Comments Posted By Gregdn
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 124 Comments
WAR CZAR: "IT'S A LITTLE DRAFTY IN THIS BASEMENT..."
Hyperion: you misread my post (or perhaps I wasn't clear). I pointed out the size difference between Iraq and Iran specifically to point out how ridiculous it would be to try to attack Iran with our current forces.
Comment Posted By Gregdn On 11.08.2007 @ 13:41
We either adjust the mission (my preferred strategy) or increase the military.
I do think that we're at a turning point here. If one truly believes (and I do not) that we're involved in a 'clash of civilizations' then it seems one would have to admit that the volunteer Army could not be made large enough to do the job. Want to stop Iran? Bombing won't cut it; you'll need to invade and occupy that country, and it's 2 1/2 times bigger than Iraq.
Comment Posted By Gregdn On 11.08.2007 @ 10:24
MAKING THE CASE FOR A LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO IRAQ
Davebo: You're probably right about us not trusting them. I was thinking just after my last post that the Israelis might just have something to say about arming a Muslim nation they've fought before too.
Comment Posted By gregdn On 8.08.2007 @ 14:57
But- how can the Iraqis adequately provide for their own security with not air force?
davebo brings up a good point: if we really intend to leave and stand up Iraq as a nation why haven't we given them any armor or credible air force?
Comment Posted By gregdn On 8.08.2007 @ 12:46
I reluctantly agree that leaving quickly wouldn't be what's best here.
Comment Posted By gregdn On 8.08.2007 @ 08:20
I do think the Democrats would be able to placate their left wing if Bush would at least acknowledge that we are going to leave.
Publically renouncing the idea of permanent bases in Iraq would be a good start IMO.
A RESPONSE TO CRITICS OF MY LAST POST
Ms. Malkin has made a career of 'attacking the messenger'. It's hardly surprising that she would disagree with anyone who doesn't place the same emphasis on it that she does.
Comment Posted By gregdn On 7.08.2007 @ 14:00
OBAMA: NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME - EVER
Steve Sturm:
"whatever happened to the Bush doctrine of going after terrorists wherever they may be? "You missed it, but this policy died in some back alley in Baghdad. Realism is back buddy, as evidenced by our weapons deal with the Saudis.
Comment Posted By gregdn On 2.08.2007 @ 08:19
Slimguy:
Comment Posted By gregdn On 1.08.2007 @ 12:12
It doesn't matter whether someone is using email or smoke signals to communicate: no probable cause, no warrant. No warrant no wiretap.
Technology hasn't made the Constitution outdated.
I think the Fourth amendment is pretty clear in that, you need probable cause and a warrant to listen in on a conversation that begins or terminates in this country. FISA is a reasonable 'nod' to current technology (requiring the warrant to be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact).
Comment Posted By gregdn On 1.08.2007 @ 09:34
Data mining (IMO) clearly contravenes the Constitution since there is no 'probable cause', let alone a warrant.
I'd rather take a slight increase in risk than lose a single civil liberty to the GWOT (or whatever it's being called this month).
SCIENTIFIC DEBUNKING OF LANCET STUDY: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
Shannon & others who argue that the Viet Cong was defeated during the Tet offensive (Jan '68) might want to look at casualty figures from that war more closely:
Year U.S. deaths
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616While I'm aware that not all of the casualties were inflicted by the Viet Cong, you must admit that for a defeated enemy they still packed quite a punch.
Comment Posted By gregdn On 26.07.2007 @ 14:21
