Embittered insiders turn against Bush
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
The time to debate the war stops when the first American boot touches foreign soil. Once that happens, the time for whining, finger pointing, and blame is over. The only question is "how do we win?" not "when can we leave?" To do otherwise is to guarantee another VietNam generation, and betray another generation of our finest. I would have hoped we would have learned that lesson three decades ago. Sadly, many have not.
I kinda agree with you, but I've some questions:
How do we know when we've won (in Iraq)?
How many kids need to die while we debate this?
What happens when the CIC puts troops in harm's way without "going through channels"? Are we then obliged to keep them there? If so, for how long?
db
I kinda agree with you, but I've some questions:
How do we know when we've won (in Iraq)?
How many kids need to die while we debate this?
What happens when the CIC puts troops in harm's way without "going through channels"? Are we then obliged to keep them there? If so, for how long?
db
They're not "kids." They're trained, professional soldiers.
Unless you're talking about the Iraqi kids being blown to kingdom come by Sunnis, Baathists, and jihadis of all stripes.
I'd say the lack of having said (real) kids being blown to kingdom come will be a good sign.
More to the point, the stated goal of a self-sustaining Republic capable of fending off incursions from Iran works as well as any. But I repeat -- Iraq is but one front in a global conflict. Looking at events with "how soon can we leave" mindset instead of "how do we defeat the threat" is a sure-fire road to defeat.
An excellent reason why we should have had the nerve and plain decency to declare war in the first place. But what's done is done. "We go to war with the politicans we have" as it were. God help us.
Kindly see above.
Accountability!
There will always be politics on both sides. Our system is made to have
checks and balance, no matter how ugly it becomes, sometimes. One thing
we cannot deny it the fact that the Bucks stops on who is in charge!
This is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Pearl, Adelman, and their bunch of
war crazed folks. They may have done better in another part of our
country's history, but this time, they have read it wrong, way wrong and
our country will suffer much.
The biggest fault will be on Bush. As president, he should have the
responsibility, balance and fortitude to accept different points of view
and should have hired different smart people of different perspectives to make
the right decisions. Instead, he listen to only a few and his grasp of
complex important topics of severe consequences is sorely lacking.
We would think that a person of that position will think of all the possible
consequences, results, back up plans, exit strategies but none logically
came to his head. That "mission accomplish" landing on the carrier is a
a stupid indication of how short sighted Bush is. I feel sorry for those
soldiers who gave their life.
There will always be politics on both sides. Our system is made to have
checks and balance, no matter how ugly it becomes, sometimes. One thing
we cannot deny it the fact that the Bucks stops on who is in charge!
This is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Pearl, Adelman, and their bunch of
war crazed folks. They may have done better in another part of our
country's history, but this time, they have read it wrong, way wrong and
our country will suffer much.
The biggest fault will be on Bush. As president, he should have the
responsibility, balance and fortitude to accept different points of view
and should have hired different smart people of different perspectives to make
the right decisions. Instead, he listen to only a few and his grasp of
complex important topics of severe consequences is sorely lacking.
We would think that a person of that position will think of all the possible
consequences, results, back up plans, exit strategies but none logically
came to his head. That "mission accomplish" landing on the carrier is a
a stupid indication of how short sighted Bush is. I feel sorry for those
soldiers who gave their life.
"This is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Pearl, Adelman, and their bunch of
war crazed folks."
Talking about a one-sided point of view, you've outdone yourself.
You don't agree? Why?
You don't buy the argument that those folks had decided on war long before they even bothered to ignore their own intel?
Have you heard of the "Downing Street memo"?
db
war crazed folks."
Talking about a one-sided point of view, you've outdone yourself.
You don't agree? Why?
You don't buy the argument that those folks had decided on war long before they even bothered to ignore their own intel?
Have you heard of the "Downing Street memo"?
db
jkkimberfan
New member
Look up the word "Incompetence" in the dictionary....
and you will see the portraits of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
and you will see the portraits of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Yet if Saddam had exported terror to the U.S. as Soviet intelligence and captured video and documentation has proved, you guys would be first in line to bash Bush for not acting. Darned if you do darned if you don't.......boy it sucks to be a leader sometimes.
Do you guys understand that the only way to win and ultimately end the war on terror is to spread democracy to that region. Bush understands this. Either fight them forever always waiting for the next attack on innocent American civilians or bring them down from within as Reagan did the Soviet union. Once they get a taste of freedom and the free market system its over. Once they ride the camel thru the Mcdonalds drive thru its over. Once mama Mohammad tosses a load of clothes into the dryer its over. The terrorists know this. They understand that if they don't get the U.S. out fast it is over. It will take years but the end will come from within thanks to George W. Bush.
