIP and just admit that you're a KNOW-NOTHING
LYING **** WITH NO CHOPS WHATSOEVER?

LOL

That strategy might've worked as much as several months
after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now.

Maybe not, so we might have to try something different
when this idea fails and it may take a new CiC to lead that
effort. I don't care as long as the goal remains unchanged.

Of course you do not care. You sit on your fat ass and spout
platitudes and jingoisms. No skin off your fat lazy ass how many new
strategies we employ, is it?

Meanwhile, we spend $250 billion/year, lose soldiers, etc.

Remember a key factor in a COIN op according to
Petraus, commitment.
You got ANY left?

As I said six months ago, I 'got' two years left. That's down to about
18 months now, toopid.

I think I understand you now, toopid. You're the pudgy little **** who
used to continuously get the snot beaten out of you. You were never
bright enough to choose a different route to school, were you.

I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late.

You can't even express a slight hope for success?

As I said, I hope, I hope, I hope. My fingers are crossed, even.

bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have
most likely done us in.

I'm sure you're doing everything you can to assure that comes to pass.
Do you support the troops as long as they lose?

Can you separate 'support for the troops' from 'not supporting poor
leadership and strategy'?

I didn't think so, you thoughtless, jingoistic moron.

LOL!

[ScottW]

On Feb 5, 8:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite
stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again?

Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim
we had only one option, redeploy.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would
you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****?

LOL!

I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal
was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign
and claimed it just proved your points.

What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

But where was your discussion
and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you.

Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank,
toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with
your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic
as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up,
either.

Nothing buy naysay and negativity.

I forgot: we give candy to kids.

Rest my case.


As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types
of hallucinogens that you apparently do.

I was
arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid.

Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha
redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa.

Duh.

What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to
study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to.

Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'?

My only point is that there is no doubt you're a naysaying whiny
rip'er.


Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on,
you moron.

oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about
your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals
and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be
wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK.
GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR.

LOL!

No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing
your ignorance and stupidity.

Then get a life....looser. You stand for nothing.
You retired and gave up your career for nothing.
You offer no solutions, you support no course of action.

This says far more about you than me.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite
stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again?

Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim
we had only one option, redeploy.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would
you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****?

LOL!

I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal
was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign
and claimed it just proved your points.

What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops.

That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then.

But where was your discussion
and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you.

Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank,
toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with
your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic
as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up,
either.

Nothing buy naysay and negativity.

I forgot: we give candy to kids.

Rest my case.

toopid, we, and the Iraqi government, have failed miserably for four
years to provide the most basic element necessary to succeed the a
safe and secure environment.

You can talk all you want about power generation, water supplies, and
anything else that you want to. You can quote prewar and postwar
statistics if that gives you a woody.

They do not really matter all that much without that safe and secure
environment. You prove, once again, that COIN ops are well over your
head.

As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types
of hallucinogens that you apparently do.

I was
arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid.

Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha
redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa.

Duh.

What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to
study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to.

Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'?

My only point is that there is no doubt you're a naysaying whiny
rip'er.

And "victory is right around the corner." LOL!

Have you ever considered a career in producing jingoistic posters?

You are willing to flail around and throw mud at walls to see if any
of it sticks. Meanwhile, you gamble with what I consider some pretty
valuable national assets: our wealth and the lives of our soldiers.
You care about neither.

Instead of saying, as you do, "It will be really, really bad if things
don't go out way in Iraq!" I hope we're looking at a "Well, that
didn't go as we expected. Now what?" scenario. Sometimes things don't
go as we might hope, toopid. I'm sure that your parents were hoping
for a good-looking and smart child, for example.

Your guys blundered us into a war they wanted so badly they could
taste it. "March to war" and all of that.

In 18 months or so, it is likely that we may have to say, "It looks
like we made a very bad move." I would advocate some pretty intense
contingency planning. You would advocate ****ing away more national
wealth and throwing some more mud at the wall. So there we are.

Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on,
you moron.

oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about
your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals
and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be
wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK.
GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR.

LOL!

No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing
your ignorance and stupidity.

Then get a life....looser. You stand for nothing.

I'm pretty loose now, toopid. Life is good.

I may not stand for anything, toopid, like you do, but I do not have
to resort to lying like you do. That, plus I'm not as dumb as a board.

LOL!

You retired and gave up your career for nothing.

I just love it when you criticize my military career choices,
especially since you were too fat, dumb and lazy to ever serve...

No, I retired and opened my own business. I get a military pension,
toopid. Health care. Space A travel. Tax-free shopping. Cheap hotels
all over the world. I get saluted every time I go onto a military
base. And I can still wear my uniform if I want to! All of this for
the rest of my life. And all paid for by you! I hardly call that
'nothing.' Had I quit at 18 years, that would have been for nothing.

