Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hawco on July 13, 2007, 11:31:22 AM
-
Was watching the News yesterday, Now I'm no Republican or anything like that, but tell you what, after listening to him, that guy has a pair.
He was commenting on the Iraq situation and he said something along the lines of "If the Commanders on the ground tell me we need less troops as the situation warrants it then I'll listen, but not a bunch of polsters telling me to pull troops out"
We all have our views on the President, but after that, he's gone up in my book, kudos to him and well done for not taking any nonsense.
-
Stay the course!
:rofl
-
And yet the requests for improved body and vehicle armor are mired in enough red tape to circle the globe about 20 times leading to family members of soldiers in the combat zone to turn to independent suppliers to purchase the equipment THEMSELVES.
Way to listen to the troops! :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Stay the course!
:rofl
run like a bunch of sissies and leave the area for genocide!
:rofl :aok
-
"If the Commanders on the ground tell me we need less troops as the situation warrants it then I'll listen, but not a bunch of polsters telling me to pull troops out"
What about when the commanders told the administration (Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz at the time) that they needed far more troops for the Invasion and aftermath and General Shinseki got canned. With that environment, I imagine the commanders tell the administration exactly what the administration wants to hear.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Saxman
And yet the requests for improved body and vehicle armor are mired in enough red tape to circle the globe about 20 times leading to family members of soldiers in the combat zone to turn to independent suppliers to purchase the equipment THEMSELVES.
Way to listen to the troops! :aok
the Humvee was not designed as a armored vehicle and only combat troops were issued body armor due to miltary budget cuts from the democrats under clinton. bush corrected that situation.
-
Originally posted by Charon
What about when the commanders told the administration (Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz at the time) that they needed far more troops for the Invasion and aftermath and General Shinseki got canned. With that environment, I imagine the commanders tell the administration exactly what the administration wants to hear.
Charon
Hey ! don't shoot the messenger here dude! I'm just saying how I thought it was admirable that he gave it right back to the press and didn't take any nonsense- Good for him in my book.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the Humvee was not designed as a armored vehicle and only combat troops were issued body armor due to miltary budget cuts from the democrats under clinton. bush corrected that situation.
Wasn't that a Republican House and Senate while Clinton was in office?
gotta love revisionist history
-
Originally posted by john9001
...only combat troops were issued body armor due to miltary budget cuts from the democrats under clinton. bush corrected that situation.
My God what a deluded world you live in.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Wasn't that a Republican House and Senate while Clinton was in office?
gotta love revisionist history
for 3/4 of his two terms, yes.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
And yet the requests for improved body and vehicle armor are mired in enough red tape to circle the globe about 20 times leading to family members of soldiers in the combat zone to turn to independent suppliers to purchase the equipment THEMSELVES.
Way to listen to the troops! :aok
You go to war with the army you have. Not the one you wish you had.
-
I cant find anything about him to admire. Not any more.
-
The whopping big budget cuts for the military began in 1993, when the Dems controlled the House. These cuts were envisioned by many as the fruits of victory in the Cold War.
Defense spending as a share of GDP for the year 2006 is only 4%, which is not very far above the peacetime average of 3%. To put that in perspective, look at the graph below of military spending as a percentage of GDP from WW II until the present.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/102006chart.gif
You can barely tell that there is a war on, even though military spending has increased by 40% since January of 2001, when George Bush took office. Notice also that the low point for military budget spending came during the years of the Clinton administration.
-
Shuckins,
But... but... but... the war is costing BILLYUNS and BILLYUNS!!!!111one
(http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/102006chart.gif)
The war is why social security is bankrupt and why Boosh is steeling medications from senior citizens! We're spending so much more on the war, that we can't even afford enough troops to fight the war!!!!111one
That's what "they" say, right? How can those statistics be true if the country is being bankrupted by the war and we can't afford enough troops and equipment to avoid excessively straining military personnel and destroying readiness?
It couldn't possibly be that the military budget is near historical lows compared to other spending, could it? If that were true, then everyone saying how the war is a financial disaster would be a lying hypocrite? Say it isn't so!!!!!111oen
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I cant find anything about him to admire. Not any more.
I'm kinda wondering what there was to begin with. ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I cant find anything about him to admire. Not any more.
I've noticed that you seem to have "seen the light", so to speak. When did this happen and was there a specific event that made you change your mind?
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Was watching the News yesterday, Now I'm no Republican or anything like that, but tell you what, after listening to him, that guy has a pair.
He was commenting on the Iraq situation and he said something along the lines of "If the Commanders on the ground tell me we need less troops as the situation warrants it then I'll listen, but not a bunch of polsters telling me to pull troops out"
We all have our views on the President, but after that, he's gone up in my book, kudos to him and well done for not taking any nonsense.
Funny, seems seems the Generals tend to have a diffrent opinion on if he listens to them or not. Seems he listens only if it's what he wants to hear.
Talk is cheap action is where it's at. Bush has a whole lot of talk, but little action to back it up.
-
Ay, Reagan was right. Build up your defences, and keep them up. You never know when they will be needed. As for Bush, both his father and him have been terrible presidents.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
gotta love revisionist history
Nice try but DENIED. clinton cut the defense budget several times. Are you going to deny this?
-
And yet, almost every criticism leveled at the Bush administration has to do with or stems from the war....and the war alone.