Do you guys understand that the only way to win and ultimately end the war on terror is to spread democracy to that region. Bush understands this. Either fight them forever always waiting for the next attack on innocent American civilians or bring them down from within as Reagan did the Soviet union. Once they get a taste of freedom and the free market system its over. Once they ride the camel thru the Mcdonalds drive thru its over. Once mama Mohammad tosses a load of clothes into the dryer its over. The terrorists know this. They understand that if they don't get the U.S. out fast it is over. It will take years but the end will come from within thanks to George W. Bush.
Unregistered
Moderator
That simply isn't true. Iran is a democracy... their elections were not controlled like those in Iraq, and they still elected a fundamentalist who is hell-bent on destroying the west. If a country is mostly fundamentalist islamic militants, then democracy there is not in the best interest of the US.
I think we are only interested in creating "democracies" in countries we think need a regime change anyway. For example, Saudia Arabia is not a democracy, but we don't seem interested in spreading democracy their because they are already our allies. Also, consider Pakistan. There was a freely elected democracy their that was overthrown in a military coup d'etat and is now controlled by a military dictator who has the support of the US government.
We are not really trying to spread democracy, only our own economic power
Speaking of "That simply isn't true"
You're aware I hope that Iran's theocracy excercises a veto power on who can even run for office? Their elections aren't anything if not "controlled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran#The_closed_loop_of_power
The "exporting democracy" worldview doesn't really care if it stops mass murders and rape rooms in third world crapholes, nor does it care if McDonalds and Walmart stand to make trillions selling stuff to those folk who aren't being mass murdered in thirty years. Both are just nice side benefits.
The point is that well-fed, entertained, and happy people don't go on jihads and try to put together nukes for Allah.
The threat is there - frankly always has been. It's just that all those petrodollars flowing into what used to be a third-world backwater with thirteenth century ethics is (re)creating a global threat out of what used to be a geographical curiosity.
Say what you will about Bush and company's tactics (yeah, you will anyway I know) but look.. we're going to have to fight these guys one way or another. You can't negotiate your way out of conflict with folks saying "submit to Sharia or die."
Personally, I'd much rather see that fight now before they build or buy nukes and get their pretty litttle Caliphate put together than after. And the whole "exporting democracy" route sure leaves a heck of a lot less mess to clean up than Plan B.
But by all means, "phased redeploy" our troops "over the horizon," invite Iran to "help with security" in Iraq, and play nice nice with Kofi. Just don't be surprised when we have to go to plan B in a few more years and end up talking body counts in the millions instead of the thousands.
You're aware I hope that Iran's theocracy excercises a veto power on who can even run for office? Their elections aren't anything if not "controlled."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran#The_closed_loop_of_power
The "exporting democracy" worldview doesn't really care if it stops mass murders and rape rooms in third world crapholes, nor does it care if McDonalds and Walmart stand to make trillions selling stuff to those folk who aren't being mass murdered in thirty years. Both are just nice side benefits.
The point is that well-fed, entertained, and happy people don't go on jihads and try to put together nukes for Allah.
The threat is there - frankly always has been. It's just that all those petrodollars flowing into what used to be a third-world backwater with thirteenth century ethics is (re)creating a global threat out of what used to be a geographical curiosity.
Say what you will about Bush and company's tactics (yeah, you will anyway I know) but look.. we're going to have to fight these guys one way or another. You can't negotiate your way out of conflict with folks saying "submit to Sharia or die."
Personally, I'd much rather see that fight now before they build or buy nukes and get their pretty litttle Caliphate put together than after. And the whole "exporting democracy" route sure leaves a heck of a lot less mess to clean up than Plan B.
But by all means, "phased redeploy" our troops "over the horizon," invite Iran to "help with security" in Iraq, and play nice nice with Kofi. Just don't be surprised when we have to go to plan B in a few more years and end up talking body counts in the millions instead of the thousands.
To threegun...
Can you post a credible link proving the U.S. got info and photos from Russia? As for the Iraq situation, apparently freedom is working great there isn't it? I mean death squads and sectarian violence from its own infrastructure, as well as an increase in terror training camps. You can't bring democracy to a people that aren't ready to accept it. Shoving and force feeding ANY kind of government will NOT work in the best interest of the people who feel that they have no stability. Another thing that Bush has failed to understand is how to work with the Iraqis from a cultural level. If anything invasion of Iraq has only worsened the terrorism situation, because now you have Musharaff who's damned if he doesn't help the U.S. but damned by his own people if he captures bin Laden. On top of that, Iran working on its nuclear program certainly doesn't help any either. The truth of the matter is, war these days are all about one thing, profit for large corporations. Do some digging, you'll find contracts going out to companies that make a pretty penny. There's no business like war business.
