Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on April 24, 2007, 12:43:32 PM
-
How can the dems stand there and demand we leave the fight?
Al Qaeda claims killing of 9 U.S. troops in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070424/ts_nm/iraq_dc_19)
+ another 20 maimed and wounded ...
what a bunch of chicksheet "leaders" the dems are.
-
numberOfClosedThreads = numberOfClosedThreads + 1
-
huh?
-
I dunno, lot's of threads like this just got closed.
...we'll see what happens.
-
In my opinion, I dont think Bush has done well leading the country. Most Americans would trust their President if he was a good and strong leader of the nation, and the free world. As it turns out Bush is not. He is a divider, not a uniter. This whole Iraq problem is a result of his poor leadership. Again, thats just my opinion. He is a nice guy, probably funny as a loon once he has had a few drinks, but as a President he is a complete letdown for me.
-
The Iraq problem was around through more than Bush's term.... IMHO anyone placing the term Politician next to their name, their IQ drops dramatically (many in office can not afford this drop). I can think of only a few republicans I can say I agree with... and no democrats. Since we limit use of our resources we use in battle based on what others think, we will lose many of our soldiers. The most limiting factor of the US is it's own government and the treasonous actions of some going over seas to undermine US policy.
I am not democrat or republican... I AM American. There are very few true Americans left.... too bad!
-
Yeager
You sound like you have swallowed the media spew hook line and sinker.
too bad ...
I do not think we can have a "strong" leader when they are undermined by the opposing party and their buds in the media.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In my opinion, I dont think Bush has done well leading the country. Most Americans would trust their President if he was a good and strong leader of the nation, and the free world. As it turns out Bush is not. He is a divider, not a uniter. This whole Iraq problem is a result of his poor leadership. Again, thats just my opinion. He is a nice guy, probably funny as a loon once he has had a few drinks, but as a President he is a complete letdown for me.
Don't give us that bull****. Every single thing that has ever happened in america's history has divided the american people. EVERY SINGLE THING.
-
bush has one big flaw, he doesnt communicate his plans well at all. he doesnt 'sell' them to the country directly the way reagan and fdr did. he also sticks with people who arent doing their job too long.
after 9/11 he had a chance to be the 'good' president bush, he had a chance to even be a great...
To his credit though, i will say - he has had a LOT of huge events happen and fall in his lap. I imagine he has picked up the phone to hear of some new event like 9/11, the tsunami, katrina and several others and think to himself "WTF??"
-
We need more great orators. We need leaders who use the best words for the speech, and not the words the most people understand.
Can you imagine Clinton or Bush making any of the great speeches Churchill made?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what a bunch of chicksheet "leaders" the dems are.
Oh no, not another "I'm flashing my neocon credentials" thread :huh
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Yeager
You sound like you have swallowed the media spew hook line and sinker.
too bad ...
I do not think we can have a "strong" leader when they are undermined by the opposing party and their buds in the media.
Yes "strong" leaders here do get impeded by the other two branches on occasion.
shamus
-
The correct question would be:
If Bush is really fighting Al kaida - then why he isnt doing anything against the main supporter of these sunnite terrorist organisation, which killed and crippled so many US-soldiers in Iraq :
Saudi-Arabia
The Saudis are the main financial supporter of Al Kaida.
But no one seems to care about this.
Strange IMHO
-
I like Bush, I voted for him twice. I think he has his flaws, we all do; but if he were able to run again I would not vote for him a third time. If he pardoned the two border agents recently jailed & took the southern border more seriously (read: militarize it) & fight the war on terror to win it (read: instituted a draft on 9/12) I would vote for him again if possible. The way the federal govt. has over committed our troops is shameful; we are a country over over 300,000,000 & we should be able to subdue a country the size of Texas in a matter of days. The way he has coddled the illegals in this country is shameful too.
That's just my opinion & there are always differing ones. :aok
-
If we are at war with Al Qaeda, why did Bush cut and run 5 years ago in Afghanistan and declare victory? He could have crushed them into oblivion, but decided not to. Guess that's why he's "The Decider".
-
Originally posted by rpm
If we are at war with Al Qaeda, why did Bush cut and run 5 years ago in Afghanistan and declare victory? He could have crushed them into oblivion, but decided not to. Guess that's why he's "The Decider".
