"or better marketing"?
That's what you said, isn't it?
So who exactly do you plan on selling this war to? The Iraqis? Maybe the French? How about the Chinese?
Or are you going to sell this to Americans? Hey, we thought we'd invade this country, want to come along?
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
Oh, you need a better plan. You need a fucking brain transplant. Use whatever you find lying around, it can't get worse.
If you are truly concerned about global warming and $3.00 gas...next time you want to drive twenty miles just walk..You will be helping the Earth and your Health all at the same time.
and walk instead of taking even public transit... sure - I get looks while sitting in a corporate meeting... but then again I am 59 and pass for dead.
If YOU are truly concerned with the 'loonie left' and their constant bitching about Iraq, instead of complaining book yourself a flight to Baghdad, pick up a rifle and some body armor in the bazaar and join the fight - clean up those alQaeda, join in!
Idiot.
Yeah, and plamegate!
I only wanted to show what an ass quad was - you gave me a twofer!
he's blabbing about global warming and you spout off about grabbing a rifle, body armor, and heading to Iraq...
Okay Mr. Nonsequitor,,,,
you're a barrel of laughs...
ps, make sure you get your vagina installed before we talk about abortion....
Someone incapable of understanding 'parody' would be hamstrung faced with an allegory.
Pot. Kettle . Black.
bout time for you to bring up the blue dress and bill's ...err...."dicksnot"
I never have to Bill - that's your obsession and I can always count on you to bring it up, appropriate or not. Like now. You might want to talk with someone, this fixation with Clinton and oral sex seems kind of unhealthy.
yeah, you forget....
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=53740&boardID=39&page=1
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=53758&boardID=39&page=1
someone's obsessed.....
-- Modified on 11/7/2007 6:41:38 PM
Nice try - I point out your constant harping on Clinton as a comeback for all the sins of the neocons and you call me obsessed?
The only thing he was nailed on was lyng - over a fucking blow job. You guys can't stand the FACT that he was a great president in the eyes of the American people as evidenced by his continued popularity ven after being pilloried by the right.
Go back to wishing you were that other Bill - maybe you can find your own Monica and you won't have to obsess about his.
I wouldn't wish Monica on anyone, except maybe JackO. lmao Now Elizabeth Gracen, that's another story, I much prefer it when the president of my country is doing hotties, than when he's getting BJ's from heifers like Monica.
you continue to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. and in the face of 2 VERY recent examples, you follow me showing exactly who is obsessed with who. your hero worship of the impeached, disbarred, rapist notwithstanding......
Keep it up, Bill - the tired tactic of repeating the lie and accusing your adversary of what you have been doing doesn't even work for Rove, your rle model, anymore. You have consitently brought up Clinton as justification for evey crime Bush and his minions are accused of and, as you well know, he was impeached and disbarred for telling a lie over getting a blow job. If you want to call him a rapist you'll want to include the word 'alleged' because he is not, in fact, a rapist any more than he is a murderer or a drug smuggler.
The one nice thing about this little exchange is that perhaps, finally, you will leave Clinton's impeachment out of current affairs discussions because you know that I will beat you unmercifully with it the next time you bring it up.
I get so sick of listening to lefties crying about how bush "stole" the election in 2000, by the same token, I get equally as sick of hearing the righties carp about Clinton's blow job.
I don't care about what pussy Bill got or didn't get, and I don't really care anymore that he lied about it, not that I ever did. Even if it's true(which it is), what difference does it make any more? We're going to a have a choice between a "douche" and a "turd" AGAIN, and all anybody can talk about is ancient history. sheesh
that continues to bring up bjs and bluedress and it is you who continues to lie about the lie. i can call him rapist all i want because i believe that's exactly what he is,
and anyone who goes about the business of continulaly running to his defense like Pavlov's dog is either married to him or wearing knee pads for him,
and i know you're not married...
a man is known by the company he keeps, and your hero is a vile piece of shit
Interesting how animated you get over someone defending a man whose only proven crime was lying over a blow job - and you're doing it on an escort board where you go to find women to pay to blow you who are not your wife - but you go about the business of continually running to the defense of a man who has wiped his ass with the constitution, shredded habeus corpus, wiretapped his own citizenry and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent human beings like Pavlovs dog.