Almost any President who has ever occupied the office would love to have the national economy roaring along the way it is today. Despite the fact that the military budget is 40% larger than it was before 911 it is still only 4% of GDP. Considering that this is virtually the same percentage of GDP as we would see during peace time, the inescapable fact is that the GDP has grown by almost exactly as large a percentage as military spending.
A larger and larger percentage of the Black population is moving into middle and upper middle class status.
Our economy is so strong that it is exacerbating the illegal immigrant problem. Why else would Mexicans risk the dangers of illegal entry?
If Bush is to be blamed for the "failure" of the war effort in Iraq, then it is only fair to ascribe the booming economy to his tax cuts and other economic policies.
Sure, he's made mistakes, but the level of vitriolic criticism is almost unprecedented in American History.
For that reason, I find myself wishing that he'd resign, for the vociferous opposition is making it almost impossible for him to carry out his duties as president.
He should take Cheney with him, clearing the way for Pelosi to take over. That way, she would have to carry through on her avowed goals for ending the war, and run the danger of garnishing some of the blame for the consequences of a precipitate pull out.
Then the Dems would have a harder time demagoguing the war in next years' elections. They can have it their way....and maybe "their" favorite issue will bite them in the ass.
-
What about when the commanders told the administration (Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz at the time) that they needed far more troops for the Invasion and aftermath and General Shinseki got canned. With that environment, I imagine the commanders tell the administration exactly what the administration wants to hear.
Well said. Shinseki was right, and he paid the price for his honesty. He's not the only one, either; Lawrence Lindsey was fired for having the gall to say that the war might cost upwards of $300 billion.
It couldn't possibly be that the military budget is near historical lows compared to other spending, could it? If that were true, then everyone saying how the war is a financial disaster would be a lying hypocrite?
All irrelevant when you're not asking the current generation of taxpayers to foot the bill for this ideological boondoggle that isn't even in the national interest. Every supplemental funding request GWB makes doesn't even come from the regular budget or deficit analysis--it's not even real money to these people. So sure, keep on borrowing; what do you care if your children are paying for the failed campaign in Iraq with a disproportionately increased tax burden and a lower standard of living?
Sure, it's easy to ask if there's a war going on and keep shouting "4% of GDP" when you conveniently ignore that our debt ceiling has been raised how many times by how much in the last six years? Setting aside Iraq, GWB's demonstrated lack of conservative fiscal policy is what's most disturbing.
Then the Dems would have a harder time demagoguing the war in next years' elections. They can have it their way....and maybe "their" favorite issue will bite them in the ass.
Did you miss the national referendum this past November? Keep on whistling through the graveyard, dude. Iraq is the GOP's albatross and the destruction of the party lies squarely at the feet of GWB.
-
Originally posted by 0thehero
Did you miss the national referendum this past November?
ah, yes i did , when was this " national referendum "? All i remember was the mid term elections.
-
Spin it any way you want my man. The truth of the matter is this; opposition to the war had its beginnings in hatred of the man in the White House. Members of the far left have had a fuming hatred for Bush from the very moment he refused to roll over and play dead during the hanging chad controversy. This demographic group, which is most strongly represented in Hollywood spokesmen and talking heads in the press, has never spoken of him in anything but the most irate and insulting of terms.
This vicious attitude had to be put on hold immediately after 911; grudgingly I might add. Yet the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq gave the left something for which they had been desperately seeking: an issue. The aftermath didn't have to be a total disaster, it merely had to be less than perfect. If it was less than perfect, it could be demagogued into disaster.
Failure never looked so appealing.
Anybody with half a brain realized that it would take years to stabilize the situation in Iraq and install a democratic government. Yet every single problem that cropped up was magnified far beyond its actual importance. Ninety percent of the news that was reported from out of Iraq was of a negative nature. This, in spite of the fact that isolated voices of people actually over there and in the know said that the situation wasn't nearly as bad.
The Democrats rode the issue to victory in the congressional elections of 2006, to the applause and scarcely concealed glee of the press and the Hollywood elite.
Now the Democratically controlled House has passed a bill to require the withdrawal of U.S. forces in the spring of next year. If they muster enough votes to overide a presidential veto, Pelosi and crew will preside over the precipitate pullout of U.S. troops from one of the least bloody conflicts in U.S. history.
We will have lost a conflict in which our soldiers were not bested on the field of battle. We will have lost it because the enemy defeated out mothers, played us against each other, and took advantage of our inability to stomach prolonged conflict. They did this by inflicting a relatively small number of casualties on our forces which they knew would be played up in the American press.
If you think our prestige abroad has taken a hit because of the war, wait until the pullout begins. Our prestige will suffer a blow from which it will take decades to recover. In that case, we might as well bring all our troops home and never again employ them in an overseas operation, for we obviously no longer have the backbone to use them properly.
Yes, let's bring them home and be done with it. And hope to heaven our enemies won't follow them home.
Bush has made mistakes. But he hasn't made them in a vacuum, he's had help and more than a little non-constructive criticism.
He needs to go, so the rest of us can be treated to the spectacle of the boneless wonders in Congress trying to negotiate peace with our enemies.
That'll be a laugh.
-
I have lot of time for bush and all Texans. They have my ideal society in many many ways.
Get DSL and im there!:lol
-
Anybody with half a brain realized that it would take years to stabilize the situation in Iraq and install a democratic government.
So GWB and crew didn't have half a brain between them all, is what you're saying? Because they thought it would be a quick and easy cakewalk they could pull off on the cheap (thus, the dismissal of Shinseki and Lindsey for not toeing the line) in terms of men and treasure, and they sure as hell weren't planning on staying four years plus in Iraq.