We're still in Afghanistan. My nephews friend was shipped out after Christmas with the advanced warning (from the Army itself no less) that this spring is going to be heavy with combat.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
We're still in Afghanistan. My nephews friend was shipped out after Christmas with the advanced warning (from the Army itself no less) that this spring is going to be heavy with combat.
yes and the funny thing is that "spring offensive" has yet to materialize in great form from the TALIBAN......not so much AQ.
-
Kudos Guns, you are correct I ment Taliban.
Bren, I know we still have troops in Afghanistan, but we turned the fight over to the locals and moved most troops out years ago. Locals let most of the leadership escape. Now, they're back.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yes and the funny thing is that "spring offensive" has yet to materialize in great form from the TALIBAN......not so much AQ.
Agreed.
Originally posted by RPM Bren, I know we still have troops in Afghanistan, but we turned the fight over to the locals and moved most troops out years ago. Locals let most of the leadership escape. Now, they're back.
I was just replying to the statement at hand; clarification understood. I agree with most of that statement as well; I just think is was mis-handled from the beginning, too little - too late comes to mind. They came on strong but sat back on their initial successes & lit cigars & patted themselves on the backs. The federal govt. should have had a military with enough men trained to fight BEFORE jumping on the target. Micro management is what the problem was in every conflict since the end of WWII & it really began before the end of that war.
IMO if you're going to fight & risk American lives you'd better give 100% & let the generals decide what they need to put where & when they need to put them there. The generals can't very well say "send 350,000 combat troops to Afghanistan" when we don't have that many to go around.
I can't say for certain I could do better but I would lay money on myself that I could. At least when the generals opened the books to see what they had to work with it would be full from cover to cover.
-
This is just another thread posted by a 30%er whining about congress critters who are doing what the other 70% of the country wants.
It is a government of, by and for the people ya know!
-
Originally posted by Flatbar
This is just another thread posted by a 30%er whining about congress critters who are doing what the other 70% of the country wants.
It is a government of, by and for the people ya know!
and if a poll 4 years from now revealed that 70% of the people thought they were wrong in their choice in hind sight, wouldn't that make congress wrong as well?
ask the people who are there.....we aren't losing the war in Iraq, we are losing it in congress and in the media.
-
Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail... After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side.
Anyone care to take a roll call now? :D
Obviously you're gonna step on some toes when you decide to fight a war... But I think Bush could have handled it all with a bit more tact...
Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and I supported going into Iraq, too. Time to hang together, I suppose.
Anyway, it's not over yet, folks.
-
Origanally posted by Engine
We need more great orators. We need leaders who use the best words for the speech, and not the words the most people understand.
Can you imagine Clinton or Bush making any of the great speeches Churchill made?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's also been said that Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time.
And that Joseph Stalin's speeches were found to be very moving.
I'm more worried about the President that gives great speeches, to be honest.
-
If we were able to capture Osama Bin Laden, and either have him tried in a U.S. Court, or Get confirmation of his death at U.S. hands, A lot of America's credibility might be reastablished.
Of course, we would have to time it with something like, oh, a sizeable U.S. troop withdrawal...how that would work with the current situation though, might be catastrophic. I would give the Iraqi government long odds on survival, and it would probably wind up getting assimilated by Iran, with a puppet extremist government(And a probable genocidal kind of ethnic strife.)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In my opinion, I dont think Bush has done well leading the country. Most Americans would trust their President if he was a good and strong leader of the nation, and the free world. As it turns out Bush is not. He is a divider, not a uniter. This whole Iraq problem is a result of his poor leadership. Again, thats just my opinion. He is a nice guy, probably funny as a loon once he has had a few drinks, but as a President he is a complete letdown for me.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail... After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side.
Anyone care to take a roll call now? :D
Obviously you're gonna step on some toes when you decide to fight a war... But I think Bush could have handled it all with a bit more tact...
Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and I supported going into Iraq, too. Time to hang together, I suppose.
Anyway, it's not over yet, folks.
I'm not so sure the roll call would be so empty if the opposition party would not have turned into a political lynch mob, undermining the president every chance they get.
Then again with the way things are in Washington, I'm not so sure if we had a Democrat in office the Republicans wouldn't do the same thing.