Who are you wearing knee pads for?
No one is suggesting that we walk 20 miles to be more. Who would even consider walking 20 miles? Perhaps walking the quarter mile to the 7-11 to get a couple of six packs of beer would be a good start. You could even use the 6 packs on your way home to build some arm and shoulder muscles. And since you don't have to go to the gym, you can save some of your time (and gas)!
assuming minimal resistance.
it's too hot from all this global warming, and too many toxins are in the air. i need my self-contained 4 wheel mobile unit to transport me from place to place quickly and inefficiently so i don't get sick.
for 6 $ figures, stock options and everything I can liberate, because I can do what you can't.
Ya fuckin wuss.
Than straight gasoline at the pump. That's right. The cost of growing, harvesting, and transporting the food for those calories used by your body is more expensive than the costs of oil. (Of course, the car makes up for it by the weight moved.) Agriculture is also the most environmentally threatening industry.
Unfortunately, this suggests to me that as gasoline goes up, we're facing radically higher food costs.
It's the corporate giants that control most of the food production in this country that require massive transportation networks to distribute their product. With smaller and more localized businesses, there'd be a lot less expense, both financial and environmental.
corporate giants focus on expense. All other things being equal (noting the distortions of agricultural subsidies) they do things the cheapest way. So much for your financial argument.
If the environment doesn't have an associated cost, it's because the system doesn't value it, because it appears indefinite. That works well as long as it's big enough that you don't have to worry about stepping in your own shit, but we appear to be approaching the end of that, and we'll wind up valuing it somehow. The much maligned carbon credit market is a move in that direction. Just like, for example, a river, which Republicans are astonished to find is a finite resource.
Forget the arts & crafts shit, SF. If it worked financially (ie people could afford to buy it to live on) it'd become a giant corporation.
just like they told us cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. it's the same as 30 years ago. you say cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, how could they!!!!
you will be proven wrong again! this is a cycle. melting happens, it's what ice does.
and one hell of a lot more closely linked to the right than left.
That's what I like about you guys, is that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth on 15 seconds' notice, because you don't have enough fucking memory to last any longer.
Yes indeed, ice melts. Except when it freezes or does something else.
Say, stick around, we'll organize a Guinness Record for Dumbest Fuck in All History between you, pepe, & quad & shaka.
but you are right, I also agree with you about the small farmers. If they really were more efficient, they wouldn't be disappearing at such an alarming rate.
And No I'm not going to talk any more about Moveon.org except to say, they are an over the top, left wing, bunch of wackos who sort of offset the christian, right wing wackos. Arguing with you about moveon.org is like arguing with Pepe about flag burning. there is absolutely nothing to be gained from it.
but you can save the effort of thought, because I'm ALWAYS right.
So WTF brought up moveon? Maybe somewhere back there I might have asked you or somebody to justify an opinion with some sort of factual allegation - and "over the top wacko winger" is of course not a factual allegation.
Citation to or allegation of who what when where, why etc is good. If you hadn't noticed, you are on the INTERNET, and basic research is only a matter of interest.
Those who aren't interested FOR THEIR OWN SAKE whether they might be right or wrong - well, what can I say? Fucking pathetic.
Saddam.
Look, if you don't have any more brains than your hero George, and you stumble over words with 3 syllables, just let us know, we have an affirmative action program for Republicans.
i'm not sure why you persist on questioning me about this.
first, we are trying to destablize that entire region. it's a clusterfuck, and we want to break it up into smaller, more manageable factions. we're breaking it down one at a time. we also want a presence, and a big shiny embassy. we're also going after iran, and this only helps in the long run.
second, oil.
We leave Iraq with our tail between our legs, Iran moves in, we now have an enemy twice as big, well on their way to developing nukes, that also controls a huge percentage of the worlds oil, as well as the Straits of Hormuz.
That's why we can't leave Iraq.
we commit our army for an indefinite time without a plan as to how we are going to win, or even defining what a win is.
Failing to plan is planning to fail. That's what your fucking rocket scientists in the White House have done.
So, since we don't have a plan, you figure we have to stick with it. We'll just hang out until something happens, and hope it's something good. Maybe we'll throw more money and troops at it, and hope some PFC figures out what we have to do, sometime before his grandkids pull a tour there.