In that case, we might as well bring all our troops home and never again employ them in an overseas operation, for we obviously no longer have the backbone to use them properly.
At least we could have the decency to deploy them when the national interest is upheld or at stake. Neither was the case with Iraq, and opportunities were lost as a result, to say nothing of 3000+ Americans and who knows how many Iraqi civilians.
No one has to spin Iraq, except for GWB and crew who keep trying to tell us how great everything is over there. If it's so damn great, why don't we leave already? You can't have it both ways, and you can't paint a t urd.
-
So...if I follow your line of reasoning, what Saddam did within his own country was no concern of ours. There was no significant threat to our nation interests to warrant an armed incursion. He could massacre hundreds of thousands of his own citizens but that was insufficient reason for us to become involved. We are not, after all, our brothers' keepers.
Did you support the deployment of our troops in Bosnia? What possible threat to the U.S. was represented by those groups practicing ethnic cleansing? What was the threat to our national interests? Was that threat more dire than that posed by Saddam?
Every major intelligence agency in the western world believed that Saddam's regime possessed and was preparing to deploy weapons of mass destruction against his enemies. Clinton believed it. Gore believed it. Tony Blair and Chirac believed it. Yet Bush is condemned as a dunderhead for being the only western leader to advocate military action.
We can't base our foreign policy on the misguided assumption that giving our enemies what they want will mollify them.
-
So...if I follow your line of reasoning, what Saddam did within his own country was no concern of ours.
No more than what Blaise Compaore does with Burkina Faso. Or any other leader of any other country. Domestic affairs are just that--domestic affairs. Saddam was fine inside his own country; stepping into Iran and Kuwait were bad ideas on his part, by any measure. Our efforts to change the practices of rogue nations are best applied from the outside, using economic levers to gain what we want. Admittedly, economic sanctions frequently only solidify the position of tyrants, but they can't hold out interminably. And it's much cheaper than war.
There was no significant threat to our nation interests to warrant an armed incursion.
That's painfully clear now, isn't it? Is anyone really, seriously arguing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US?
He could massacre hundreds of thousands of his own citizens but that was insufficient reason for us to become involved. We are not, after all, our brothers' keepers.
We didn't deem it necessary to be involved in Rwanda, the Congo, or today in the Sudan, and rightly so because there was no clear national interest in doing so.
Did you support the deployment of our troops in Bosnia?
No, simply because if we'd lifted the arms embargo on Bosnia, they'd have eventually solved the problem more definitively by themselves.
What possible threat to the U.S. was represented by those groups practicing ethnic cleansing? What was the threat to our national interests?
Aside from potential war between NATO members and Serbia (an improbable occurance), there was no national interest there either. We can't just base foreign policy on the notion of rescuing nations from their own damn leaders. It rarely works out in anyone's favor. Does no one else remember GWB stating clearly in televised debates, prior to his first election, that we needed to end the practice of nation-building, a response specifically addressing our prolonged engagement in Bosnia? We're still there, by the way. Where is that GWB?
We can't base our foreign policy on the misguided assumption that giving our enemies what they want will mollify them.
Of course not. Sherman, set the WayBack Machine to 1994. WJC made a deal with the North Koreans regarding their nuclear program--widely and rightly criticized at the time--which the North Koreans promptly violated with no further sanctions from the US. What was accomplished there? Nothing, at least not for the US or the security of our Pacific allies.
Yet when it comes to force, GWB seems to be following the mantra of, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." The US has a lot more than hammers in its toolbag.
-
Sometimes a nail is actually a nail.
Which do you think the victims of genocide in Darfur would find more comforting: economic sanctions or boots on the ground?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Anybody with half a brain realized that it would take years to stabilize the situation in Iraq and install a democratic government.
Anyone who knew even a little bit about the long history US foreign policy failures in mid east knew there were a-lot more mid-easterners willing to violently reject US troop "occupation" AND any "Western" puppet govt, than we could ever hope to kill / capture or control using the military.
Bush apparently figured generations of hatred would be forgotten and "the people" of the mid east would just fall in line and treat the great satins troops like illegal aliens offering them sanctuary.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Wasn't that a Republican House and Senate while Clinton was in office?
gotta love revisionist history
Dan dont burst their bubble. What would they have if they had to be factual?
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Every major intelligence agency in the western world believed that Saddam's regime possessed and was preparing to deploy weapons of mass destruction against his enemies. Clinton believed it. Gore believed it. Tony Blair and Chirac believed it. Yet Bush is condemned as a dunderhead for being the only western leader to advocate military action.
Assumptions about intelligence aside...
Yes, Bush is a dunderhead to advocate US military action, and nation building, in a region of the world where "the people", armed to the teeth and pissed-off at the great satin for generations, won't stand for it.
-
And sometimes the experts charged with finding the facts as they are at the time are right. Hans Blix was right. Scott Ritter was right. Two people vilified here were right, but you don't see any of the blowhards who vilified them doing the stand-up thing and saying "Hans Blix was right. I was wrong."
Bush is a dunderhead. It's becoming a real race against time now. Will he serve out his final term, or will he be removed via impeachment? I doubt he'll resign, but even Nixon resigned for the good of the nation. But even Nixon was honorable enough to not say something like "Don't throw the constitution in my face. It's just a ****ing piece of paper."