The troops, thier welfare and the mission, all seem to be taking a back seat to politics. I'm about fed up with both sides. Both sides sent our troops to war now they are more interested in waging war in Washington among themselves than they are winning the war THEY VOTED FOR.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Well, when judging Bush right now, let's not forget one small detail... After 9/11, the ENTIRE WORLD was on our side
what "ENTIRE WORLD" do you live in?
The ENTIRE WORLD has never been on the side of the US, not even close
It isn't about the ENTIRE WORLD it is what was/is best for the US and her allies .. and that sure isn't nancy and her boys
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
I dunno, lot's of threads like this just got closed.
...we'll see what happens.
very odd too.
I just scanned over them as I really asnt paying much attention to them before.
Personally I dont see why any of em were closed as any debates going on seemed ot be relitively civil in nature.
::Shrugs::
Such is life
-
Originally posted by babek-
The correct question would be:
If Bush is really fighting Al kaida - then why he isnt doing anything against the main supporter of these sunnite terrorist organisation, which killed and crippled so many US-soldiers in Iraq :
Saudi-Arabia
The Saudis are the main financial supporter of Al Kaida.
But no one seems to care about this.
Strange IMHO
Or hit them were they've found sanctuary in Pakistan. Pakistan has become the Laos and Cambodia of the region with all the safe havens they have in their western borderlands.
ack-ack
-
You could probably throw Syria in there, as well.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
what "ENTIRE WORLD" do you live in?
The ENTIRE WORLD has never been on the side of the US, not even close
It isn't about the ENTIRE WORLD it is what was/is best for the US and her allies .. and that sure isn't nancy and her boys
Allow me rephrase... The entire first world. Even France.
Better?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
It's also been said that Adolph Hitler was one of the greatest public speakers of all time.
And that Joseph Stalin's speeches were found to be very moving.
I'm more worried about the President that gives great speeches, to be honest. [/B]
Good point, but I still want one who has a vocabulary and knows how to use it. While the majority of us Americans may not shine with intellect, I'd at least hope we'd recognize a speech calling for ethnic cleansing. :)
-
I don't really see what public speaking skills have to do with whether or not the President is doing a good job. I think folks get to hung up on that personally.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Don't give us that bull****. Every single thing that has ever happened in america's history has divided the american people. EVERY SINGLE THING.
LOL..
like 9/11.. like Pearl Harbor.... of course the split was 98%-2%.
fercryinoutloud.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I don't really see what public speaking skills have to do with whether or not the President is doing a good job. I think folks get to hung up on that personally.
because charisma is part of being a good leader. If you cannot motivate people to get behind your agenda you are not leading them.
Stalin and Hitler were both mass murderers but also good leaders (and before I get pounced on I'm not saying good as in what they did was good but the fact that they were able to inspire people)
On the flip side I do not think you have to have the will of the people to do the right thing. People are sheep and easily manipulated.
-
I think Reagan is the last great communicator this country has seen in the last 30 years.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
because charisma is part of being a good leader. If you cannot motivate people to get behind your agenda you are not leading them.
Stalin and Hitler were both mass murderers but also good leaders (and before I get pounced on I'm not saying good as in what they did was good but the fact that they were able to inspire people)
On the flip side I do not think you have to have the will of the people to do the right thing. People are sheep and easily manipulated.
Uncle Adolph was particularly suited to leadership until the syphilis ate his brain up. He turned Germany around & did it in short order. They were in need of a good leader as well as a competent one, unfortunately they got Hitler. I think Admiral Dönitz would have made a fine leader, too bad he only succeeded Hitler after the damage was done. But in the grand scheme of things Hitler was a baby when it came to slaughter, Stalin killed millions more & Mao - wow I think his total was something like 50 million more than Hitler & they were his own people at that.
That is going by the generally accepted totals of 30 million for Hitler, 60 million for Stalin & 80 million (or more) for Mao.
-
Bush has bungled this whole Iraq thing up so badly its pathetic eagler, as each day goes by a little bit more of me says "yeah, he sure effluffied that one up alright." I'll give it till next spring (08) and if things haven't started to trend largely towards stability, then I will believe for sure that we are going to be in that Golly-geened country for another 20 years getting sniped and IED'd the entire time and even THEN that putrid garbage pit in the dessert is STILL going to be Golly-geened. The only way to fix that mess is to bulldoze the entire region flat and start from scratch.
Sorry but thats just the way its looking.