Epyon
P.S: Let's also not forget that the religious nutcases in this country are no better, and I'll bet you if they had the chance they'd do whatever it takes to make sure their religion stays on top while claiming the Constitution allows them to do so. Power corrupts, religion and business, they all vie for one thing, power.
Can you post a credible link proving the U.S. got info and photos from Russia? As for the Iraq situation, apparently freedom is working great there isn't it? I mean death squads and sectarian violence from its own infrastructure, as well as an increase in terror training camps. You can't bring democracy to a people that aren't ready to accept it. Shoving and force feeding ANY kind of government will NOT work in the best interest of the people who feel that they have no stability. Another thing that Bush has failed to understand is how to work with the Iraqis from a cultural level. If anything invasion of Iraq has only worsened the terrorism situation, because now you have Musharaff who's damned if he doesn't help the U.S. but damned by his own people if he captures bin Laden. On top of that, Iran working on its nuclear program certainly doesn't help any either. The truth of the matter is, war these days are all about one thing, profit for large corporations. Do some digging, you'll find contracts going out to companies that make a pretty penny. There's no business like war business.
Epyon
P.S: Let's also not forget that the religious nutcases in this country are no better, and I'll bet you if they had the chance they'd do whatever it takes to make sure their religion stays on top while claiming the Constitution allows them to do so. Power corrupts, religion and business, they all vie for one thing, power.
..I have no reason to unfairly blame Bush fro problems beyond his control..but truthfully, he is responsible for the egg on his face right now..he sat around for too long, silently, while Demorats lamblasted him...never speaking to clarify his position nor refuteing lies told...he took no-where, middle positions on issues that many Americans were broiling about, wanting them fixed, despite his occasional rallying speech, he looked the part of halting, rather inept leader...the only thing he wouldn't stop talking about was Iraq, but ignoring other serious issues are his downfall...I expected much more from Bush but am really disappointed in this latest president...the Demorats have already looked like squabbling, petty, clue-bobs and they aren't even in office yet!!
Aspen, You read my mind.
Epyon, You have me mistaken with someone who really care about the folks in Iraq. I don't (sorry if that cold hearted). My concern is my family, country, and fellow countrymen. Letting a bunch of animals fight and kill each other is not my concern. Keeping our soldiers safe and our country safe is. As Kaylee pointed out so well, people with full bellies and decent lives don't want to fight. Democracy (a true democracy) will start capitalism and a free market system which will equal the end of terror.
Epyon, You have me mistaken with someone who really care about the folks in Iraq. I don't (sorry if that cold hearted). My concern is my family, country, and fellow countrymen. Letting a bunch of animals fight and kill each other is not my concern. Keeping our soldiers safe and our country safe is. As Kaylee pointed out so well, people with full bellies and decent lives don't want to fight. Democracy (a true democracy) will start capitalism and a free market system which will equal the end of terror.
Unregistered
Moderator
There is no country in the world where elections are not controlled to some degree, including the US. In a nation of fundamentalist muslims, it only makes sense that the winner of an election would be a fundamentalist muslim.
When the current Iranian president ran for election, his opponent was more secular, and at least somewhat more pro-western.
The people of Iran spoke, and got what they wanted: A fundamentalist extremist. From what I have read, the Iranian President ran very well in small towns and rural areas, and less well in the more liberal larger cities. Kind of like President Bush in that regard.
Now that's just plain stupid. There's been what.... maybe a dozen folks claiming to follow fundamentalist Christianity in the last twenty years going out to kill abortion doctors and suchlike? Oh, and the one "Militia" Tim McVeigh, who I'll throw in not becase he was a religous nutjob, but just 'cause he's the other favorite child for the moral equivalency crowd (and has the highest body count to pad the numbers a bit). And you know what? Pat Robertson and his ilk didn't go on TV and say "that's great, more people do that." No one rioted in the streets when McVeigh was given the sleepy-shot. No one kidnapped people off the street or held a school hostage demanding Eric Rudolph be freed. And no one's cutting off people's limbs, hanging minors for the sin of "seducing" dirty old men, and certainly not blowing themselves up in the local Chucky Cheese for God. Again... once the death toll of all the domestic fundamentalist Christian (and McVeigh for good measure) in the last twenty-frickin years comes close to what the Jihadis pull off in your average month or two, you write back and we can talk moral equivalency.