It's like supporting a dunderheaded relative beyond reason. Sooner or later, you have enough of the dunderheadedness and have to cut them loose. Your support is charming, but he's not your relative or even your friend. I don't think he even likes you. :)
-
The House of Representatives in the 103rd Congress, which met from 1993-1994, was controlled by the Democratic Party, by a margin of 276 votes to 156.
Largely because of the backlash against the passage of the Brady Bill, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the elections of 1994, after four decades of unbroken control.
The Republicans have controlled the Senate since Reagan was in office.
So, at least as far as House membership is concerned, it is not revisionist history.
-
Hans Blix was right, but because of Saddam Hussein's actions, that was hardly obvious at the time, was it?
The U.N. inspectors were prevented by Hussein from going into certain sections of Iraq. This was a deliberate action on his part, according to his own testimony and the testimony of some of his top officials, to maintain the appearance of having wmd's so as to intimidate his regional enemies.
In addition, previous U.N. inspections had concluded that Hussein's regime had produced large quantities of chemical agents and thousands of rockets capable of delivering these agents which could not be accounted for.
You can argue that the administration over-estimated the threat or extent of Sadamm's arsenal, but the threat itself wasn't just pulled out of thin air, nor was it unsupported by outside sources, as indicated by the U.N. reports mentioned above.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Nice try but DENIED. clinton cut the defense budget several times. Are you going to deny this?
And the Republican Congress did what? Don't they handle appropriatons etc? Did they approve the budget?
The implication is that Clinton as President could do what he wanted.
You can't have it both ways. You can't blame the Democratic Congress for all the troubles now, if you aren't going to hold the Republican Congress to the same standard.
So who is calling the shots?
If we're going to agree that the President gets his way regardless, then we have to throw out the idea that Congress regardless of the party in control, has any power.
Which is it?
Did Clinton ask for budget cuts including military spending? Yes. Who approved it?
-
Clinton's administration proposed large military budget cuts for the year 1993. The House of Representatives for that year was controlled by the Democrats.
It's doubtful he could have gotten it through Congress without his party controlling at least one house. The Department of Defense itself was not averse to a trimming, or streamlining, of the military after the fall of the Soviet Union.
All that excess money was just too tempting a target for Congressmen and a President lusting to use it for reelection ensuring pork-barrel spending.
The result; the lowest levels of military spending, compared to the overall size of the federal budget, that the country had seen since the 1930s.
While there's plenty of blame to go around, the fact remains that the President submits the budget to Congress. Congress may amend it, but the president has the option of vetoing it if it is unsatisfactory in any way.
Since the line-item veto has been denied the president, how often, if ever, will he veto an entire budget? Answer: not very often.
-
First, don't blame the actions of the previous president on the total ****-up we're left dealing with now under the CURRENT one. If we do that, then let's blame George Sr. for not ousting Saddam during Gulf War 1.0 when we arguably had greater justification than anything Dubya could come up with in Round Two.
Or hell, let's blame Reagan because Iran-Contra went a LONG way towards building on the anger and hatred of the Middle-East region for the United States.
What about Carter? HE was the guy in charge during the beginning of the 1979 Revolution in Iran which LED to Iran-Contra.
Then there's Harry Truman, who backed the creation of Israel in the aftermath of WWII.
But why stop there? How about 200-odd years of British colonialism? Oh! Oh! It's the CRUSADERS' fault! YEAH! If it wasn't for those superstitious zealots having to go and "liberate" the Holy Land we probably wouldn't even be in the mess in the FIRST place.
We can, and HAVE, gone around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and playing this same damn blame game over who payed for what and when.
At the time (1994) decreasing the defense budget MADE SENSE. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the effective end of the THEN ONLY COMPETING SUPERPOWER to the United States there WAS no need for runaway military spending. The end of the Cold War meant what appeared to be the end of the likelihood of a major military confrontation on the scale of the First and Second World Wars.
What's happening now is NOT the same type of war. Even at its reduced size, US and Coalition forces outright overwhelmed the regular Iraqi army in BARELY over a month (March 20 - May 1). The failure afterwards has NOT been a matter of funding as some people are trying to suggest (even after the cuts in the late-90s, the United States STILL has one of the best-funded and equipped armed forces in the world, which is PRECISELY what allows them to function effectively in decreased numbers). It's been pure command bungling by THIS administration.
The US had generally unanimous support for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. This was NOT the case in Iraq, where the US acted largely unilaterally during the initial invasion, with the strongest pledge of assistance coming from the British. France, Germany and Russia (all with trade ties to Iraq) refused assistance.
The Bush administration OUTRIGHT FAILED to provide sufficiently irrefutable evidence to support his position. It wasn't like the Cuban Missile Crisis where there was clear and undeniable photographic evidence of missiles, launch equipment, fuel storage, warheads and a Soviet military presence. All we had was Saddam's stalling tactics, a few MAYBE hints (which IIRC DID NOT HOLD UP TO SCRUTINY) and Dubya's set intent. Evidence was stretched and skewed and dissenting intelligence summarily dismissed.