You guys must have stayed awake many long nights to come up with shit as abysmally stupid as this. Can you say Vietnam? We had to stay there, or the communists would domino Asia. If we had just stayed there long enough, we could have killed every last mother's son of a dink, and it probably only would have cost us about a quarter million KIAs, maybe a couple million WIAs - so far. Pretty good deal - if you're a politician or defense contractor.
ignoring your thoughts on whether or not this was a massive fuck-up from the beginning you must think that we should probably stay.
perhaps, we need a better plan, or better marketing, but we have to stay.
we are an occupier, and we have certain responsibilites. which is to stay and try to fix what, as you will argue, we broke. you can't just take your guns away and say, have at it, can you?
perhaps you loonies will blow me away and come up with a plan to fix it, but perhaps you will not. it does need fixing though. if we leave there we will see mass killings, and then all the crazy loonies will be clamoring for humanitarian intervention anyway.
Our first responsibility is to ourself. We have to preserve our ability to protect ourself, or we can't do shit.
So now you think we have some responsibility to the Iraqis? You know, after we've killed about as many as Saddam did, and made much more of a mess of the economy than he dreamed? NOW your discover responsibility?!
Bullshit. Get your people the fuck out of the kill zone until you can figure out what the fuck you're doing!
The FIRST fucking thing you have to do is decide what you want to do, ya idiot!!! Bush may have his own secret plan, but it's pretty much pointless given the fact that secret plans for secret wars don't go over well in democracies, because the next administration is likely to give the people what they want.
I cannot fucking believe how ignorant you are.
We have to preserve our ability to protect ourself? From what, if we leave Iraq, what threat are we protecting ourselves from that we aren't right now? Do you want to send troops to the North Pole to fight Global Warming?
Is an immiment attack on the horizon from terrorists that our troops can protect us from by bringing them home? Oh, I know, if it wasn't for Iraq there wouldn't have been fires in CA! Yes, if we leave we can fight them here instead of fighting them there. A whole new slogan for idiots like yourself. The latter being just as absurd as the (unmentined) former.
Yeah, we do have some responsibilities to the Iraqis. We have since the day we toppled their gov't militarily. I didn't decide to go to war, so asking me a question about me "discovering responsbility" is retarded, but certainly not above your style of argumentation.
Great plan! Take the military out, let it all fall apart even more, formulate a plan and return to what's left as part of a humanitarian mission! All right! That's a sound plan. What do you think the ramification are if we leave? What's your plan genious? You never seem to share that other than snide comments about 'we gotta go' because we gotta go!!! Do you have a thought beyond your 'gotta go' plan? Do you think long term the 'gotta go' plan will aid us in some way?
Oh, I know, we just 'gotta go' till we have a new and improved plan.
They don't go over well in democracies? Didn't Bush get re-elected? Isn't Giuliani polling pretty close to Hillary? Yup, you win again.
cannot function, including casualties, poor leadership or economic problems, then, by definition, we cannot use them, correct?
Why does it take Sun Fucking Tzu to realize that, if we piss away our military force in Iraq, we will not be able to use it elsewhere?
You think we are trying to fragment the middle east so we can "manage" it, right? It doesn't occur to you that perhaps we're having trouble "managing" Baghdad over the last 4 years, let alone anything else? And GW Bush has not led us to believe that he has any sort of idea how to go about managing anything?
DOES IT OCCUR to you that if we could in fact "manage" this problem in any useful or practical way, we wouldn't even be having this discussion?
So, who's delusional? Why else would I have to write 4 paragraphs to illuminate what should be immediately obvious to the casual observer?!!
any person that thinks they can sum up a very complicated issue with a plan of "gotta go" and then see what happens is a moron. you accuse others of being unthinking, yet you offer so little substance in your 100 posts a day it's astounding.
it's certainly a nice, easily defendable stance, to stand up and say, everyone else is wrong, but i'm right because i won't assert anything other than "you're wrong."
you offer zero substantive points on a daily basis, but post constantly. i know you feel a certain superiority in that your positions are hard to attack, but perhaps it's because you take no position that involves thinking.
your answer to everything is that we leave. end of story. figure it out from there. consequences, who cares because i can clamor on and on about how the consequences of staying appear to suck.
your analysis consistently is the worst on this board.
i may make light of 'loonies' but for the most part they make a decent argument, and have a point that although different, can be seen through their posting. i may call them loonies, and egg them on a bit, needlessly at times, but in the end much of the time i can respect what they post.
you, on the other hand, have no point. no thought process at all. just questions and assertions without any thinking into the ramifications of your own unthinking suggestions. then, when people challenge you, you say that you're trying to make them answer the questions. as you can see from my futile, somewhat sarcastic post below, it's a stupid and pointless exercise that doesn't garnder much respect from anyone.