-
There is no denying that this administration screwed up with the occupation of Iraq and the failures of the policies in Iraq and be directly attributed to the Bush Administration.
ack-ack
-
the administration did not screw up the occupation of Iraq, it's the people that keep blowing things up that are screwing it up, if they were not blowing things up there would be no "occupation", our troops would be home and Iraq would be a peaceful country by now.
put the blame where it belongs.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
LOL..
like 9/11.. like Pearl Harbor.... of course the split was 98%-2%.
fercryinoutloud.
As much as you would like to say that I'm not right so as to use it as a weapon against Bush, you can't. Even after 9/11, even after Pearl Harbor, there were those Americans who didn't want to go to war.
Trace every single event that ever happened back through history. There was dissent and support for everything.
Even all the way back to the American Revolution and before that. For example, during the American Revolution, the percentage of the population that wanted to break off and start a new country was roughly around 30%. The rest were either loyalists, or those who didn't want to rock the boat (split pretty evenly for the difference).
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bush has bungled this whole Iraq thing up so badly its pathetic eagler, as each day goes by a little bit more of me says "yeah, he sure effluffied that one up alright." I'll give it till next spring (08) and if things haven't started to trend largely towards stability, then I will believe for sure that we are going to be in that Golly-geened country for another 20 years getting sniped and IED'd the entire time and even THEN that putrid garbage pit in the dessert is STILL going to be Golly-geened. The only way to fix that mess is to bulldoze the entire region flat and start from scratch.
Sorry but thats just the way its looking.
what exactly should have been done that would have prevented the cheekboness from acting they way they are today?
I do not think anything could have been done that would have prevented the "insurgents" and the natural hate these ppl seem to have for each other from rising to the surface and exploding in our faces just as it has done.
be sure to vote Hillary cause she'll fix everything your bumblin Bush has created ... just ask the majority who hold the same opinion as you.
or you can grab a spine sir
-
You dont need to know the right answer to know the one you have is wrong.
Iraq as a nation, the United States and the rest of western civilization was better off with Saddam in power. After watching the way these islamic cheekboness behave, I really believe Saddam was a stabilizing force. A stabilization that we have not and will never be able to replace. All we did was take out the sunnis (who had a tight grip on all the shiia nutsucks) and replace them with shiia nutsucks who are currently trying to get a grip on all the sunni cheekboness. We should have stayed the hell out of that wretched mess.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
As much as you would like to say that I'm not right so as to use it as a weapon against Bush, you can't. Even after 9/11, even after Pearl Harbor, there were those Americans who didn't want to go to war.
Trace every single event that ever happened back through history. There was dissent and support for everything.
Even all the way back to the American Revolution and before that. For example, during the American Revolution, the percentage of the population that wanted to break off and start a new country was roughly around 30%. The rest were either loyalists, or those who didn't want to rock the boat (split pretty evenly for the difference).
Sooooo.
Your brilliant point is that there has never been a 100% consensus on anything?
heh.
:aok
-
No, my brilliant point is that the country has been split pretty well for everything. Support or dissent may shift back and forth 15% off the median, but 35% of people is still a lot.
-
Pelosi sucks -
-
Origanally posted by Yeager
You dont need to know the right answer to know the one you have is wrong.
Iraq as a nation, the United States and the rest of western civilization was better off with Saddam in power. After watching the way these islamic cheekboness behave, I really believe Saddam was a stabilizing force. A stabilization that we have not and will never be able to replace. All we did was take out the sunnis (who had a tight grip on all the shiia nutsucks) and replace them with shiia nutsucks who are currently trying to get a grip on all the sunni cheekboness. We should have stayed the hell out of that wretched mess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd seen on a news special somewhere, that this is What Bush Sr. and his cabinet feared-Yeah, Saddam was stepping out of line, but The alternative was even worse, the kind of mess we have now. And what they really feared the most, was that after all was said and done, It would not be feasible to install a Pro-Western, Non-Islamic Democratic government that could stand on it's own, without something like a constant military occupation. Even a partial Religous/Parliamentary form of government would not be able to stand on it's own. We only get along with most of the middle east because for the longest time, we were there #1 market for oil. It did'nt do any good for them to bite the hand that fed them. However, now the Chinese are actually buying as much, if not more oil/gas than we are. And, now we are becoming very active in the region militarily, For a reason that they consider to be an invasion, with the ultimate aim of "Westernization" of the middle eastern states. They think that by trying to install a non-islamic government, we are actually trying to wipe out their very religion. The Pentagon and the White House knew this for decades. They went with this in mind as late as Desert Storm in '91. We knew then that to overrun Iraq and depose Saddam would destabilize the region severly, and that we did'nt have the resources to try to go with that plan of action.