Bush was warned BEFORE HAND the scale of the insurgency they would face after the completion of the conventional ground war (which DID come to pass). He was told what would be needed to combat, if not prevent, such a situation, and he DISREGARDED IT. It's not a matter of the US military lacking the funding, equipment or personnel to do it--we HAD it--but that they ignored what the experts told them NEEDED to be done to prevent it from so rapidly escalating out of control. It's NOT that the US military DOESN'T have the blast-resistant armor, or the armored fighting vehicles, or personal body armor to do the job in its inventory, it's that the administration COMPLETELY disregarded that threat, and now it's all stacked up in warehouses while American men and women in the combat zone are having to fight their OWN bureaucracy at home to get the equipment over there (should I also mention that some of this equipment is substandard AND PROVIDED BY CONTRACTORS WITH DIRECT BUSINESS TIES TO MEMBERS OF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION).
In the early phases of the insurgency Bush relied on glorified Rent-a-Cops provided by contractors who ALSO had direct business connections with members of the administration. The same is the case with the construction contractors involved in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Rather than turn things over to organizations who are properly equipped to handle these sorts of projects, Bush instead decides to reward the friends of his friends.
And sadly, it's NOT solely the fault of the Conservatives, but the sickly Democratic Party who for the last 8-odd years has been an ineffectual shadow of what it used to be, caving in on issues. Of course, it doesn't help that the Conservatives ALSO are too busy bending over so Dubya can jam the Party Line up their asses.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Every major intelligence agency in the western world believed that Saddam's regime possessed and was preparing to deploy weapons of mass destruction against his enemies. Clinton believed it. Gore believed it. Tony Blair and Chirac believed it. Yet Bush is condemned as a dunderhead for being the only western leader to advocate military action.
You answered your own question.
I believe the argument was always about the immediately threat of WMD, and what to do about it. Bush will always take the lions share of blame for the fallout over Iraq because it was his adminstrations insistance that military action was the only solution when most other powers believed containment was the preferable action. As a self proclaimed war president, his subsequent presidency was always going to hinge on the success of the war in Iraq once he had expanded it away from the internationally supported invasion of Afghanistan.
This is also been the case for Blair - but he has had the advantage of being not completely tainted and consumed by the mismanagement of the Iraq war.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Clinton's administration proposed large military budget cuts for the year 1993. The House of Representatives for that year was controlled by the Democrats.
George Mitchell, (D)-Maine was majority leader of the Senate in 1993.
Both houses for the first two years of Clinton were controlled by Demos. Reps took it both in the election of 1994.
-
Originally posted by 0thehero
Admittedly, economic sanctions frequently only solidify the position of tyrants, but they can't hold out interminably. And it's much cheaper than war.
That's painfully clear now, isn't it? Is anyone really, seriously arguing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US?
We didn't deem it necessary to be involved in Rwanda, the Congo, or today in the Sudan, and rightly so because there was no clear national interest in doing so.
Sanctions were beginning to fall apart at the seams.
It was only a matter of time before they were completely ignored.
Sanctions hurt the Iraqui population the most (See oil for food scandal)
Not to mention sanctions simply dont work. Case in point. North Korea
National interests... OIL
Oil just inst in our national interest oil IS our national interest.
Sadam remained a threat to the region.
It has been widely reported by just about every news media well before the war that he stated goal was to dominate and be the leader of the middle east.
So long as he remained in power he was a threat to the region. And thus was a threat to our national interest.
Even if it were known for certain he didnt have WMDs
The time we attacked was the best time to attack.
It has also been widely reported (Dilfer Report)that once sanctions were lifted Sadam wanted to bebuild his weapons programs.
And odds are he would have.
Tigers dont suddenly become domesticated sheep. a Tiger remains a tiger (just ask Roy Horn )
Should we have waited untill he rebuild his military and weapons stickpiles.
should we have waited until he again tried to force his will on the region?
Just what would the casualty list be then. when they really did have WMDs to deal with?
Safe to say we would have alot more mothers crying over the loss of their children then we do now. And it woudl cost us alot more financially as well
No we attacked at the right time. When our enemy was weakest
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Anyone who knew even a little bit about the long history US foreign policy failures in mid east knew there were a-lot more mid-easterners willing to violently reject US troop "occupation" AND any "Western" puppet govt, than we could ever hope to kill / capture or control using the military.
Bush apparently figured generations of hatred would be forgotten and "the people" of the mid east would just fall in line and treat the great satins troops like illegal aliens offering them sanctuary.
And they would still be trying to kill us anyway.
So nothing has changed.
Would you rather have them going after our soldiers there?
Or our civil population here?
I always thought one of the US doctrines was to fight our wars overseas. So they wouldnt have to be fought here
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Anyone who knew even a little bit about the long history US foreign policy failures in mid east knew there were a-lot more mid-easterners willing to violently reject US troop "occupation" AND any "Western" puppet govt, than we could ever hope to kill / capture or control using the military.
Not according to Curtis LeMay... Nuclear overkill is still available.
Just consider this: We could solve two or three global problems simultaneously: Reduction in the nuclear stockpile, reduction in global temperatures (Nuclear Winter), and reduction of the terrorist threat.
-
Holden, you're right. My memory isn't what it used to be. :D
So much for the "revisionist history" accusation.
Tronski, the arguments for containment put forward by several nations were hollow and self serving, seeing as how many of their corporations and government officials were hip-deep in under-the-table dealings with Saddam's government.
The Oil-For-Food program in particular was so rife with corruption it was laughable. The thievery was so widespread as to encompass individuals in almost every major western nation, including the United States.
You're also right about Bush's administration hitching it's wagon to the Iraq War. How his administration would be seen depended on the success or failure of that conflict. I have always thought that the war was justified, for humanitarian reasons if for no other. It's a foible of mine. For some strange reason I believe that the civilized nations of the world have a duty to intervene in nations where civilians are subject to genocidal massacre by their own governments.