I think you summed up JackO quite nicely.
Actually, with the exception of JackO, things seem to be improving around here. We've actually had some conversations that did not degenerate into name callin contests. I agree, JackO is beyond help, or hope, but maybe there's hope for the rest of us.
you say we "need a better plan" to "manage" the fragmentation of Mideast states.
This is not the administration line. Do you think that Bush is in fact trying to fragment and manage Mideast politics?
Why do you suppose he's having such a hard time doing this? Not the "liberal media" is it?
Your suggestion looks pretty fucking laughable to me, and you've never tried to defend it.
How the hell do you think we're gonna "manage" this? Why do you suppose we're not managing it any better than we are?
Your ability to avoid the obvious is nothing short of fucking amazing.
While you're at it, you might explain to us how many city blocks you think your squad can cover.
that you couldn't predict, but many people did - so your idea here is what? Hang around and see what happens, because you're afraid of what might happen if you don't?
That sounds a lot to me like you really don't have a fucking clue, any way you cut it. Would YOU like to go stand in the kill zone while we wait for somebody to figure it out? Do you think that is a smart thing to do?
Is the administration managing it to your satisfaction? Do you have any guesses about why it's not going any better? Perhaps they need some clues?
So you must disagree with my belief that our first responsibility is to avoid the waste of our armed forces?
You really don't see a problem with indefinite casualties for an undefined objective?
Have you ever served on active duty above the rank of Corporal? Because frankly, I can't imagine any NCO or officer buying into that idea. Possibly excepting some specialists & technicians who were responsible only for machinery.
For that matter, the idea of having a goal and an idea of its cost is pretty basic to any college graduate OR fairly smart person.
and you still haven't said a fucking thing. JackO you're fucking hopeless. You can talk to Ragmen, if he still wants to talk to you. Somehow, I doubt it.
damned convenient to be offended when you don't have an answer to a rhetorical question.
Yeah, after a while it's hard to avoid logic, so now it's time for you to bail.
"or better marketing"?
That's what you said, isn't it?
So who exactly do you plan on selling this war to? The Iraqis? Maybe the French? How about the Chinese?
Or are you going to sell this to Americans? Hey, we thought we'd invade this country, want to come along?
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!
Oh, you need a better plan. You need a fucking brain transplant. Use whatever you find lying around, it can't get worse.
"Oh, you need a better plan. You need a fucking brain transplant. Use whatever you find lying around, it can't get worse."
JackO, you are so wrong, as I pointed out, it could and possibly will get worse, much worse.
Dumbya could accidentally detonate a nuke in the Green Zone.
So let's talk about reasonable probabilities here: eg is it reasonably probable that there's anybody who knows WTF they are doing?
I cannot imagine anybody defending the committment of the largest part of US military force to a place like Iraq without having some reasonably workable plan - but that seems the necessary inference of ragmen, and perhaps yourself.
I think your theory is that the administration secretly plans an indefinite occupation for the purpose of securing oil. Is that about right?
So how much do you think that's going to cost? You should be able to make some estimates.
The US army alone is over a million strong, not to mention the other branches of the military. There are less than 200,000 troops currently in Iraq. Not to nit pick, but since you are so quick to point out factual errors in others, I thought I might reciprocate.
Secondly, I don't know if the admininstration "secretly plans" to remain in Iraq indefinitely, but I do think that it would be in our best interests to do just that.
How much is that going to cost? A lot, stupid question. A better question is, do we have a better option? The answer to that question is a resounding NO!!!
1) So why are we extending National Guard troops instead of sending the others? Because you don't seem to realize that they're already obligated, and many of them are support troops, not prepared for combat or organized in combat units. I don't expect you to take my word for it, as you expect me - so consider the rhetorical question. Why are NG troops on multiple 15 month tours the best we can do?