As I've told you time and again, I chose to retire rather than leading
my soldiers into battle with a strategy that I did not support and
leading in areas that I was not expert in (go look at what the
artillery is doing in Iraq, toopid). At my level, I felt that I should
have a pretty good grasp of the TTP in whatever area I was leading.

You choose to call me names for that decision. I call that integrity.
I would, after all, be the one writing those "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith:
I regret to inform you that...." letters. I would probably have to
look them in the eye at some point. But not you, toopid! You sit on
your fat, lazy ass and criticize decisions that you or your family
will never have to make.

You are a sad, defective POS, toopid. A really substandard being.

LOL!

You offer no solutions, you support no course of action.

I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along.

I just think it's too late. So do many, many others with far more
knowledge and experience than you have (which is not too hard to see).
And that would be due 100% to the decisions your guys made. But I'm
sure we all hope, hope, hope that we're wrong.

I hope, hope, hope this COA can still work. My fingers are crossed.
The only other COA (other than leaving) I can see is to flood about
500k soldiers into Iraq and totally reoccupy it. The military cannot
do this without breaking. As I said to you several months ago, BTW.

And if you look at what the Army has said (Go Big, Go Long, Go Home)
it would appear that the Army's senior leadership agrees with me.

You know what sucks, toopid? Trying a last-ditch military strategy
change on a national level and 'hoping' that it works. bushie may be
the only person on Earth dumber than you are.

This says far more about you than me.

No, what you say about yourself every time you post is "I, toopid,
loudly affirm my right to be a moron!"

You see, I do not suffer from ideologically-driven hallucinations.

LOL!

Moron.

[ScottW]

On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


You offer no solutions, you support no course of action.

I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along.

I just think it's too late.

That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that
you don't think can work.

Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions?
You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I
told you so".

Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be
a politician?

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim
we had only one option, redeploy.

Message ID? Not even for a 'consistent' claim, but even for a single
claim?

I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal
was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign
and claimed it just proved your points.

BTW, toopid, you misrepresented what was going on... again. This
thread was not about Murtha. It was specifically about COIN strategy
and tactics. Your confused claim that you never argued with me about
that is an outright lie, or else you are mentally pretty messed up. I
suppose it could be a combination of the two as well.

The first post of this thread was, in fact, "OT: Is this how to fight
an insurgency?"



The thread I pulled these quotes from *was* a thread about strategy
and tactics in COIN ops, you moron. Go back and read it. You can still
learn something. Oh, and quit lying. It makes your claims of superior
morality look like it's coming from former Rep. Cunningham.

Of course, you've set yourself up for a huge dilemma now, toopid:
either the proposed strategy shift for Iraq is a faulty one, or you
are forced to admit that I know a lot more than you do about these
matters and that I was correct (posted CV or no, toopid), even if I am
'RIP.'

LOL! No middle ground there, toopid. Game over.

Here's another quote out of one of the messages I quoted earlier
showing you (*not* LOL!) arguing tactics with me:

**************************************************
Me:
Equally AFAWK it wasn't. You're talking 500 lb bombs here. Have you
ever seen one detonate? I have. You have to be pretty sure.

toopid:
No you don't.. its a war.

[i.e. Here's your 'conventional war' mindset, moron.]

Me:
A fine point that you may have missed: *We* started the war. *We*
invaded.

toopid:
Does that really make a difference to the boots on the ground
whose lives you seem to be offering up in some grotesque
moral sacrifice?

[i.e. Here's your "force protection at all costs, even mission
failure" mentality, toopid]

Me:
No moral sacrifice, toopid. It's how you win a COIN operation.

It makes a difference that we started the war to the people that we
are
trying to win over in Iraq. They are, BTW, the same people that the
insurgents are either trying to win over or to maintain their support
with.

And since it's our war, it *is* incumbant on us to be the ones on
moral
high ground (which we've already done our best to give up in so many
ways). We are uninvited guests in somebody else's home. We should
break
as little china as possible.

Message-ID: .com

************************************************** ***

And as I said (before you go into another misguided "YOU DON'T SUPPORT
THE TROOPS" or some other jingoistic rant) I really do hope that it's
not too late. We 'dissidents' in the Army have been laughed at (by
people like you, rummy, and bushie, toopid) for nearly four years. If
this effort fails, it is not the fault of the soldiers trying to
implement the strategy which should have been implemented from the get-
go.

So as you see, toopid, you are lying yet again. You flounder and
thrash about, all the while having not one single small clue. Not even
one small whiff of a shadow of an outline of a trace of a small clue.

The hilarious part is how absolutely sure you are that you are
correct. And you base this certitude on... exactly what, again?

Prediction: now that toopid is backed into a corner... again, he will
pout that the post is "too long and boring" or he will disappear into
a hole in the woodwork like the small rat-like rodent he is.

LOL!

Moron.