Last edited:
In response...
Kaylee, religious violence of large religious groups happens throughout history. Christianity isn't any more holy than Islam for its share of people who have committed atrocities under the guise of faith. Also what I meant by my comment was the fact that the religious group that push this country to be more Christian makes it extremely unfair for people of other faiths that live here. You can't have a free society if religion plays a big role in politics, that's just a step closer to theocracy. As with ANY theocracy, both Muslim and Christian included, history has proven that they are blatantly discriminating and unfair to others who "don't belong".
Threegun, from a standpoint of only caring about our countrymen, I will say this. When a country that is NOT responsible for your national disaster is invaded and then later we end up facing the consequence who's at fault? The people who were just quick to hop on the war bandwagon and then later regret it because it was an impulse decision? And now defend their stance by claiming "national security". Perhaps our incompetent leaders who have NO long term plan for a country they were planning to invade anyway doesn't help. So much for national security, poor planning = massive problems. If Bush had a better idea on how to take care of Iraq maybe he wouldn't have been grilled so hard. Also, if the saftey our military is your only concern then perhaps the people should've voted for a better leader than Bush, or maybe our leaders should've planned things out for the long term if they were going to declare "war on terror" (ie: perpetual war). It's like trying to contain the ocean in a glass. Want to know what I think of Iraq? I really think after Saddam left, the people should've been left to their own devices as they requested, and if they wanted America's help, they'll ask. You can thank our awesome leaders for not reading The Art of War when it came to occupation. Or not considering what the Iraqi people wanted for their future. Indoctrination even if it's to "spread democracy" (in this case American imperialism.) is just as bad as the jihadis saying "convert or die". So why is it that if we want security for our country, American contractors get the big jobs for Iraq? Doesn't that mean the Iraqis have competition economically? Sounds rather unfair if you're trying establish capitalism and independence in a country that needs to stand on its own two feet. Oh wait, we want them to have independence as long as "America" approves of how that system is run. So I guess freedom = whatever the conqueror says it is?
Democracy does NOT = capitalism. It's possible to have a democratic society with socialist economy.
Epyon
EDIT: Greg Bell, I agree, this is starting to become a blame game/name calling match right now.
Kaylee, religious violence of large religious groups happens throughout history. Christianity isn't any more holy than Islam for its share of people who have committed atrocities under the guise of faith. Also what I meant by my comment was the fact that the religious group that push this country to be more Christian makes it extremely unfair for people of other faiths that live here. You can't have a free society if religion plays a big role in politics, that's just a step closer to theocracy. As with ANY theocracy, both Muslim and Christian included, history has proven that they are blatantly discriminating and unfair to others who "don't belong".
Threegun, from a standpoint of only caring about our countrymen, I will say this. When a country that is NOT responsible for your national disaster is invaded and then later we end up facing the consequence who's at fault? The people who were just quick to hop on the war bandwagon and then later regret it because it was an impulse decision? And now defend their stance by claiming "national security". Perhaps our incompetent leaders who have NO long term plan for a country they were planning to invade anyway doesn't help. So much for national security, poor planning = massive problems. If Bush had a better idea on how to take care of Iraq maybe he wouldn't have been grilled so hard. Also, if the saftey our military is your only concern then perhaps the people should've voted for a better leader than Bush, or maybe our leaders should've planned things out for the long term if they were going to declare "war on terror" (ie: perpetual war). It's like trying to contain the ocean in a glass. Want to know what I think of Iraq? I really think after Saddam left, the people should've been left to their own devices as they requested, and if they wanted America's help, they'll ask. You can thank our awesome leaders for not reading The Art of War when it came to occupation. Or not considering what the Iraqi people wanted for their future. Indoctrination even if it's to "spread democracy" (in this case American imperialism.) is just as bad as the jihadis saying "convert or die". So why is it that if we want security for our country, American contractors get the big jobs for Iraq? Doesn't that mean the Iraqis have competition economically? Sounds rather unfair if you're trying establish capitalism and independence in a country that needs to stand on its own two feet. Oh wait, we want them to have independence as long as "America" approves of how that system is run. So I guess freedom = whatever the conqueror says it is?
Democracy does NOT = capitalism. It's possible to have a democratic society with socialist economy.
Epyon
EDIT: Greg Bell, I agree, this is starting to become a blame game/name calling match right now.