2) You don't seem to understand that in order to kill enemies, conventional forces have to locate/ID them 1st. The problem of co-in ops is locating/IDing the enemy before he gets a bead on you, shoots & disappears.
If we were to pull out, and an enemy were to take over Iraq, we would solve the problem of identifying a conventional target.
So are you still sure that our best plan is to stand in the kill zone with our thumb up our ass waiting to see what happens?
3) Vietnam redux. I heard a radio interview about reconstruction in Afghanistan today, some Army SSgt was describing the procedures and operations, and commented why certain opns were being done, and how appreciate the locals were, but none of them knew anything about the Taliban. Of course not. His evaluation was that "they appreciate our effort, but not enough to turn in their relatives hiding out in the hills."
Of course not. Would you? So what's your plan, lieutenant?
Oh, you're not responsible for this one, hmmm?
isn't a plan.
Are you arguing that planning is bad?
If not, what plan do you think we should have here? Hang out indefinitely and see what happens?
Do you have any opinions why this has gone as it has?
You already know I think - on the face of it - that a reasonably smart history undergrad could do better in a week's term paper, than the administration has.
And that is why I have to believe that the administration has an undisclosed agenda that is neither as simple as oil, nor as simple as having a dozen half-wits in key administration positions.
I have defined my fears rather clearly, You choose to ignore them rather than refute them. As I said "Typical JackO response"
If you don't have anything new to say, you can have this conversation with yourself. So far the only thing you have had to say is that everybody is an idiot. You just say it a little bit differently each time. It's still the same old tired message. We get it, everybody's a moron but JackO. Please try to come up with something new.Preferably something constructive.
because they're shiite terrorists?
So if we permit an Iraqi democracy, what do you think we'll get? Shiite terrorists, maybe?
Withdrawing and creating a power vacuum is a possibility. Staying at indefinite cost is another.
Obviously, the cost of oil security could make oil unprofitable. What's the solution to that, assuming no alternate energy? Well, you'd probably just have to kill enough 3rd worlders to secure the oil. Or, you could do as we did to the natives, and wreck their economies, I suppose. Drive them into adjacent countries by the millions. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Seriously.
But (as I have pointed out repeatedly) the problem of unconventional/asymetrical/guerrilla war is locating your target before he kills you. Sitting in the middle of a generally hostile urban area waiting for a target to show is really just about the stupidest thing you can do. Withdrawing and waiting for an enemy to form and give you a target is probably a much better plan. There are likely other ways of approaching it, but the threshold obstacle is understanding that failing to plan is planning to fail.
Now, the classic problem is that the people like your money, but they rarely like it enough to rat out their relatives. The most effective way to deal with this is buy out their leaders. Of course it's temporary, but it's the best you can do. What we would have to do here is, cut them in on a fraction of the oil money.
So what do you want to do here? Do you have some idea other than just trusting a fellow who can't string together a coherent paragraph?
Now don't get me wrong here. I have nothing against armed robbery. I just want to make sure that we do whatever we need to efficiently, and that means, we know WTF we're doing. My objection to the Republicans is that on the face of it, they are NOT efficient, and they DON'T know WTF they're doing.
But that is really a limited view, because they have a real knack for (a) doing quite well for a limited class of crony capitalists, while (b) convincing jesus people and trusting Americans that they are looking out for them, without actually cutting them in. Classic example is the wage differential between private security and military pesonnel.
See? It's not that hard.
This is actually something I CAN respond to. Unfortunately I have a life, and I have to run out the door. Remind me, and I will respond to this post.
"The nightmare scenario is
Posted by GaGambler, 11/7/2007 6:55:38 PM
We leave Iraq with our tail between our legs, Iran moves in, we now have an enemy twice as big, well on their way to developing nukes, that also controls a huge percentage of the worlds oil, as well as the Straits of Hormuz.
That's why we can't leave Iraq."
and ask yourself if you really think you know what the fuck you're talking about.
So you figure we're trying to destabilize the region, so we can "manage" it.
We're having a lot of luck managing the 1st bit, aren't we? Mission fucking accomplished or something?