-
This is about the forth thread I've read, not including a sprited debate on channel 200. As a serving member of the United States Army that has served in Afghanastan and Iraq as a Paratrooper with the 101st Airborne, I have to admit that I am a severly offended at the vast number of post and threads submitted by those who have little to no knowledge of the true situation in the Global War on Terrorism.
Has this Great Nation completely lost its SPINE?"? What has happened to us as a people once willing to sacrafice to the end for the cause of Life Liberity and the Persuit of Happiness. Reguardless of what misconception some of you may be suffering from, this fight is not for oil, its not for our President, its not for WMD's, its for YOU and you CHILDREN!!
Every time I read or hear some coward say I support the troops but not the war. I'm sicked at the thought that I gave up a lung and lost several friends for someone who does not support their right to work in a large building without getting killed by a religious zelot. Thats right I said it, and that is what this fight is and will continue to be about weather some of you possess the intestinal fortitude to see it to the end or not.
-
:aok
-
As a nation we should have attacked the tribal lands of Pakistan after Afganistan, not Iraq. We should have sent someone into old Saddams office and said "Hey Saddy, we are placing you on our side here now and we expecta full report in the morning" and had him continue to hold down the cheekboness, rather than what we have done there. Removed the minority in tight control and replaced them with a sloppy majority just pissing everyone off, killing indiscriminately. It was better off before.
-
you must have forgotten Saddam was as nutty as the nuttiest cheekbones he supressed...and he was talking the talk that he had WMD's not to mention his oil for food deal with his euro bros and his shell game with the UN inspectors from 92 to 03.
oh yeah, the world was much better off with saddam and his sons ...
yep, you swallow the media spew hook, line and sinker .. thought u were smarter than that.
-
those people cannot be liberated eagler. They dont have the mindset for free thought. Im sorry you cannot see that. Saddam treated those people like cattle, which is exactly the way their religion requires them to behave. The only way you can save them as a culture (Iraq) is to rid them of their repressive religious beliefs and to do that would require killing the host to be rid of the parasite.
-
yeager
do yo think the majority of the ppl in Iraq want death and war or the minority?
do you think the violence in Iraq is being created by the majority of the ppl in Iraq or a small radical maybe even foreign minority?
do you think the majority of Iraq wants peace or bombs?
you are confusing the wishes of the majority with the actions of the minority.
take away the violence and they'd be doing back flips for our "occupation" and the advancement of their civlization into the 21st century.
It's all politics here .. we are cutting our own throats in the name of politics. The left wants/needs us to lose this war. If Bush were to win it or heck just the success and advancements were to be played as often as the bombings and murders, the left would die as Bush would be hailed as the hero and liberator of the Iraq ppl he is attempting to be.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the administration did not screw up the occupation of Iraq, it's the people that keep blowing things up that are screwing it up, if they were not blowing things up there would be no "occupation", our troops would be home and Iraq would be a peaceful country by now.
put the blame where it belongs.
Bush ignored the long history of animosity for the US in the mid east thanks to other outstanding failures of US foreign policy, he wrongly assumed an election would pacify 30 years of distrust / dislike... its that type of poor judgement that has led to the anarchy and chaos.
He and his administration have failed. Our troops can win the battles, but the RNC & DNC will be responsible for losing the war.
Edit: quoting George Bush Sr and Brent Scowcroft
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
"Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
"Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement our position with our Arab allies, who now trusted us far more than they ever had."
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Bush ignored the long history of animosity for the US in the mid east thanks to other outstanding failures of US foreign policy, he wrongly assumed an election would pacify 30 years of distrust / dislike...
only 30 years?
you want a "long history of animosity? i give it to you.
the muslim invasion of and occupation of Spain and France, turned back at the point of the sword.
muslim capture and occupation of Constantinople.
muslim invasion and occupation of eastern Europe.
muslim capture and occupation of the middle east.
muslim jacking up the price of oil in the 1970's.
support of terrorism.
how's that for a "long history of animosity, distrust/dislike"?
who should trust who?