The continuing tragedy of Darfur casts a stain on western civilization, and lends weight to the old argument that the people of the west are unwilling to shed their blood for people of color. Darfur is a prime example of a situation in which economic sanctions do not work. Hundreds of thousands die while the west dithers, and wrings its hands, or argues about what action is "appropriate."
Until the civilized nations of the world can present a united front to the evils of massacre and genocide then it will continue to grow. We cannot afford the simplistic argument that it does not effect us, and continue to bury our heads in the sand.
Regards
-
So for 6 of his 8 years Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with and for 1 of his first 6 Bush has had a Democratic Congress. Hmmmmm But this is all Clinton's fault :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
So for 6 of his 8 years Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with and for 1 of his first 6 Bush has had a Democratic Congress. Hmmmmm But this is all Clinton's fault :)
Please show me where it is said that it is all Clinton's fault.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And they would still be trying to kill us anyway.
So nothing has changed.
Would you rather have them going after our soldiers there?
Or our civil population here?
I always thought one of the US doctrines was to fight our wars overseas. So they wouldnt have to be fought here
They soon forgot.
If it goes like I think in 08 given the current state of this nations left leaning, media fed backbone, we will be reminded .... in spades soon enough ... of course it will be Bushs fault then too - regardless of when/where the next one goes off
-
Hey hang on a miniute here. It's not Just the US that's in Iraq, we have Soldiers from various nations too, We can all talk about dubyas this and that, But it's not Just about the US.
My whole point was that you can say what you like about the guy, But he's got nuts and he talks straight, what's wrong with that?
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Hey hang on a miniute here. It's not Just the US that's in Iraq, we have Soldiers from various nations too, We can all talk about dubyas this and that, But it's not Just about the US.
My whole point was that you can say what you like about the guy, But he's got nuts and he talks straight, what's wrong with that?
AS THE SHEEP SLOWLY ROLL INTO THEIR PENS FOR THE SLAUGHTER
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i170/Dablues/IV-dees.jpg)
SAY HELLO TO FACISM
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i170/Dablues/heil_bush.jpg)
:noid
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Hey hang on a miniute here. It's not Just the US that's in Iraq, we have Soldiers from various nations too, We can all talk about dubyas this and that, But it's not Just about the US.
My whole point was that you can say what you like about the guy, But he's got nuts and he talks straight, what's wrong with that?
As of May 2007, approximately 93% of the troops are U.S. so it pretty much is about the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
As of May 2007, approximately 93% of the troops are U.S. so it pretty much is about the U.S.
<<
Iraqi Forces Continue to Grow in Number.
In September 2004, there were only 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. By November 2005, there were more than 212,000. As of May 30th, there were nearly 350,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces.>>
:O
-
Originally posted by john9001
<<
Iraqi Forces Continue to Grow in Number.
In September 2004, there were only 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. By November 2005, there were more than 212,000. As of May 30th, there were nearly 350,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces.>>
:O
Iraq PM: Country can manage without U.S. (http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_6375947)
-
Shuckins,
Although I agree with 90 percent of what your saying I have to think your arguing with people you shouldn't be.
Your one point , probably sarcastic n nature , is what I would like to see.
Yes, let's bring them home and be done with it. And hope to heaven our enemies won't follow them home.
Our enemies are here....and getting green cards. The enemey will get here regardless. And the left will find a way to make it will be Bush's fault.
I support the war....Mistakes are made and have been made....But not just by Bush....its been made by ALL the politicans. The "I voted for the war but didn't vote for this war" crowd.
This country has taken a turn downwards. Americans can't stomache reality IMO and although every U.S. death in Iraq is tragic....it's been IMO a very small percentage of what COULD happen in the future to civilians HERE.
We'll see....But right now....If congress gets his way and the troops come home....I predict a shift in terrorist activity that will shake the world and this country to the brink of Civil war here.
-
I don't think that civil war within the US will occur over the islamic invasion through immigration.
I have several moslem neighbors, they will not condemn any terrorist activity directly. the way they communicate is very subtle unlike us (or many of us) who just say what needs to be said and often speak our minds. my neighbors express remorse but not outright condemnation of terrorist acts. at first this bothered me but observing the way they deal with other matters involving correcting their children or expressing a difference of opinion I have come to conclude that simply disagreeing with something and expressing it in even the most tactful terms is a big deal to these folks.
these folks are very non offensive in their dealings with others and very family oriented. their kids are as American as any other in the community and they themselves are going through the transition that any first generation immigrant goes through, it is difficult becoming an American especially if you are coming from such a backwards society as the moslem society is.
not every arab that is here is our enemy and many are fleeing that bass ackwards way of live of the betterment of their progeny.
my neighbors now drink beer and eat just about anything including pork. as I have often said on these boards and elsewhere American culture transforms everyone that comes in contact with it and it's hard not to love the American way of life.
if any of my neighbors immigrated here with some nefarious scheme I would say that they have long forgotten what the plan was and are now content to drink a nice cold one as we grill by the lake and tell lies. I absolutely hate islamicists but I love my neighbors and their families, even if their wives wear rags on their heads when they are around company.
-
It's the odd thing about America. Nowhere else in the world do so many different cultures and religions live (excluding a small number of bad eggs) in peace. Except in a few rare cases we just don't have the sort of home-grown terrorism you see even in many other parts of the West.