So what's gonna happen here, I suppose, is that our mortal enemies are gonna wait until we have it under control, then they're gonna just bend over for their fucking.
Have you ever so much as deployed a fucking squad? Do you care to tell us how you think you're gonna do this? You know, I suppose you with a little fire support from Pat Robertson should be able to solve all the problems, eh?
Well? What the FUCK are you waiting for?!
No answers, no ideas, just name calling.
and also tend to pose questions rather than make statements, which assumes people actually read & think, instead of just cruising the headline & knee-jerking.
For a person to claim we took out Saddam as a "tactical maneuver" - sounds like he's getting his information from video games, and should probably just be ignored.
But as we see in RL, it's easy for ignorant fucks to wind up in major political offices, and who knows, ragmen might be GW, we can't see clear distinctions in the thought processes -
"and also tend to pose questions rather than make statements"
I understand your tactic. It is much easier to ask a quetion and then ridicule the answer, than it is to offer any substantive of your own. Your "style" is rather transparent.
questions allow the broadest range of response.
True, some are rhetorical, and a person should be able to recognize those, and not jump into defending the indefensible. But I'm not forcing anybody to write bullshit. Except once in a while I come around to twist your arm.
It's more than enough work just exposing obvious bullshit, and I have no obligation to solve anybody's problems here.
FUCKING LOVEFEST.
Eh?!
but that is what we seem to get in abundance around here.Especially from you.
I am more in favor of ignoring jacko..he does just fine talking to himself..at least he always has someone listening
'we need a better plan' to 'fragment & manage the mideast' is not in fact something that could only come from the mind of a DUMB FUCK?!!!!!!
Come on. If you come in here, and want to make dumbass statements, you need to wear a sign, "I'm a dumbass who needs help, please be gentle with me".
Instead you take shit like that as God's own truth, and get pissed off that people ask rhetorical questions, that show posters up for fools.
Look, if you sound like a fool when somebody asks a question, that is YOUR PROBLEM with REALITY, not the questioner's issue.
If a simple question makes you look like a fool, it's because you didn't do your homework.
Eh?
i say "perhaps" we need a better plan because unfortunately i am not a high ranking official within the government. although, since you seem delusional enough to think you are, you could maybe tell me what that plan is?
that why i prefaced it with "perhaps" which you conveniently left out. look, i don't maintain that I know exactly what our plan is, i'm speculating, and just asserting that I think the plan is to destablize the region, and that having a sustained presence is practical at this time both for the iraqi's and our own interests. since we're there, we need to work through it.
i think you're best statement in the post was when you said "I'm a dumbass who needs help, please be gentle with me". Thanks for writing that so I didn't have to say it about you myself.
see, i can leave off the words that precede a statement too in order to make it fit best with my own argument. i can also photoshop pictures, maybe we could play that game next.
because we presume you're a voter who should know these things.
(1) What do you suppose our goal (mission or objective) is in Iraq?
You gotta have a goal. We're not on a shopping spree here. If you don't have a goal, you can't accomplish it.
(a) How about, remove Saddam and the Baath party, and eliminate the Iraqi army as a threat? Done that.
(b) How about, eliminate WMDs in Iraq? Oops. No WMDs.
(c) How about, make Iraqis into democrats? or Republicans, as you may choose?
(d) or, as GAG would have it, secure their oil?
(e) or, what else?
IOW, WHY are we in Iraq? What are we trying to accomplish there? Work on our suntans, or what?
When you come up with some reasons, then we'll get on to the next points.
it says there is a certain difference in military usage. i was using the words in what I thought was a colloquial sense, and incorrectly, and for that I am so very sorry. it will never happen again.
i'm impressed at your devotion to arguing semantics. perhaps you could start a new TER devoted to your neverending passion.
finally, yes, i deploy squads all the time. great question. it was so funny that i just had to answer. hilarious! you're comedy is top notch for a sixth grader.
do you deploy squads as well?
your views of the world are also like those of a 6th grader. keep up the good work.
So let's try this.
Why don't you tell us what sort of plan might work in Iraq?
Because AFAIK, there's nobody in the US govt that is going to admit that Iraq is going "according to plan".
It's pretty obvious to me that anything that was passed off as a plan was laughable.
So let's hear your plan for "managing" the Mideast.