Christians, Jews and Muslims, who are at each other's throats elsewhere in the world, here attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods and (again, in the majority of cases) call each other friends. People make a big deal about racisim in the United States, but there are still MANY countries were different ethnic groups are excluded from even the OPPORTUNITY of bettering their position in society, if not being made the targets of government-sponsored violence.
Maybe that's the big threat America represents. We're the living PROOF that all these different conflicting cultures CAN live and work together.
For regimes built on fear and that thrive on the spread of hatred, there's nothing more dangerous.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't think that civil war within the US will occur over the islamic invasion through immigration.
I have several moslem neighbors, they will not condemn any terrorist activity directly. the way they communicate is very subtle unlike us (or many of us) who just say what needs to be said and often speak our minds. my neighbors express remorse but not outright condemnation of terrorist acts. at first this bothered me but observing the way they deal with other matters involving correcting their children or expressing a difference of opinion I have come to conclude that simply disagreeing with something and expressing it in even the most tactful terms is a big deal to these folks.
these folks are very non offensive in their dealings with others and very family oriented. their kids are as American as any other in the community and they themselves are going through the transition that any first generation immigrant goes through, it is difficult becoming an American especially if you are coming from such a backwards society as the moslem society is.
not every arab that is here is our enemy and many are fleeing that bass ackwards way of live of the betterment of their progeny.
my neighbors now drink beer and eat just about anything including pork. as I have often said on these boards and elsewhere American culture transforms everyone that comes in contact with it and it's hard not to love the American way of life.
if any of my neighbors immigrated here with some nefarious scheme I would say that they have long forgotten what the plan was and are now content to drink a nice cold one as we grill by the lake and tell lies. I absolutely hate islamicists but I love my neighbors and their families, even if their wives wear rags on their heads when they are around company.
There are millions of muslims in this country.....Many more still coming.....It doesn't take many as the past has shown to cause a BIG problem.
Out of these millions I feel VERY confident that a few are ticked.
I agree that not all muslims are terrorist , but almost all the terrorists are muslims.
America is hard to resist. The way of life we have here is very appealing. Especially when compared to living in a poor country with very little if any future of it getting better.
Your obervation of how the don't outright condem is interesting. Especially since here in amerrica , americans will condem other americans at the drop of a hat. They cut of the heads of people and celebrate. Some Soliders commit crimes against prisoners and you'd would have thought THEY beheaded someone.
The 9/11 terrorist adapted to american culture and plotted and succeded in thier plans. I wouldn't think for a second that the same thing couldn't happen again. NOT that your neighbors are terrorists. Not saying that. Just saying that just because people look normal....doesn't make it so.
-
Bush is disappointing on several levels. I still think he is a good man. I think he has identified a huge problem that America faces.
How this all will shake out..... time will tell.
-
Bush is disappointing on several levels. I still think he is a good man. I think he has identified a huge problem that America faces.
Maybe if he sees his own reflection in the mirror.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
And yet, almost every criticism leveled at the Bush administration has to do with or stems from the war....and the war alone.
I'm against/dissapointed:
1) Bush's (read Administration's) reaction when China horked our spy plane during his 1st year.
2) The $300 tax give away.
3) Hosing the American blue collar worker by carrying on with past decision to lose our manufacturing base in the US.
4) Immigration
5) Trade imbalance -- goes with #3.
There's 4.
Also, to say except for the war, he's done okay is not entirely unlike saying apart from Watergate, Nixon did pretty well.
Or, except for their response to the Great Depression, the Hoover admin was ok.
Or, except for the Great Society, Johnson did a good job (substitute Viet Nam if you like).
And I agree with Gunther too. But Bush didn't identify the Muhammaden threat per se. But close enough for jazz.
-
Not just manufacturing, Hap. Dubya overturned regulations instituted under Clinton that put limits foreign outsourcing PERIOD.
IT fields were hit especially hard by this (and I speak from direct personal experience on this).
-
Hap, what ARE you talking about? Several of the items on your list are problems that existed long before Bush took office.
1. What did you want Bush to do when the Chinese government captured our surveillance aircraft? Go to war? Exactly what actions would you have taken as president that would have been more effective that those that Bush took? Invasion ... sanctions....what?
2. The tax give away was substantially more for some than others. What a surprise THAT is, considering the fact that some people earn more than others and pay more in to begin with. The whole purpose of the tax cut was to stimulate the economy. Since the GDP is more than 35% greater than it was than when Bush took office the argument can be made that his tax cut and other economic policies have been a success. Or are we just not going to give him credit for anything positive that is happening?
3. I suppose you're talking about NAFTA here. The work on this began during the elder Bush's administration and was largely completed before Clinton was elected. It was voted into law by both the House and the Senate. Nearly as many Democratic House members voted for it as did Republicans. Clinton sanctioned it late in 1993. So how is this Bush's fault? How could he have dissolved it without causing massive ill-will with the governments of Mexico and Canada?
4. Immigration. Illegal aliens have been pouring across the Mexican border for three decades. No president has been able to get a handle on this problem because there is no consensus of opinion in Congress or between the two political parties. Bush supported a bipartisan bill that dealt with the immigration problem that would have at least made a start toward handling the problem. It wasn't perfect, but it showed promise. It's failure should not be laid solely at his feet, but at the feet of those from both parties who worked to kill it.
5. The trade imbalance existed before Reagan took office. The only way to reverse it would be to enact draconian trade restrictions against foreign products. Should the Bush administration and Congress really open that can of worms? A massive trade war is the last thing the economy needs.
As to the outsourcing of jobs let me simply ask this question: Do you really think it would benefit American companies whose home made products can no longer compete in the international market for the government to force them to continue to hire expensive American labor? I realize the thought of hiring foreigners instead of fellow Americans is a repugnant idea, but to survive in the global marketplace, at least in some areas of manufacturing, what choice do they have?
-
Not to mention sanctions simply dont work. Case in point. North Korea
Really? We didn't have to bomb North Korea for this concession--we just talked and cajoled and coerced. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762513/)
National interests... OIL
Oil just inst in our national interest oil IS our national interest.
Great point. Access to oil is indeed a national interest. But with oil presently at $70/bbl, whereas prior to the war oil was only $32/bbl, it would have been cheaper to just buy the oil. Invading Iraq only made this national interest more expensive and fed the retarded conspiratorial dreams of GWB's enemies about the oil industry.
Sadam remained a threat to the region.
It has been widely reported by just about every news media well before the war that he stated goal was to dominate and be the leader of the middle east.
So long as he remained in power he was a threat to the region. And thus was a threat to our national interest.
And so long as he was contained within his No-Fly Zones, it wasn't like he could go anywhere or do anything to his neighbors without us knowing and stopping him. Containment was working, because despite neo-con beliefs, he wasn't going to live forever. Saddam had one of the largest, most experienced armies on the planet during the first Gulf War. He was effectively neutered after that conflict. You can state your goals all day long, but your ability to successfully execute those goals is what counts. Just look at GWB...
<<
Iraqi Forces Continue to Grow in Number.
In September 2004, there were only 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces. By November 2005, there were more than 212,000. As of May 30th, there were nearly 350,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces.>>
Oh, sweet. I didn't know that. If that's really true, then why are we still there again?
It's the odd thing about America. Nowhere else in the world do so many different cultures and religions live (excluding a small number of bad eggs) in peace. Except in a few rare cases we just don't have the sort of home-grown terrorism you see even in many other parts of the West.
Christians, Jews and Muslims, who are at each other's throats elsewhere in the world, here attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods and (again, in the majority of cases) call each other friends. People make a big deal about racisim in the United States, but there are still MANY countries were different ethnic groups are excluded from even the OPPORTUNITY of bettering their position in society, if not being made the targets of government-sponsored violence.
Amen. Thank whatever Higher Power you believe in for that reality. Another thing that makes this country great.
-
But Bush didn't identify the Muhammaden threat per se. But close enough for jazz. - Hap
what i mean is, i think Bush is one of the few politicians who really understand the nature of the clash between Islamists and the west.
personally, i think that Bush's grasp of Islamism will be just about the sum total of his legacy. contrast Bush's concrete understanding of this issue with the la-la land understanding of someone like presidential candidate Edwards - that is a stark contrast - and Bush's best contribution to the country in my view.
there are many anecdotal true stories out there about what a good, kind man Bush is. you don't see them in the news - its more word of mouth.
For example, the story of my friend and associate, a motorman - a motorcycle police officer for those who don't know the lingo - who dumped his bike while escorting the presidential motorcade. Bush saw the officer go down, and although the motorcade couldn't stop, he detailed two secret service agents to the hospital to meet with doctors and arrange for them to confer with Bush's personal physician. the agents also personally took care of all family notifications, which they did in person for the nuclear family members. Bush spoke to the officer on the phone, gave the officer the phone number of his own doctor and told him to keep him informed. Bush called the officer on the phone 4 times, checking up on him during the next few weeks. He invited the officer to come and see him at the white house when he recovered. When my friend was fully recovered and back on the job, he bought a new suit and went to see the President at the whitehouse. He actually shot the ***** with the president for half an hour in the oval office. (my associate got me an autographed photo of Mr and Mrs Bush) you don't forget things like this.
there are a lot more anecdotal stories about what a good person Bush is, including the one repeated by President Clinton who said that it would be a mistake to underestimate Bush.
i think Bush really cares about people, and it bothers me to see people try to tear his image to shreds and purposely ignore the man's good points. i think he really is as honest a politician - with all his faults - as you will find.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
what i mean is, i think Bush is one of the few politicians who really understand the nature of the clash between Islamists and the west.
[/b]
Don't know about "few," and "the nature of the clash," but very generally I agree with you.
If I were King (lol), I'd get us off foreign -- at least middle eastern -- oil.
If the objection, "it cannot be done" be true today. There's no reason that a decade from now for it still to be true except venal ones.
-
most liberal candidates downplay or flat out reject the global war on terror. but that may be political posturing... i do believe that in 2009 we will still be in Iraq no matter who is the president. Bush gets it. he will not pull completely out of Iraq. neither will any democrat president, which will freak out a lot of the left wing voters.
amen to the goal of independance from middle eastern oil - and long term - from oil period. that won't be happening for quite a long while tho. One thing for sure, whoever is elected in 08, they will also face a lot of pressure to allow drilling and exploitation of our own petroleum resources along with looking for ways to reduce consumption and dependance. presidential candidates should be careful what they wish for... its going to be a hellacious job.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
And yet, almost every criticism leveled at the Bush administration has to do with or stems from the war....and the war alone.
You need to catch up on your current affairs Shuckins...there's alot more to critisize this administration about than just the war.